Should Israel Have Agreed to Exchange Terrorists for a Kidnapped Soldier?

[oberliner]

The Israeli government has agreed to release hundreds of properly convicted Palestinian terrorists in exchange for one illegally kidnapped Israeli soldier. This decision, understandable as it is emotionally, dramatically illustrates why terrorism works. By agreeing to this exchange, Israel has once again shown its commitment to saving the life of even one kidnapped soldier, regardless of the cost. And the cost here is extremely high, because some of the released terrorists will almost certainly try to kill again.

Leaders of terrorist groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, fully understand this cruel arithmetic of death. As Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, put it: "We are going to win because they love life and we love death." Democratic societies that value the life of each citizen are more vulnerable to emotional blackmail than societies that are steeped in the culture of death. Terrorists understand what history has shown: that democratic societies, regardless of what they say about not negotiating with terrorists, will, in the end, submit to emotional blackmail. They will release their terrorist prisoners in order to obtain the release of their own kidnapped or hijacked citizens. Accordingly, the threat of deterrence against terrorists is weak, because every terrorist knows that regardless of the prison sentence he receives, there is a high likelihood that he will be released well before he has served it. This not only encourages more terrorism, but it also incentivizes kidnappings and hijackings that provide the terrorist with hostages to exchange for captured terrorists.

Accordingly, from a pure cost-benefit perspective, it may well be wrong to agree to such disproportionate exchanges. But democracies do not operate solely on a cost-benefit basis because the families of kidnapped or hijacked citizens have a right to present their emotional case in the court of public opinion, as Gilad Shalit's family, especially his mother, so effectively did. They can influence policy against a simple cost-benefit calculation and in favor of a more humanistic approach. Israelis know Gilad Shalit. He is everyone's son. They do not know those who may someday be killed by the released terrorists. They are faceless and nameless statistics -- at least for now. The pleas of the Shalit family resonate with every Israeli who loves their children.

Contrast the pleas of the Shalit family with the plea of Zahra Maladan. Maladan is an educated woman who edits a women's magazine in Lebanon. She is also a mother, who undoubtedly loves her son. She has ambitions for him, but they are different from those of most mothers in the West. She wants her son to become a suicide bomber. At the funeral for the assassinated Hezbollah terrorist Imad Mugniyah -- the mass murderer responsible for killing 241 marines in 1983 and more than 100 women, children, and men in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994 -- Ms. Maladan was quoted in the New York Times offering the following admonition to her son: "If you're not going to follow the steps of the Islamic resistance martyrs, then I don't want you."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/should-israel-have-agreed_b_1011415.html

Just in case anyone was wondering what Alan Dershowitz thought of all this.

[leveymg]

1. Should Palestine agree to trade War Criminals for Captured Patriots? It's all how you frame the

question - but, the answer, at least in that part of the world is usually yes. They do it all the time.

It almost doesn't matter who you cast in which role. The parts in this never-ending tragedy are all fungible.

[Riftaxe]

3. It is easy enough to identify which Palestinian prisoners

have openly participated in crimes against civilians among those being released, are you going to identify which crimes Gilad Shalit committed? (probably not).

Do you really find no difference between hostage and prisoners? Very strange because international law does.

How many times has the ICRC been denied access to Shalit versus how many times has Israel denied the ICRC?

Which part of the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit">quote do you disagree with?

"international humanitarian law absolutely prohibits taking and holding a person by force in order to compel the enemy to meet certain demands, while threatening to harm or kill the person if the demands are not met"

While in your own mind you can justify your stance, but it defies common sense, Law and reality.

[ArcticFox]

2. That's the kinda shit HuffPo runs these days?

It should be pointed out that anyone Israel releases back into the occupied territories is, in reality, simply being moved to another prison.

[oberliner]

4. Where do you get this from?

Moved to another prison?

[ArcticFox]

5. Are the occupied territories anything but a big concentration camp?

[shira]

6. Why 'concentration camp'? Do you use that description for other places worldwide?

Or just as it relates to the Jewish state?

