Why do you say that? Did I say that those others should not be held just as accoutable- yes, since the goverment did not charge that 'dozer guy with murder- it is culpable in her murder.

My feelings of contempt for the Palestenians killing each other and themselves and others still remains.

How do you explain thier "good intentions" on spying on us?

What nation doesn't spy on us? I believe that they likely all do. In my city (Washington DC), there are more spies per capita than anywhere else in the entire world. I think we likely spy on most other nations as well (at least I hope so).

Anyone who offers themselves as a human shield to be presented in any side of any conflict takes that risk upon themselves. The US government didn't send human shields to the Gaza in the interest of protecting Palestinian property, ergo Rachel Corrie took her own risk jumping in front of a bulldozer that didn't see her. Just as, had I been bitten watching a snake show in Thailand, or had I taken some sort of homeopathic deadly remedy for...whatever, or jumped in front of a car in Korea, ect, ad nauseum ect, my life would have ended too. End of story.

Just some friendly spying then, nothing to get worked up about and all? And then, oh yeah, let's blame the victim of the 'dozer incident- of course, then he backed up and got her again yadda yadda.

Or Ariel Sharon's comments- paraphrasing "AMerica doesn't control us, we control America" or some such- yep, they are some really close friends.

I'm framing my answer in the context of our current support.
I answered "other"

Because its the right thing to do. Civilized Israelis (for all their faults), good guys. Barbaric Arabs/Palestinians (who have some fine properties) who want to "push Israel into the sea", bad guys.

From a pragmatic perspective, we might be better off tossing the Israelis to the alligators. (suggestion: look up the allusion)

Guilt over the Holocaust? Don't think so, but I could simply be projecting my own perspective erroneously on others. I don't feel guilty for Antebellum chattel slavery, the Holocaust, virtualy wiping out the Aborigines, the Belgian Congo, etc. Before my time.

Religious reasons? No, I think we should be giving the same support to Tibet, and they're a bunch of "heathens." Remarkably friendly, civil and polite ones by all accounts though. I don't believe there's anything we can deliberately do to hasten the Second Coming, nor delay it. I don't think that anti-Islam sentiments have much to do with our support either, although that's probably changing on a policy level. It wasn't an element of my support when I first became "politically aware" of Israel. Munich, 1972. I simply knew that any group that used those tactics was the bad guys. I chalked it up to basic nastiness, took me a long time before I realized how much of a role Islam played in it. Now much of my support for Israel isn't because of my religious beliefs, or Israel's, but rather those of her enemies. I have "issues" with death cults.

Israel lobby? oooooh, its the joooooos.

Financial? well, I must admit, I do love my Zag toolboxes.


Now, to see what others said...

well, nothing I want to respond to on the first page.

CR:

Murder? That's not what we call getting down in front of an operating bulldozer, as we call such a lethal form of ignorance and/or stupidity [unless, of course, she assumed the risk]. The claim is otherwise faulty in that even if one were to assume that he backed over her, well, what would the first reaction be following the sensation of striking something up in front? That first reaction of backing up certainly explains why the vehicle hauling the wide load backed over an already struck Mildred Terada at the intersection of Nuuanu and Vineyard here in Honolulu some years back, as there was no attempt to murder, and so even if we make the assumption re the backing over, such might explain Rachel Corrie as well. I'll otherwise let you decide for yourself why you are reading more into this than the facts warrant.

And I believe that Ms. Pigpen's "ultimate" point is simply that we since we spy on them, then just who are we to complain about their spying on us? Didn't say that we don't try to stop them and them us, and so the game continues.

Lastly, if the "murder" was so clear, then why did her friends first submit those photos falsely depicting the manner of her demise? What that does that say? That even her friends knew that the facts didn't indicate the malice that you claim and so it had to be faked? That's what it says.

And the US spies on Israel, yet that doesn't even make the news. The only thing Israel has ever done is deport the US spy. It is rather routine for the US to spy on all of it's allies. All countries spy on each other. As for Mr. Pollard the items that he gave Israel the United States was required by treaty to give them and reneged on the treaty.

A US Commander gave the same documents to the Saudis and his punishment was a dis-honorable discharge. Pollard got life.

As for Rachel Corrie she was not run over by the bulldozer nor could she have been backed over again. She was hiding behind a pile of dirt and the dirt crushed her. At no time did any part of any machine touch her. And what was she doing, well she was a human shield protecting a building that had a tunnel to smuggle arms in to kill innocent Jews. Your lurid claims do not match any facts. What we have a woman that lied on her entry into a foreign country (a crime in every single country in the world including the US). Entered a war zone to act as a human shield of war criminals (another crime). And refused to leave a closed military area (yet another crime). The end result was a bulldozer operator didn't see her and she died. If the American criminals would stay in their own country they may not get hurt, otherwise they get whatever happens to them. She was a stupid idiot that worked very hard to commit suicide and frankly deserved it.

I do think that it is elementary humanity that if someone is standing in front of your bulldozer, you don't run over them. No one is saying that this came from the highest levels of the Israeli government. It was, however, fully consistent with the official and unofficial Israeli attitude toward Palestinian life and, in this case, the lives of Palestinian supporters. And of course, nothing must stop the bulldozers of Israel in their necessary course of clearing land for more settlers (or smashing the home of some family, some son of which joined some group obnoxious to Israel -- it is all to the same purpose).

Land, land, land. With Israel, it is always the lust for land.

I must also add that I hold in deep contempt those who have approved of the murder-by-bulldozer of this particular young woman. Whatever the supposed political errors of this child, she did not deserve to be killed.

Huh? Exactly what has Israeli ever done in its past to indicate that it is the aggressor? The Arabs unilaterally attacked Israel the minute it was formed, and have been the aggressors ever since. This is the reason for Israel's military buildup. No one has more interest in peace in the region than Israel. The Arabs, on the hand, benefit significantly from maintaining the status quo, as it serves to help unite their people, and deflect criticism from their own government. In recent years, Israel has taken a decidedly harder line in its approach...but note that this turn came after they essentially waved the white flag, offered the PLO everything they could ever hope to get, and were rejected. The only reasonable conclusion from this would be that the Arabs were not really interested in peace...which has tinged all Israeli responses since that time. This is not only natural, it is in fact quite reasonable. When someone has shown they have no interest in peace, exactly how far out of your way should you go to give it to them? Peace is a two-way effort, and truly only one side has shown much interest in taking the necessary steps.

As for U.S. support of Israel, it is in fact quite easy to argue. Over the years, the U.S. has probably been the single biggest supporter of the Palestinian cause. How else do you think the various accords and agreements were ever reached in the first place? However, our support also waned significantly (and justifiably) after Arafat refused Israel's peace offerings--again because there is little reason to support peace efforts with a group that clearly has no interest in attaining peace.

She stood in front of a bulldozer. In front of people who hated the entire palestinian race, and anyone who tried to shield them, and she thought they wouldn't do anything? Admittedly, the general practice is to avoid running over human roadblocks, but then again, Israel has always been good at unconventional warfare . The atrocity of the crime should also be measured against the stupidity of the victim.

I don't know whether these words are intended to reveal utter cynicism, or crass inhumanity, but it doesn't matter since they achieve both.

Remember also that it is a child that you hold up to contempt.



Dear, dear me. Have you had eyes to see what happened, repeatedly, in Lebanon? In Gaza? On the West Bank? No one has more interest in peace than Israel? I rather think, no one has more interest in land than Israel, and the supposed interest in peace is the peace that comes with the subjugation of one's enemies. As Tacitus said of Suetonius Paulinus, he made a desert, and called it peace. That is the peace that the Israelis have in mind. I mean, is there the slightest doubt that this nation is constituted on racist principles, and that its closest analogue in modern history (not to mention closest ally) is apartheid South Africa? And that its second closest analogue is Nazi Germany?

Oh, and before you assert the United States to have been a friend of the Palestinians, you might want to check with some Palestinians on that point. I have, and I can assure you, their views depart somewhat from yours.

I do not dispute that Israel is at war. I merely say, it is a war of its own making. If it had staked out a militaristic claim to Florida or to Kamchatka or to Portugal, I imagine the Jewish state would be similarly at war, and similarly insisting on the lack of interest in peace of its Floridian, Siberian or Portuguese antagonists, as the hypothetical case might be.

Yes, I have. Israel has certainly been more aggressive lately. This naturally begs the question of Why?...which I believe I answered.



Really. And what land have they invaded to take? Their own, it turns out. Why again brings up the question of Why?...which I also believe I have answered. Which allows me to state, again, that no one has more interest in peace than Israel. How exactly does Israel benefit from the constant threat of extinction from every country that surrounds them...countries which did in fact invade them unilaterally the very second they became a country, and have shown great reluctance to back away from their initial stance that Israel doesn't deserve to exist.



Oh, please. If you want to see where the slightest doubt doesn't lie...is there the slightest doubt that Israel is by far the most threatened country on earth? If there is...please cite the example. How many other countries have their neighbors constantly deny their very right to exist, and have stated that nothing short of elimination will satisfy them, and have indeed acted upon that multiple times?