[pelsar]

7. so just out of curiosity.....

have the israelis set up gas chambers?.....or perhaps its the simpler, make the Palestinians dig pits and they shoot them one at a time in back of the head?

perhaps they're just driving around in trucks with the exhaust tube doubled back in to the cabin?

so any of the above? or perhaps your one of those who believe is perfectly acceptable to demonize a whole country with a false accusation because it "feels good"?

[ArcticFox]

10. That would be a "death camp"

Concentration camp is appropriate I think.

[pelsar]

12. really?

so your actually comparing the way the nazis gunned down and gassed millions, worked people to death to the way the Palestinians live in the west bank?


do you actually believe thousands are being killed daily?...or are you perhaps comparing check posts to gas chambers?

[Puregonzo1188]

54. Concentration camp is different from death camp.

The executive order FDR signed authorizing internment even used the phrase concentration camp.

[oberliner]

8. I don't really think that's a fair description

In any case, it seems to be a pretty big deal from the Palestinian perspective. They are certainly treated this like something other than people moved from one prison to another.

[pelsar]

9. its a bit more than not being a 'fair description"...

i see two options:
one) the person has no idea what a concentration camp really was, and the poster simply repeated a line they read on some anti semetic/anti israeli site

two) the poster does actually know what a concentration camp was and for reasons that remain unclear believes demonization of an entire country with the blatant lie that goes with it, is acceptable amongst many.

could be a third reason, but until there is an answer, my experience is that its no 2.

[ArcticFox]

11. What do you call it when one distinct group of people

put another distinct group of people into a confined area and don't let them out, carefully restrict what comes in? And on occasion, they go in with guns, round people up, kill some people?

[pelsar]

13. its just an old demonization trick...you should try it one simpler people

I shall explain to those who haven't yet caught on to the simplest of demonizations:

a concentration camp has a very distinct meaning..which is why it was used to describe israelis (i.e compare them to nazis)..and then when called out, the poster retreats to a neutral pure definition, pretending that, all they meant was the simple dictionary meaning

its an old trick meant to generalize and demonize and whole country, useful for the more simplistic people.

its not much use here, perhaps on other forums you'll attract a following

[eyl]

14. Wait...

Israel put the Palestinians in the Territories? And here I thought the Palestinians were already there

As for the rest of it, it's called "war".

[Shaktimaan]

15. in cases like this?

they call it a conflict with sanctions.

The Palestinians living in Gaza were not rounded up and sent there. That is where they live. The only reason that Jews are not living there any longer is because the Palestinins very much did not want them there.

Concentration camps do not have elected officials, foreign policies, borders with other countries or self-determination. Nor do they have shopping malls, swimming pools or decent beaches. Gaza has all of these things.

But most importantly, really... key in all of this, is what Gaza is lacking. A humanitarian crisis. It goes without saying that for any space to qualify as a concentration camp it, at the VERY least, must contain a humanitarian crisis. Otherwise what you are doing is perverting the meaning of what concentration camps actually were in the service of cheap hysterics.

[holdencaufield]

16. Gaza pilgrims to travel to Mecca next week

I'm not aware of any historical examples of concentration camps that have travel agents. Can you share some?

[shaayecanaan]

17. Was there every any doubt that terrorism works?

After all, Israelis should know this better than anyone. The Jewish terrorist campaign to persuade the British to leave Palestine in the 1940s was singularly effective. If there was a moral difference between Yitzhak Shamir orchestrating the King David bombing in 1947 and Imad Mugniyeh carrying out the Marine barracks bombing in 1983, then I don't know what it is.

Nor I do not think that releasing 1000 prisoners makes much of a difference in terms of the terrorist threat to Israel. There is no particular shortage of men wanting to join militias in these sorts of circumstances, whether in Northern Ireland or in Palestine or elsewhere.

[Shaktimaan]

18. really?

I'll tell you the difference. The marine barracks bombing was intended to kill people, not just property.

The Jewish terrorist campaign to persuade the British to leave Palestine in the 1940s was singularly effective.

Huh? You think that's why the british left?

[shaayecanaan]

20. and let the terrorism apologetics begin...