A point which does nothing to actually validate their opinion. Almost the entire planet once thought the earth was flat, and that it revolved around the sun. Did that make it so? Obviously not. Would it be possible to find a more biased source of opinion? That I would also seriously question. It is in fact that very opinion of the Palestinian's the causes the actions that Israel takes, is it not? Why else to do they continue to sponsor the very terrorist attacks that cause the Israel reprisals that they claim to abhor? If they stopped the terrorist attacks, Israel would have no justification for reprisals, even if they wanted to conduct them (which is certainly far from given). The Palestinians could break this cycle any time...yet they don't. And I am now supposed to value their opinion of us, and somehow decide that they need my support? What have they done to earn it? Nothing. For those who don't perpetrate these acts, they have my sympathy. But, as a group, they create the very situations they decry. You cite recent acts in Lebanon. While I think the Israeli response was heavy handy and therefore counter productive (although curiously effective--how many rocket attacks do you hear of now?)--it was brought on by repeated attacks on them. Yet they are the bad guys for responding? Hardly. In fact, I think the Israeli response was known in advance, and intentionally created precisely to create world opinion against them...and was probably successful in doing so. So, I have little sympathy for terroristic groups who invite the very attacks against them that ultimately ensue. Sympathy for those who are truly innocently caught up in the actions...but then it is their tacit support that allows these acts to continue, isn't it. Let me ask you this...given your opinions of Isreali aggression which seem evident here...were it not for our support of Palestinians...what exactly has prevented Israel from eliminating them?



I would then challenge you to justify that opinion...going back to the history of Israel starting with its creation. The Arabs attacked them, the very minute they came into existance, and thus began the issue. Such has been the cycle ever since. How is this their fault? Arabs might point to the entities that created Israel. That act was not of Israel's doing (how could it be, Israel didn't even exist then). Also, that land was legally available to be ceded to whoever the owning party saw fit. The Arabs might not like that, but it is a fact nonetheless. Therefore, I would reject their response as being justified, at least out of anything but pure racial and religious bias. This puts the onus right back on them for the current situation. This onus is significantly enhanced by the Palestinian's rejection of the peace proposal that was put before them--one that essentially granted them their demands. This rejection is what caused the turn of attitudes in Israel against them, and initiated all the acts you mention in your post. So, again...these actions were initiated not by Israel, but by the Arabs and the Palestinians...and it is fully in their power then to reverse that course. But, as the opinion polls you cite suggest, that is not likely to happen any time soon, and as a group they have no one but themselves to blame for that.

(quotes fixed)

according to what i read in the mainstream press, Jonathan Pollard turned over to Israel the precise details on how the US Navy's satellite positioning system works. according to one columnist, the Israelis passed this information along to the USSR, in exchange for their assistance in reining in Syria.

the reason Pollard is still being held, according to accounts in both the New York Times and a 60 Minute interview by Mike Wallace, is that he will not tell the US who his Israeli controller(s) was (were). there is reportedly no way that Pollard, a clerk, would have known what the codes were for the documents he accessed and passed on to the Israelis -- unless a spy at a much higher level told him what to get. the US wants to know who that spy is before releasing Pollard.

in a footnote, it was reported (again in the mainstream press) that when it looked like then President Clinton would be successful in brokering a deal between then Prime Minister Barak and the thug Arafat, Barak asked Clinton if would he commute Pollard's sentence, as that would sweeten the deal for Barak's selling it to his own people. Clinton said something like sure, no problem. however, three senior members of the US intelligence community made it known that they would publicly resign (very loudly) if Clinton did so, and Clinton abandoned the idea.

i know of no case of anyone spying on the US getting off with only a dishonorable discharge, or comparable slap-on-the-wrist, who did not completely cooperate with the authorities. this is not the case with Pollard.

going to the merits of "cui bono", the US has had no more steadfast ally in the world, never mind the Middle East, than Israel (since 1956, when the Israelis figured out which side of the bread had the honey, and which had the vinegar). unfortunately, the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza has been a disaster, even at the most basic level: Israel's own security.

the US backed South Africa during the Cold War (so did Israel), because South Africa's neighbors were much worse in many fundamental ways. same with a number of Israel's neighbors.

btw, if the US ever gets an anti-missile system to work reliably, it will be in no small part due to close cooperation with Israel (which obviously has a much greater immediate need for a missile defense system).

Okay, this statement made my jaw hit the floor... you are aware Hobbes of the actual situation of the founding of the state of Israel, the terrorist actions that were led by what became the political leadership of the new Jewish state of Israel? Those very actions are vital in the definition of the history of the region and are often forgotten, somewhat conveniently by some parties.

As to the reason that the new state was attacked upon the moment of it's creation? Well the fact that it's creation was rejected by the people who lived there may have something to do with it - the local arab populations had a reasonable argument that they were being dispossessed whether you believe that the state should have been created or not.

You read that in the mainstream press, well guess what he never had access to any such thing. Second the person that claimed that he did those things was Aldrich Ames. A Soviet spy convicted of selling to Soviets those exact items. Israel has never sold or aided Russian intelligence. If you knew anything at all about the Middle East you would know that the Russians and Soviets before them have been on the side of the Arabs. They aren't exactly going to aid them. Do you know that the information that he took was all Soviet intelligence, none was American? Why would the Soviets buy back their own intelligence?