"I'll tell you the difference. The marine barracks bombing was intended to kill people, not just property."

Sure, and the IRA never intended to kill civilians, say the Irish nationalists. But ultimately, you don't blow up a building that size without killing a few.

[Shaktimaan]

29. big difference.

If the Palestinians bombed the office of IDF affairs in Tel Aviv and called them 30 minutes beforehand to evacuate then would it even be considered terrorism? Or a legitimate military target?

The Palestinians attack soft targets. Pizza joints. Discos. With the specific aim of killing as many civilians as possible.

See the difference... military target, advance warnings, no intent to kill civilians/specific efforts made to avoid it.
Trying to draw a false equivalency here is crazy.

[shaayecanaan]

31. The King David Hotel bombing killed mostly civilians...

the 1983 Marine Barracks bombing killed only soldiers. Mr Dershowitz specifically invoked the Marine barracks bombing as an example of terrorism. If it were so, then equally there was plenty of terrorism by Jews in the 1940s.

[Shaktimaan]

46. Did he?

He's clearly misusing the term then. I fail to see any way that attacking a Marine barracks within one's own country could be construed as terrorism. By this definition, pretty much anything except squaring off Revolutionary War style counts as terrorism.

The King David bombing killed mostly civilians, true. Nearly two dozen were Jewish too. But whether it qualifies as terrorism is debatable at best. The intent of the bombing was not to kill or terrify civilians or even soldiers, but to destroy a legitimate military target. Several choices were made to try and reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties. And several warnings were made to try and get the Hotel evacuated.

[shaayecanaan]

60. I think terrorism, in Mr Dershowitz's worldview, is whatever Arabs do

and I agree with you, it would be difficult to characterise the Hezbollah car bombs against either the US or Israel (the Tyre bombing, for example) as terrorism, as they were discriminate attacks against military targets.

I would be interested if you viewed the Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israel as terrorism. Clearly, they were indiscriminate, in that they were incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets, but arguably no more so than the cluster bomb attacks by Israel on Lebanon.

[pelsar]

19. actually like in life, black and white views are too simplistic

Just try to compare the Palestinians and their friends version of terrorism which is clearly aimed at killing as many israeli civilians as possible, the celebration of those same killers combined with a clear campaign to demonize and delegitimize israel vs the jewish campaign against the brits and arabs.....there is a huge difference.

Whereas the various jewish groups used varying degrees of terrorism, the actual celebration of killing civilians was never anything to celebrate. whereas the Palestinians and friends still haven't figured out the difference

though many on the progressive left may not understand it, it seems they're behind the "curve" as many arabs are now understanding that those different values can produce a stable democratic society.

. .The secret to Israel's survival, despite all the great challenges it has faced, lies in democracy and respect for the worth of the individual, regardless of racism and brutality vis-à-vis its Arab enemies. The secret to the collapse of the Arab countries, one after another, lies in dictatorship and in the oppression of the individual... It is impossible for an Arab country, a neighbor of Israel, to succeed in liberating Palestine while denying dignity to individuals ."

and then there were those that actually bought in to the false articles, the exageratiions, and the articles that "left out" relevant information....

"When we were young, the teachers exhausted us by reiterating that Israel is, without question, a temporary and transient country. When we got old enough to read, newspapers and books filled our heads with reasons why Israel could not exist in its Arab surroundings.
-------
If only we could get in touch with our teachers to let them know that Israel still exists, while the Arabs are headed for destruction. In order to know who will remain and who will perish, one must always check who has democracy, human rights, and social justice.

it appears that at least some have woken up
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5516.htm

On June 7, 2011, two Saudi columnists – the liberal Khalaf Al-Harbi, of the Saudi daily 'Okaz, and Fawaz Al-'Ilmi, of the Saudi daily Al-Watan – published articles comparing Israel's situation to that of the Arab countries. Al-Harbi opined that the secret to Israel's success lay in its democratic regime and its respect for the human rights of its citizens, while Al-'Ilmi wrote that Israel's prosperity was due to its investment in education and science. It should be noted that these articles are a rare phenomenon in the Saudi government press.