As for why Pollard is being held, well it seems that he reported the fact that the CIA was supplying the PLO with weapons for the hostages in Lebanon. The information was passed to Greece that seized the weapons shipment. While this was going on Congress was investigating the White House for the weapons for hostage and the Iran-Contra affairs both of which the White House was busy denying.

The American Navy officer Some punishment.

Then we have

Let's not forget

Israel is aggressive? Excuse me?!? Israel has been under a rain of rocket attacks daily, invasions, suicide bombers and they are the ones being aggressive? Give it a rest already. Israel has had 1,129 of citizens murdered by terrorists. That would equal to 16 9/11s if it was here in America. And you expect them to sit passively while this occurs? Just how many rockets are they suppose to ignore? Since the so-called cease-fire over 500 rockets have been launched at Israel without any Israeli response, and Israel is aggressive.

Israel has no legitimate claim to the land that they hold. Well, that's not quite right. They hold a legitimate claim, a claim of guns, rockets, and the menacing shadow of their western allies. The palestinians who attack them aren't just angry, they're terrified, and when people are backed into a corner, they lash out. Up to this point, Israel has been coasting on the exuberance over the seven-day war, a high that has lasted for over 15 years. but now, their brilliant generals are retired, or dead, their chief ally is beginning to falter, and their first official military conflict in a decade has left them with a bloody stalemate, perhaps even a failure. Patriotism defies reason. Israel, in the eyes of the middle east, is an invader. what's more, it's an invader that is being supported by America, the Great Satan standing behind the little satan. in this age, when foreign relations are of the highest importance, is it truly a good idea to support one country, and gain the hate of the rest?

Actually Israel does have legal claim to the land, it's the Arabs that don't.

Under the San Remo Treaty of 1920, Article 22 Covenant of the League of Nations, and the Article 80 of the UN Charter all give Israel all of the land west of the River Jordan. Now for a real hard one can anybody produce a single international law or treaty that states that it belongs to the Arabs? Just one will do, that will be a real challenge.

The Palestinians that attack Israel are xenophobic racists bent on stealing land that has never been theirs and are backed by 1.6 billion Muslims and anti-Semitic Europe. In the Middle East anybody not an Arab Muslim is considered an invader even though the Arabss are the latest of many people to come to the region. The enslave and oppress all other religions and cultures. The Black Muslims of Dafur, the Berbers of Morocco, Kurds of Iraq, Copts of Egypt, Jews of Yemen, etc. all are 2nd class citizens without any rights, special taxes, etc. Each of these groups predate the arrival of the Muslim Arabs by many centuries yet are deemed to be foreign invaders.

Zionists in America make it impossible for this nation not to support Israel. Politicians risk major electoral hassles if they cross AIPAC.

That said, any nation, this one included, should only do what is in its best interest. Supporting Israel may well be more trouble than its worth and not in our best interest, but I am not fond of their neighbors, to say the least. In a best case, we'd walk a fine line between both sides and get what WE want....

But, like I said, it's all academic. We're in it for Israel.

I don't think the facts support your argument. For example, George Bush senior, after being the vice president to the most pro-Israel administration in US history, received only 5 percent of the Jewish vote in the 1988 election. And he won. The Jewish population (generally) votes Democratic, and the Republican party is (generally) more pro-Israel.

Edited to add:
This girl was twenty-four years old.

indeed, that is just a "brief overview". and that raises the most important important bottom line 'fact on the ground' of them all: Senator Joe Lieberman (whose example is, imo, the last best hope for those of us who are Democrats ever becoming the majority party again, not withstanding the slap on the face he got from the party in his recent primary run) was interviewed not long ago by the BBC. the interviewer was trying to provoke an intemperate response by asking Senator Lieberman how it made him feel when he heard the words "America is a Christian nation."

Lieberman chuckled in his avuncular way, and after mentioning that, after all, most of the people who were around when the US was founded were Christians, went on to point out the same thing i've heard a number of rabbis tell their assembled congregations: other than a few brief periods in the history of Israel, Jews have never been better off than they are in America.

so far as i am aware, of America's five to six million Jews, there have been only two Jews killed by virtue of their being Jews: Leo Frank (1915) and Yankel Rosenbaum (1991).

there is no place on earth (and certainly not Palestine over the past century) where so many Jews have been free and safe to be Jews for so long. this fact totally undermines the claim, express or implied, that the justification for the existence of Israel is that it is the only place where Jews are free and safe to be Jews. the tragic fact is that Israel is the least safe place on earth to be a Jew.

i was in Israel for 8 days the summer before last, along with briefer visits to Qatar and Turkey, and two longer stays in Kabul, Afghanistan. of my stays in Muslim countries, i will just say for now that i was underwhelmed. their 'problem' is not Israel (or America) but rather a culture of tribalism and corruption that leaves them exploitable by anyone who wants to exploit them. the fact that, due to Western interference, Afghanistan is vastly worse off than, say, the West Bank, yet their obsession with Israel knows no bounds, is very telling.