[shaayecanaan]

22. Sure, Baruch Goldstein was just misunderstood...

he wasnt really intent on causing the death of civilians. And no doubt comparing Mr Goldstein to an Arab terrorist is just another instance of "moral equivalence" by those perfidious leftists.

[pelsar]

24. is this one of those" I hope nobody notices i left out the relevant information?

yes, just as the two saudis wrote: there is a difference, and its obvious, where one killer of civilians is celebrated and the other condemned
______

there are no streets named after Goldstein, the monument that was built locally was destroyed by the israeli govt...no state celebration of what he did-just condemnation

vs (one example) the Palestinians naming a soccer tournament after Ziyad Daas (planned a 2002 attack in Hadera in which a gunman opened fire with an M-16 rifle at a bat mitzva, killing six and wounding 30.)



i guess were back to square one.....where i don't believe leaving out relevant information is a moral value.....and clearly others have no problem with that...its ok, you can keep posting half information, and i'll just fill in the relevant missing parts.

[shaayecanaan]

32. How much relevant information would you like?

Eliahu Bet-Zuri (second picture): Member of the terrorist group Lehi. Remembered for assassinating Lord Moyne, British minister for the Middle East.

Shlomo Ben-Josef (fourth picture) : Failed terrorist and member of Irgun. Remembered for an attempted terrorist attack in which he attempted to blow up a bus full of Arab civilians using a hand grenade. Was an advocate for "total war" in which he argued that Arab civilians, including children, were fair game.

Yaacov Weiss (ninth picture): Member of Irgun. Participated in the Acre prison break, for which he was tried and executed. In retaliation, Irgun lynched two kidnapped British officers. The Irgun then booby-trapped their bodies with an explosive which killed the officer that tried to recover their body.

Eliahu Yakim (eleventh picture): Member of Lehi. Remembered for the attempted assassination of the British High Commissioner, and also participated in the killing of Lord Moyne, British Minister for the Middle East. He was commemorated by having a street named after him in Israel.

Moshe Marzouk (fourteenth photo): Employed by the Israeli government in the 1950s. Remembered for conducting a series of false-flag terrorist bombings in Egypt that were intended to be mistaken for the work of Egyptian nationalists, which came to be known as the Lavon affair.

Shmuel Azar (sixteenth photo): Also participated in the Lavon affair.

Meir Feinstein (seventeenth photo): Failed terrorist who was apprehended trying to plant an IED in the Jerusalem railway station.

[pelsar]

33. awww what happened to Goldstein?

...you mentioned Goldstein as the example? remember its only a few posts up?

so lets at least stay and finish up with him before you start changing the names/years/environment as per you attempt just now.


I assume the plaque is not the best you can find.....not a whole lot of civilians actually killed according to the info stated is there?. but if you look more, there will be a few commemorations, etc for the lehi group-but you mentioned goldstein, so lets stick with him for the present.

are you still comparing the israelis govt attitude toward goldstein and the Palestinians own civilian killers as one and the same? ( don't go wandering off to change the content of your moral comparison)

[shaayecanaan]

43. Are there any memorials to Palestinian terrorists that are as impressive as the one Goldstein had?

I don't know myself. I'd be interested if anyone knows.

Rallies at Goldstein's tomb often attract hundreds of people. I'd be interested if any Palestinian terrorist attracts the same sort of devotion. I know that Arafat has a mausoleum, but obviously he is a more complicated figure.

[pelsar]

47. guess you forgot to add......

that when it was built it was illegal, and then it was destroyed by the israel govt 12 years ago, as it became known as a point of rallies for the fanatics etc.
___________________________________

so what are you trying to compare? the fact that some israeli jews built an illegal memorial to a killer and the israeli govt came in, and destroyed the memorial and broke up the rallies

vs

the PA who chooses to name buildings and sports events after its civilian killers (one of many examples)

The PA chose to name its latest computer center “after the martyr Dalal Mughrabi,” who led the most deadly terror attack in the country’s history. Her 1978 bus hijacking killed 37 civilians, 12 of them children.......