in Israel, it is a very sad joke to suggest that this is the only place where Jews are free and safe to be Jews. having to hide behind a 30-40-foot concrete wall, having to have a youth swaggering about with an
assault rifle slung around his shoulder every 10 meters, and having to have a stranger not even in uniform squeeze one's private parts before one can enter a McDonald's is not "free and safe to be a Jew", by any standard.

there have been so many "misleading" claims made about the Jonathan Pollard case that it is hard to know where to begin.



there is no country in the world that has ever entered into a 'treaty' obliging it to hand over to another state the kind and quantity of information that Pollard stole.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

and: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/576453/posts



other apples-with-oranges comparisons were made. but there was no showing that any of those who got lighter sentences did not completely cooperate with the authorities, unlike Pollard.

to repeat, the US, for its own interest, must continue to support Israel's right to exist behind safe and secure borders. we should not, however, have to be subjected to the sliming that has befallen Jimmy Carter for criticizing the Occupation of the West Bank.

Yes, the "legitimate" claim that Israel has to its original land, which constitutes the bulk of Palestine, is that the world powers jointly (by and large) agreed that a Jewish state should be created there. You may call that a legitimate claim if you like, but since the persons actually resident in that land at the time were given no say in the matter, and that the "legitimate" authority in that country at the time, Britain, had precisely no right to be there, I do not choose to do so. Or if is a "legitimate" claim in a very narrow sense, it certainly is not a rightful claim.

Britain was merely a colonial occupier and had no right to donate Palestinian land to any outsiders. Palestine should have been given its independence, after which, whether a large section of Palestine should have been ceded to Jewish people seeking a homeland would have been a question for the Palestinian people to decide. Can there be any doubt what their decision would have been?

But of course, even this "legitimate" claim does not include vast areas that Israel now occupies and, in many parts, even claims as part of its homeland.



Oh, that exuses her murder. But actually, perhaps because I am 59 and have sons 37 and 34, I do regard 24-year-olds as deserving some special consideration for their youth.




Parable. My uncle is a the most powerful man around, and nobody is strong enough to go against him. He occupies your house with a gang of armed men, who boss you around and eat your food. Then he decides that since I, his much-beloved nephew, have recently suffered some very severe reverses, he will give me and my familiy your living room, dining room, master bedroom, and one of your two bathrooms in which to live. You may continue to live in your remaining bedrooms and one bathroom. We will share the kitchen. But you'll have to be nice to me. I come to your house with my belligerant, pushy family. The first thing we do is bang pots and pans angrily and scare you out of the kitchen. Then one day we pick a fight with you and you fight back. We beat you up, and our version is, you started it, you wicked, wicked person. To punish you, we decide to take your other bathroom. You may still have your bedrooms, but you'll have to use the outdoors for your toilet. But you are such a wicked cuss that you still often pick fights with us (our version), so we decide we need to occupy your bedroom as well, not to sleep there, but to make sure you always behave very well. And we keep a burly person with a ball bat in there to make sure you do. And from time to time, he whacks you.

That is the parable of Britain and the international community, the Palestinians, and the Jews -- in order of appearance.

No, I am not. Please inform me, and I will do further research.





Yes, this I understand. It does not detract, however, from the legal ability for Britain (or the landlord) to do just that. Further, if you research the history of the Palestinians, they have been disenfranchised by the Arabs throughout their history. Why the sudden interest? To continue your analogy, Vladimir, this would be like the landlord in question had taken in said family off the street, only to later find another tenant. Further, it should be noted that said family was not actually evicted, but rather another family placed in the same room. Whether or not said family got along with the new family was entirely up to said family.

To be sure, I understand that this will lead to consternation amongst the Palestinians. However, the reality of the situation is that Israel is not going to go away. Therefore, the only valid question is how to get along. Constantly conducting terrorist attacks against the Israeli's isn't helping anyone get along, is it?

The bulk you state is 22% of the original land. Now the other mere 78% was used to form an Arab state called Jordan that was the only one Britain did set up. The rest of the mandates Britain did not form, the international community did. Under the League of Nations. And those treaties were used to set up the countries of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iraq as well as Israel. So if you are going to challenge those international laws then all of those countries are as illegitimate as Israel is.

As for the 'Palestinians' they never existed - it is a region. Like many regions the people are not referred to as being from that region. In Germany there is the Ruhr Valley, how many Ruhrians are there - zero. In America they have Appalachia, how many Appalachians are there - again zero. The first time the Arabs were called 'Palestinians' was 1964, a mere 16 years after the Mandate ended. During the Mandate to call an Arab a 'Palestinian' would result in a fight. Most of the population were immigrants from other places (according to Ottoman Empire censuses). Britain was not a colonial occupier but the assigned administrator by the international community.