____________________________________________

I doubt your interested in why goldstein had a following vs the PA/hamas killers who don't...... but i shall explain anyway for those who are not clear of the facts you prefer to avoid:........because he was the single one who did what the jewish fanatics all talk about doing, and don't do hence he was special, the PA/hamas has squares, buildings, sports events named after their civilian killers hence there is no one that stands out as doing something so unique... that gets a specific following, they are all celebrated.

which is precisely what the saudi writer was explaining, that you obviously didn't get

[shaayecanaan]

49. Mughrabi committed an act of terror over forty years ago...

Goldstein committed his act of terror seventeen years ago.

"but if you look more, there will be a few commemorations, etc for the lehi group-but you mentioned goldstein, so lets stick with him for the present."

Why? You've dredged up a terrorist from forty-three years ago, why can't I refer to the Irgun and Lehi terrorists from sixty years ago?

The fact is if a Palestinian were to blow up a pizza parlour tomorrow the PA would condemn the attack. Likewise, if an Israeli were to commit another massacre of the patriarchs the Israeli government would issue a condemnation.

The double standard that you are attempting to employ is to compare the treatment of contemporary terrorists on the Israeli side with the treatment of yesterday's terrorists on the Palestinian side. Whereas the tendency on both sides is to venerate terrorists that were active in the formative period of each side's national struggle (the 1940s for the Israelis, the 1970s for the Palestinians), while criticising terrorist attacks as they happen currently.

[pelsar]

50. again the false comparison...society vs individuals

your off target again:
israel condemned Goldstein, the celebration of sucide bombers old and new within the PA is still going on, its just more selective and nuanced

perhaps this will help from 2008:

Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, stated "We condemn all attacks against civilians, be they Palestinian or Israeli."<40> However, the Palestinian National Authority daily newspaper, Al-Hayat al-Jadida, honored the shooter with the status of "martyr." The paper also prominently placed a picture of the gunman on the front page, with the caption, "The Martyr Alaa Abu Dheim." In a front-page article on the killings, his act is again defined as a "martyrdom-achieving" action.

the PA does not have a free press.

in contrast to that, the PA did have a general condemnation of the fogul killers. (this is called not leaving out relevant information, try it.....),whereas hamas is still going strong on the civilian killing methodology as per their speeches yesterday.
_____________

the naming of new squares for old civilian killers is still going on in the PA, that in itself shows how their society is keeping alive the concept of civilian killings being acceptable to achieve their present goals. Granted The PA has a problem, since they have yet to achieve their goals, and they really can't disavow those who gave their lives for their cause, but that has nothing to do with your original comparison of Goldstein, israels reaction vs the PA official reaction to its own civilian killers.

there is nothing to compare.

[shaayecanaan]

51. Do you think that Jews would still be reverting to terrorism if Britain

were still occupying Palestine today?

[oberliner]

52. Do you think that Jews would reject an offer of statehood and demand all of Britain instead?

I mean, come on with these analogies.

[shaayecanaan]

58. So you reject any comparison between Jewish terrorism against British and Arab targets

and Palestinian terrorism against Israel?

[pelsar]

57. actually i've wondered that myself......

and i think not on a society level...just as in the past, the majority of the jews would have accepted being citizens of "foreign controlled Palestine (as that was their norm, the culture-zionism was the new concept). Of course many would not have accepted it, so no doubt terrorism would still continue, but not with the jewish society supporting it....but thats just guessing, who knows what events would have happened.

Part of Ben Gurions wisdom was to take what they could get as soon as possible, which is exactly the opposite of what the Palestinians are doing....

[shaayecanaan]

59. Ironically, what surprised the British was that the Palestinians did not fight more...

they were amazed that the local Palestinians took to flight so easily. No doubt this played a part in their own decision to leave - after all, why should British soldiers die to protect the interests of Palestinians when they were unwilling to do so themselves?

Had Palestine been populated with Turks or even Lebanese rather than downtrodden, long-colonised Arab peasants I doubt that the Jewish settlers would have done half as well in the wars of 1947/1948.

I find it particularly ironical that the Palestinians are criticised for being violent terrorists when any self-respecting people would have responded to being colonised with violence on a far greater scale.

[pelsar]

62. but that in fact is the point...

Had Palestine been populated with Turks or even Lebanese rather than downtrodden, long-colonised Arab peasants

they were in fact just peasants living in land controlled by others.....they had no national identity, definitive culture, no national flag, no historical independence to rally around to fight off the invaders.

which is also why they so easily ran away, what were they going to fight for? to help the invading egyptians take control? the Syrians? The Jordanians?. Either way they were going to be controlled by somebody else, it was a land grab by all....

of course the irony is that only because the jews won, are the on to the road of independence, had the egyptians and syrians and jordanians won, they would now be second class citizens with no hope of their own country.....
___________________

the Palestinians are being criticized for using a method that has very poor returns, is immoral in this day and age and is in fact self-destructive for their own society-gaza's hamas being the result and example.

[oberliner]

35. Odd jump from Goldstein to this group

That's not like you.

[shaayecanaan]

42. I like to give our friend a little to think about...

the tendency amongst people like him is to always think that our fascists are never as bad as their fascists. Historically, by the time that one realises that our facsists are every bit as bad, it is usually too late.

[pelsar]

45. it goes to credibility.......

this is just another example of how your claiming that goldstein and the PA/Hamas civilian killers are treated the same by their respected societies while leaving out such basic facts that the PA celebrates theirs while the Israeli govt has condemned goldstein....a minor fact that you "left out" (reminds us of the "organ theft " doesn't it?)

You yourself, have clearly stated in the most indirect way, that in order to get the result you want, the means justifies the ends (its acceptable to leave out facts that would in fact weaken your own argument if not destroy it entirely).

meaning, what you write will always have a credibility question...what information is exaggerated, what is factual and most obvious, what are you leaving out?

[shaayecanaan]

48. It does indeed...

"a minor fact that you "left out" (reminds us of the "organ theft " doesn't it?)

Yes. The "organs" that were in fact stolen, and a subject on which you were persistently incorrect (as to whether the pathologist responsible remained in the employment of the Israeli government, amongst other things).

[pelsar]

56. is it instinctive?..

this need to demonize israel so much, that you'll avoid the core issue?

to do a summary of the organ theft:
the write expressly wrote that organs were taking from Palestinians that were killed specifically for their organs: That was his message and to do so he played the game of leaving out essential information, using unverified quotes, etc

many, like yourself, found this information as proof of the evilness/racist aspect of the IDF, israel etc.

Later, when it turned out that the article was infact misleading and racism was not involved,(he admitted it, the BBS apologized for its article) and it turned out to be just a criminal act, you still had (have?) a hard time admitting it. For reasons that i don't understand you keep on mentioning the pathologist who was the criminal and for probably political reasons kept his job for quit a while- a clear failure on the part of the israeli govt, but nothing to do with racism/evilness of the IDF, which was the core of the article.

and you clearly avoided my simple question if you believe the 'ends justifies the means"....which i take to mean you do: i.e. making up stuff, avoiding facts, leaving out essential information (as per the organ issue) is perfectly acceptable to you in order to advance your cause: The acceptance of that concept alone brings into question ones credibility.

[Peaceistheonlyoption]

21. Can we be sure they are terrorists

I like to think that in a perfect world it becomes easy to identify those who wish to cause harm with no reason, although in a perfect world no one would wish to cause anyone harm. My problem with the designations that have been applied are threefold

1. When you terrorize a native population with the military or civilians(destroying olive fields, confiscating orange fields, using white phosphorus, destroying homes etc) can you really label those who fight against this terrorists?

2. I would be better able to come to a conclusion that these people released were in fact terrorists if the designation was coming from a government that did no have the reputation for lying and committed false flag operations and providing weapons to "terrorists" of other nations in order to support conflict within countries that are not aligned with them.

3. I tend not to believe the opinion of anyone (collectively or individually) that uses religion to justify its occupation of a land. Largely this is the case with the Zionist government as they present it to their people, although it rarely seems like this when these same people are dealing with the international media.