Which entirely proves my point Israel and Israel alone has legal claim to the land and the Arabs do not. And yes the 'vast area' Israel occupies is entirely within the Mandated territory and that is the only land that it claims as it's homeland. It claims nobody else's territory nor has it ever. You have made many claims that are so ridiculous that they are inane. You have claimed that they are constantly trying to take other people's land even at the cost of peace. Whereas the facts state the exact opposite. In 1978 Egypt had 940,449 sq km of land, Israel including the Sinai had 88,745 sq km. For peace Israel gave up 61,100 sq km or 69% of all the land they had. How much land did those greedy Jews keep for themselves, not one millimeter. In 1994 when Israel and Jordan made peace Jordan had over 89,000 sq km of land to 30,645 sq km and again Israel gave up over 3,000 sq km to Jordan or another 10% of their total land, though all of that land was in dispute even prior to the 1948 war. Again Israel retain not a single millimeter of disputed territory for peace. Now what did either Jordan or Egypt give in return, nothing more than a piece of paper.

So tell me where is this 'vast area' that Israel is suppose to have? I have proven that Israel and Israel alone has legal claim to the land and you provide comments that are unworthy of anything beyond utter contempt.


Wow a whole eight days, must have learned a lot.

During World War II the United States allowed less than 1,000 Jews in as refugees. Great Britain at the demand of the Arabs limited immigration to 59,000. If the Britain did not violate the terms of the Mandate millions of people would have had a place of refuge. That is what is meant be by the term. As for the rest of your comments I figure that 8 days entitles you to be totally ignorant of what you write. Those concrete walls account for less than 3% of the wall and they are designed to keep sniper rounds out.

Your knowledge of international treaties is about the same as your knowledge of Israel. There are literally hundreds of such agreements to share intelligence information between nations. The US alone has at least 100 different treaties to exchange intelligence information between it and various countries. Your claim is totally false.

Just for your information Pollard did cooperate with the government. The government promised two things in return, not to ask for a life sentence and not to use any of the information he gave them against him. The US reneged on both conditions. Lt Commander Swartz is the one that did not cooperate. You are partially correct it is apples and oranges. Mr. Pollard was punished more severely than any other person in the history of the United States for providing a non-enemy nation with intelligence. Prior to Pollard the longest anybody ever was punished was 9 years. And Lt. Commander Swartz received the least amount of punishment for a member of the US military.

If you stand in front of a bulldozer that's going to knock down a house and you are killed that's not murder.

Even Arthur Dent knew that much.

Correct. Rachel Corrie was not a martyr. She was a fool. Yet, even though her methods were stupid, the premises upon which she committed them, were not. Israel is not entitled to the vast tracts of land that it now holds. Although it is impossible to prosecute israel for her death, perhaps the resulting (pointless) lawsuit, will call worldwide attention to the real problem, Israel's unjust occupation.

That the Arab rulers of the day committed injustices against the Palestinians (why not? they committed them against many others, as well), even sold Palestine from underneath them, in no way bears upon my argument. My point, that the consent of the people of that land was never given, remains. The misdeeds of this Sheik or that one, and those of the British (which are much greater) are history. I "object" to them, but the case is moot. It is nevertheless within our power to raise objection to what is happening now and thus, perchance, to change it. It certainly is within my scope to do all I can to change my own country's unquestioning support of a state whose conduct and even whose existence is deeply offensive to humanity.

Many defenders of Israel say "The Arabs do not care about, even recognize, the Palestinian people!" as if that excused the abominable conduct of the Israelis. But that line of argument is obviously fallacious.

Israel today is very powerful, but I by no means concede that the existence of the Jewish state is guaranteed to be eternal, or that it is useless to fight against it. I believe indeed that the continued existence of Israel over the next 100 years, and beyond, is a very doubtful thing. American hegemony and/or determination to defend Israel will not last forever, but I am sure that as long as Israel remains what it is, all the Muslim peoples and many more besides will detest it. I believe that history is more likely to come down on the side of 700 million people, than 7 million. I leave it to the Palestinians to decide their best course toward Israel, but if they choose militant resistance to those who have stolen their land and who now abuse them so much, how can anyone object?

This is a central question that I think needs to be given further examination. Why isn't Israel entitled to these lands? In general, the lands in question were taken AFTER the previous owner of said lands attacked Israel. This is perhaps the only time in history that someone has initiated an attack, lost, and then had the audacity to complain that they lost territory in doing so. Particularly when, given the size of Israel, there is a real need to maintain a buffer zone against future attacks, which the attackers have never really indicated they wouldn't do. Now, I grant that Israel has recently aggressively promoted colonization of these lands, but again, it needs to be remembered that this practice was initiated AFTER the peace accords at Camp David were rejected. So, essentially, they were an attempt to force the Palestinians back to the table, and into a more receptive mood. Ie....we're colonizing this land, and if you don't take peace accords seriously, you will soon have no land to bargain over. Explain why this isn't a very pragmatic and imminently practical approach given the rejection at Camp David, in which Israel offered up essentially everything the Palestinians could ever hope to get, and was rejected out of hand, causing a collapse of the current government at the time?