I really would like to see the evidence they have, and also, the background of the prisoners being released.

[PCIntern]

23. I'm certain that the Israeli government is awaiting your interpretation and ruling. n/t

[Peaceistheonlyoption]

27. Right now Israel is only hanging on by the support of the world, so yes they do care very much what

people like me think.

[pelsar]

30. actually we don't...care what people like you think..

sorry to disappoint you. We do care what others believe, but we have a preference for those who have some real knowledge of the environment or at least are willing to learn. Apparently from your previous post

I tend not to believe the opinion of anyone (collectively or individually) that uses religion to justify its occupation of a land. Largely this is the case with the Zionist government as they present it to their people,

I don't believe your in either of those two categories. Your flat out wrong in your number 3 and that kind of wrong is usually based on a previous bias, not real knowledge.


so count yourself out.....

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

41. another poster..with "non complete information...

is this taught someplace?...in order to prove your point you have to leave out essential information? wake up this, there is google, it takes about 5 minutes to discover what you left out:

people like me have little patience for writings that contain partial information, the leave out relevant information....its goes to credibility. If you have none, then there is little reason to take you views in to consideration. Keep your facts honest and then there is something to talk about, its that simple.

that pamphlet? (made in the US)...
The IDF Spokesman's Office said in a statement: "The book was received as a donation and distributed in good faith to the soldiers. After we were alerted to the sensitivity of its content, distribution was immediately halted."

since it was distributed to the soldiers and it was alerted (which has happened before-soldiers alerting to bigoted materials)....guess who probably alerted haaretz...yet you claim it wasn't the soldiers and you know this...how? More so the local rabbi ( Safed Chief Rabbi Shmuel Eliahu) is not in the army (as per your claim).

so i guess your credibility is down in the toilet......making claims that can't be backed up is a "no no"

as far as 'your guts" to talk about israel....wow i'm like really impressed, you mean israel didn't send out its assassination team to remove you?...the jewish bankers didn't cut off your credit?...exactly what kind of "guts' does it take to criticize israel? (this out to be good-your explanation )

given that your credibility is in the toilet with the pamphlet story, i would suspect that what you claim you heard Netanyahu say is probably of the same quality......i.e. stuff you just make up.
______

and the world? i wouldn't hold your breath, more likely they'll get tired of hamas/fatah and their attitude toward civil rights (against them) before they give up on a democracy. But i understand your of the nationalistic bunch...landownership being more important than civil rights (i always thought that was a "rightest" value)

[shira]

25. Yep, they're terrorists. They were up to the same shit before the occupation and settlements...

Heck, even before there was an Israel way back in the 1920's.

Hebron massacre.

Look it up.

Same totalitarian dictatorial terror proponents in charge, riling the masses to kill the Jews...from Hebron to Holocaust survivors in the late 1940's to any Jew they can find right now.

[Peaceistheonlyoption]

26. These are not the same people, literally

To even compare the people of the past(who acted because of violations against their people in Jerusalem) to the prisoners in their own land of today really shows a very anti-Arab bias.

[Shaktimaan]

28. violations?

What violations did any of the Jews massacred in 1920-21, 29, etc. do? And remember, when you terrorize a native population with the military or civilians(murdering them, ethnically cleansing them, destroying homes etc) can you really label those who fight against this terrorists?

Or is this a case of when Jews purchase land legally, (or even just have the temerity to live someplace for too long), they are instigating violence. And when a freely elected Arab organization dedicates itself to sending rockets and suicide bombs against civilians with the stated intent of scuttling any peace deal, they are merely engaging in their right of self-defense.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

40. The Jews have at least as much of a legit claim to the land as Palestinians. Believe it or not...

...there has always been a Jewish presence in Israel. As way back as the 19th century, Jerusalem was majority Jewish.

Jews ethnically cleansed from Arab lands after 1948 (more refugees in number than Palestinian refugees) have a legit claim to the land.

Pretending Jews came as colonialists, imperialists, or outsiders with no connection to the land in order to steal land from the Arab 'natives' is astoundingly disingenuous.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. Ah, the wonders one can weave by omitting the article.