It is only moot if the history over the creation of Israel is also similarly disgregarded, which is never the case within the Arab world, is it? It is also very relevant in pointing out that the claims of Arab outrage are surely misplaced, leading one to question what the real agenda is. As for the people of that land...who was that? Legally, it was Britain. Therefore, any claim that this land was unjustly given are, legally, similarly moot.



Simple...because it wasn't stolen in the first place. If you doubt that, please provide evidence of Palestine's legal claim. As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, that will very difficult to do given that Palestinian's as a group didn't even exist until some 16 years after this act. I would further add that it is this attitude that leads to continued terrorist attacks against Israel, which leads to Israel's reprisals, which causes the very issues the pro Palestinians complain about. It is also those very attacks that will prevent Palestine from garnering the world support it needs to get what it wants...so it is a self-defeating cycle. As for who will win out, I think you are underestimating the number of those on Israel's side. Suppose the Arabs were to overrun Israel...what do you think our response would be? There are a great number of countries, all of whom are far more powerful than the Arabs, who I am quite sure wouldn't stand for it. So, the Arabs have a long, long way to go before they will have that capability. Which doesn't mean they won't get it...note the concern over Iran going nuclear (only for energy purposes, naturally...ya, right ).

I would add that if you examined the power situation, the continued existence of the Arab states as such could be similarly questioned, and with arguments more currently valid. In fact, their history as legal state entities, in general, doesn't go back much farther than Israels. Which brings up an interesting question: If the Arabs are really so concerned about usurpation of land, where is their push for the creation of a Kurdish state? Hmmm? Ahhh...usurpation of land is only to be an issue when the usurper is Israel, whereas Arab usurpation is of course justified? Interesting. Completely invalidates their argument, doesn't it?

All Jews in the US are not Zionists, of course; still, AIPAC has had tremenous luck getting reps and sometimes even Senators out of office if they so choose. They do not have as much pull at the national elec level, of course, as Jews are a small minority nationwide, but there is considerable evidence in book and magazine about AIPAC and its successful lobbying efforts, including adversely effecting elections for those who do not subscribe to their position.


See this quote from the New Yorker:



http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050704fa_fact

Yes, and likewise if you stand in front of a tank that is "going to" go into Tienanmin Square, and it kills you, that is not murder either. Or if you stand in front of my gun which is "going to" go off and it kills you, then I have not committed murder, it would seem.

Hobbes:

"Please supply evidence of Palestine's legal claim."

"Legal claim," indeed! The claim of the Palestinian people to the territories they lived in for centuries, until they were chased out of it, at gunpoint, in 1949 and later? Or had it sold out from under them by sheiks? And this is a point to be debated in court? I think this claim will be resolved by other means than that, and by people who understand that it is a claim of justice.

Furthermore Hobbes, I fully agree that there is nothing particularly legitimate about many, indeed most, Arab states. But what is not in question is the right of the Jordanian people to live in Jordan, the Saudis in Saudi Arabia, and so forth. None of these nations were constituted, at least in modern times, by the forcible uprooting of a native people by an alien people, and the establishment of an ethnocentric state. The only analogue to that in modern history is Israel's great, now-defunct friend, apartheid South Africa. And I say that the end of the Jewish state is demanded by justice as much as the end of apartheid South Africa was.

all of the reasons given are parts of the overall picture in the US's support of Israel. it should be noted that America's policies toward both Taiwan and Cuba are highly skewed realtive to most of the rest of the world in no small part because of lobbying by those respective communities in America, and that there is nothing unusual, much less "un-American", about this.



frankly, more than i cared to know. (really.) i never spent even eight minutes in Apartheid South Africa or Northen Ireland or Jim Crow Mississippi. therefore?



it "seems" you are "totally ignorant" of the fact that in the US during WW2 public accomodations were still legally segregated in the South (not to mention the segregation of the US military itself), but that those days are gone with the wind, once and for all. there is no scenario in which Jews threatened with genocide would be denied admission to the US more likely than drinking fountains being re-segregated in the South.

your 3% "factoid" (a coinage of Norman Mailer) is, again, highly misleading. whatever the actual number, the portion that is a 30-40-foot concrete wall is the portion that is "in your face".



as the wikipedia article i cited notes, there's a Memorandum of Understanding (not a treaty) that the US and Israel will share information of mutual concern. that doesn't justify Pollard's being a cowboy about it (as he concedes in his plea for celemency), nor does it explain why Israel still won't reveal what the information was in its entirety.

you might want to more carefully examine your own motives for "torturing the facts" in your defense of the indefensible, before charging others with "racism".

Quite frankly, if you examine human history, since when did justice enter into the picture? How was every country on earth populated, and borders established? Through force and violence. Part of the sad history of humans on this planet. So, Palestine certainly doesn't stand out in this regard. Were justice to enter into the equation, I think you'd have to rearrange the population on the entire planet--and once that were done, the entire process would simply repeat.

Also, in this particular intance, the plight of the Jews and the justice they deserved needs to be brought into the equation as well. How exactly do you equate the Palestinians being forced to accept new neighbors with having been systematically exterminated? Wouldn't justice require that something had to be done for the Jews? Who was more violated in this situation...Palestinian's, or Jews? Hard to make an objective statement there, which is precisely why legal claim does indeed become relevant--it's essentially the tie breaker.

Justice entered the picture in 1949 with the adoption of the 4th Geneva Conventions and that whole League of Nations, United Nations thing. People finally began to realize that things would work much better if we all followed some sort of standard rules, like not going to war for land, not occupying other people's territory stuff like that. You can bring up all the historical references you like, but after 1949, what Israel is doing (and I'm referring to the continued expansion from the '67 war here, not the creation of Israel itself) is illegal.



And what justice is that exactly? Because of the Holocaust? Last time I checked, it wasn't the Palestinians rounding up the Jews and putting them in camps, why should the Palestinians have to suffer for Germany's/Europe's treatment of them? Your comments leave me wondering if you have any knowledge of the Palestinian exodus or of Zionims for that matter. Israel wasn't created because of the Holocaust, it was created because of the Zionist movement, the leaders of which, knew perfectly well what they were getting themselves into.

Israel does have a law concerning Arabs that does not apply to Jews. It is that they are not drafted into the military. Now you have compared Israel to South Africa and the American Jim Crow laws and for some reason Northern Ireland. Can you name another law that they have that could remotely considered racist? You have implied that they do, yet not a single example to back it up?

So because the US had segregation laws in World War II they did not let in refugees from genocide, and now that there are none they would of course save people from genocide. So tell us how many refugees from Dafur as streaming into America? Or for that matter Tutsis were allowed in? Please tell us all how the United States would suddenly reverse itself? You have exactly nothing to back that comment up with, whereas history states the exact opposite.

As other nations have been forced to build very similar walls. There is the US-Mexican wall in California and Texas. The Indian Kasmir wall between them and Pakistan, the EU wall in Morocco, the Saudi-Yemeni wall, etc. etc. All except two are built very much the same as Israel's security fence to keep out terrorists. The two exceptions are the US and EU both of which have been constructed to keep people from immigrating. And yet which one do you have problems with?

A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely states and international organizations. Treaties are called by several names: treaties, international agreements, protocols, covenants, conventions, exchanges of letters, exchanges of notes, etc. Regardless of the name chosen, all of these international agreements under international law are equally treaties and the rules are the same. So your claim that a MOU is not a treaty is in fact false.

Your claim that 'nor does it explain why Israel still won't reveal what the information was in its entirety' is simply wrong. They returned every single document, what more is there to reveal?

You might try producing a fact. The only thing here that is indefensible is your claims with out anything to support them. I have simple state the facts, provided the proof behind them and read your false statements. As for the charge of racism, I said you were ignorant, you are the one making the claims of racism. Again why don't you try a fact.

I'll tell you what I will give you several national laws that are currently in use. You tell me if you consider them to apartheid like.

Each of these laws apply to a group of people born in a country and what said country does. Bonus points if you can name the group it applies to and the country.

1 - They are excluded from work in the public sector.
2 - They are also prohibited by law from all occupations requiring membership of a syndicate, including law, medicine, and engineering.
3 - They are prohibited from owning real estate .
4 - They are not allowed to vote.
5 - They are also prohibited from passing lands they already own to their descendants.
6 - They cannot testify in criminal court.
7 - They cannot wear any religious symbols or pray in public.
8 - They are not allowed to build a place of worship.

Comments?

Those walls you mentioned are built on the boarder between the two countries, they are not expanding the wall into the neighboring country. The US wall is on the US side, we're not building into Mexico and then claiming those parts of Mexico are now ours.

And Kasmir is disputed just like Judea and Samaria, the Saudi fence is in Yemen and exactly how much of Morocco is in the European Union? Pray tell?

And wasn't it with those same people, and under those same standards, that Israel was created? Further, if you research the history of the area, weren't the Jews the inhabitants before the Palestinian's? As for occupying other people's territory, whose territory was it legally? Not until did the United Nations not condemn this act...they were in fact the ones that performed it. As for 1949...it didn't change a thing about human nature, did it? Or am I mistaken in recalling multiple wars since then? So, apparently justice is still out of the equation.



So, which wrong is greater? In order to determine justice, one would need to answer that question, which I don't think can be easily done, and I'm also quite sure that were it done it would come down on the side of the Jews (you can't really equate relocation with systematic extermination, can you?). So, let's take justice out of the equation..unless you're really prepared to answer the question above. This leaves legality, and the creation of Israel was perfectly legal.

Hobbes - I am going to have to take e