Some Jews were indeed native to Israel before the bout of immigration culminating in the Nakba; the vast majority were not. They did indeed come as colonists; what is truly astoundingly disingenuous is your reference to a "Jewish presence", implying that since there were some Jews there all along anyone else of the same ethnicity had the right to emigrate.

[shira]

61. So half Israel's Jews, who were ethnically cleansed from Arab lands, were colonists too? n/t

[Shaktimaan]

44. ah yes... you simply the chain of events!

Makes perfect sense.

Most of the purchases have been contested.

Really, by who? Most of the purchases were of uninhabited land.

As for the Rockets, well they were falling on Palestinians ancestral land.

Soooo, massacres and rockets are OK after all? Like in Hebron for instance, Baruch Goldstein did the right thing according to you. It's ancestral Jewish land, you know.

As has been the case in World history over and over, sometimes you have to fight for the freedom to live the land you were born on.

Good point. But we are discussing Hamas terrorists, who tend to be under 65 so they don't qualify. Your argument would tend to support any settlers from Gaza who wanted to fire rockets INTO Gaza though, against Palestinians. Why do you support the killing of innocent Palestinians just so Jewish settlers can live where they were born?

If Mexico decided to annex Texas our government would definitely fight to get Texas back.

Ummm, you do know that the US stole Texas from Mexico, right? That said, I'm not following you here. Are you supporting the hypothetical massacring of Texans by Mexican rockets? Or are you supporting the massacre of Mexicans who immigrate to Texas and legally purchase property there?

On that note, where do you live? If it's within America would you support massacring yourself to return the land to its rightful Native American owners? Or, if you merely rent, do you support the massacring of your landlord?

American support of Zionism is religious in nature, and this can never ever be a reasonable justification for anything.

Yes, but we don't have to accept the religious justification for Zionism posited by American fundamentalists when there are so many other, legitimate justifications for Zionism.

We should leave magic to film and let logic dictate policy.
OK, I'm going to stop you here and give you a little tip. Logic is not really your strong suit. You just argued that we should oppose Zionism merely because religious people support it. That's pretty much the opposite of logical. Try following a different passion, like cooking. Or maybe hip hop dance classes. Because the logic... well, it's just clearly not your thing.

You also said that the Hebron massacre was unjustifiable, then offered justification for killing civilians. Maybe you should clarify... when do you support the massacring of civilians and when is it unjustifiable to you?

[azurnoir]

53. Thanks the Nabi Musa riots of 1920 in which 5 Jews and 4 Arabs were killed

mark the coalescence of the Palestinian identity among other things

One of the most important results of the riot was that legal Jewish immigration to Palestine was halted by the British, a major demand of the Palestinian Arab community. Also, feeling that the British were unwilling to defend them from continuous Arab violence, Palestinian Jews decided to set up an underground self-defense militia, the Haganah ("defense"). Furthermore, the riots prompted the Arab leadership in Palestine to view themselves less as southern Syrian Arabs and more as a unique Palestinian Arab community.<3>

This page was last modified on 8 October 2011 at 21:34.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Palestine_riots

[eyl]

34. You realize that most of them

including the ones involved in attacks against civilians - don't actually maintain their innocence of the matter?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

39. There is no justification for extreme Jihadi terrorists who target Jews out of hate alone.

Attempting to reframe this conflict as a human rights or land issue is highly disingenuous.

Arab extremists in the mideast will not tolerate an Israel on even one square inch of land. It is an affront and an absolute blasphemy to their theology.

[LeftishBrit]

63. Attacking civilians is terrorism, whatever inspired it.

And most of the convicted terrorists have not denied their acts.

The government does not use religion as the main justification for the occupation; some of the RW settlers may do so, but that's not the same as the government doing so.

'Largely this is the case with the Zionist government as they present it to their people, although it rarely seems like this when these same people are dealing with the international media.'

What source does this come from? Are you saying that they use different arguments in English vs Hebrew-language media or what? Give me some concrete basis for this statement; otherwise I cannot take it seriously.