That is totally rediculus. The state of Israel is completely different to a terrorist organisation or even a country which co-operated with terrorists like Lybia! Israeli aggression is a direct response to terrorism from Palestinian terrorist groups who carry out numerous attacks on Israel and its people including suicide bombings.

Israeli aggression is therefore very strongly provoked it is not akin to terrorism as every country in the world has the right to defend itself from outside attack.

Oh please! The only thing that is ridiculous (apart from your spelling of the word) is you assertion that the zionist entity occupying Palstine is not responsible for terrorism!

FACT: "israel" = occipeR ... Palestinian people = occupieD

That makes the murderous ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the indescriminate attacks on the civilian population, collective "punishments" etc... TERRORISM ... The actions of the occupied and long suffering Palestinian people while trying to get back their stolen land, homes and farms is not terrorism you moron! They are the occupied people of this land - it is called fighting for freedom ... And what do "israel" do? They build an apartheid wall (they call it a "fence" but have you seen it? Doesn't look much like a fence to me ... More like the wall to a concentration camp ... learned a lot from the Nazis while they were abusing you, did you?) ...

The crimes of "israel":

 http://www.israel-state-terrorism.org

Want to know more about zionist terrorism?

 http://www.angelfire.com/ia/palestinefoever/zionstterrorismfile.html

Or do your own research on "zionist terrorism" on the net using ur fav search engine ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also see my "Dancing Israelis" post (includes TNT Israelis and Mexican Israelis) ...

 http://www.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=343492&group=webcast

GILAD ATZMON: Collective Self-Deception -- The Most Common Mistakes of Israelis
by GILAD ATZMON


After World War II and the fall of Nazism, however, things changed. The idea of a state based on racial purity was no longer legitimate. Even the new American form of fascism is multiracial. As a matter of fact Israel is the only remaining example of a nationalistic state based on racial purity. The Jewish state isn't a legitimate concept anymore.

Collective Self-Deception
The Most Common Mistakes of Israelis
By GILAD ATZMON

The most common mistakes made by Israelis are as follows:

1. To fail to realize that there is no essential difference between Tel Aviv and a Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

2. To believe that the creation of the state of Israel was an outcome of the Holocaust.

3. To regard themselves as innocent people and thus as victims of the Israeli­Palestinian conflict.

4. To believe that they live in a democracy and therefore that their atrocities are legitimate.

5. To be convinced that they live in an open society which enjoys political and ideological diversity.

6. To believe that the ghetto is behind them.

7. To be convinced that the 'Jewish state' is a legitimate concept.

8. To think that Israel is a shelter for the entire Jewish people and the best answer to anti-Semitism.

9. To regard themselves as humanists.

10. To be sure that Israel is immortal.

Throughout the relatively short history of Jewish nationalism many Jews have managed to find flaws within Zionist philosophy. Many have detached themselves from Zionism. Since the declaration of the Israeli state, numerous Israelis have left Israel and more than a few Jews around the world have joined forces with the Palestinian liberation movement. Israelis, on the other hand, are those who still fail to realize that the ten beliefs above are grave, indeed fatal, mistakes.

One could probably ask whether these essential mistakes are made by Zionists in particular rather than all Israelis. In response I would argue that Israeli people are Zionists even though they may only have a very little knowledge of what Zionism is. Most Israelis were born into a colonial and racist reality. They are educated to maintain Zionism rather than to question it. This blind acceptance of one of the most radically chauvinist worldviews turns the Israelis into an impossible candidate for any form of peaceful negotiation.

The mistakes in detail

1. To fail to realize that there is no essential difference between Tel Aviv and a Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

Most Israeli people regard the Jewish settlements in the 'occupied territories' and the settlers as obstacles on the road to peace. Israelis in general and the so-called 'left' Zionists in particular, from within their self-centered universe, are utterly convinced that a withdrawal of Israeli forces to pre-1967 lines would guarantee them peace. The only intelligible explanation for this common misconception relates to the fact that it was only after 1967 that Israelis came face to face with the Palestinians who had been ethnically cleansed in 1948 (who 'suddenly' appeared within the new expanded occupied territories). Israelis want to believe that what they don 't see doesn't exist. They still refuse to acknowledge that the 'Palestinian cause' is based on the justified demand to return to one's homeland.

Last week PA Minister Nabil Sha'ath made the following statement concerning the 'right of return':

"The U.S.-sponsored road map for Middle East peace guarantees the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel or to lands conquered in the 1967 Six-Day War." (haaretz.com, 16.8.03)

Let's review some comments made by major Israeli political figures:

"Refugees will never be allowed to return to Israel." (Israeli government spokesman Avi Pazner, haaretz.com, 17.8.03)

"Any advances in the road map should be dependent on Palestinians giving up the right of return to lands within Israel." (Israeli Health Minister Dan Naveh, haaretz.com, 17.8.03)

"[Palestinians] again addressing an issue they will never attain." (Labor Party Chairman Shimon Peres, haaretz.com, 17.8.03)

"All political parties in Israel are united against a Palestinian right of return to Israel." (Labor MK Matan Vilnai, haaretz.com, 17.8.03)

"Israel and the Palestinian Authority have a joint interest in finding solutions for the refugee problem within the borders of a Palestinian state, and not in Israel." (Meretz MK Ran Cohen, haaretz.com, 17.8.03)

As we can see Israeli politicians have yet to acknowledge what the Palestinian cause is all about. They still expect Palestinians to give up their fully legitimate legal rights. In practice they expect the Palestinian to give up being Palestinian. Wishful thinking I would say ­ the Palestinians will never give up their right of return. They will never give up the resistance against Zionist colonialism. Definitely not now, not when they are winning growing world support. Every Palestinian knows that Zionism aims to turn the whole of Palestine into a Jewish land. In that sense Tel Aviv, which is partially located over confiscated Palestinian lands (Yafo, Abu Kabir, Sheikh Munis etc.), and Elon More, a settlement in the West Bank, are very much the same. They are Jewish colonies on Palestinian land.

2. To believe that the creation of the state of Israel was an outcome of the Holocaust.

First, some enlightening quotes:

"A Jew brought up among Germans may assume German custom, German words. He may be wholly imbued with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish, because his blood, his body, his physical­racial type are Jewish." (Vladimir Jabotinsky, 'A Letter on Autonomy', 1904. Jabotinsky is the ideological mentor of the Israeli right wing.)

"I too, like Hitler, believe in the power of the blood idea." (Chaim Nachman Bialik, The Present Hour, 1934. Bialik is the official Israeli national poet.)

"Had I been a Jew, I would have been a fanatical Zionist." (Adolf Eichmann, 1955, published in Life magazine in 1960. Eichmann, an SS officer in charge of the 'Jewish problem', made this remark in reference to his visit to Palestine in 1937.

Along the years, Israeli people have adopted a bizarre view of their own Zionist historical narrative. Somehow they have decided that their militant and nationalistic colonial venture is actually a post-Shoah 'peace-seeking movement'. In the early days of Israel this manipulative notion was found to be very effective in generating western support, probably as a result of feelings of guilt among western people. Since the Lebanese war in 1982 opinion in the west has shifted. More and more people acknowledge that it is the Palestinians who are actually 'Hitler's last victims'. While the western world is slowly but surely waking up to the ongoing inhuman Israeli crimes, Israelis still believe in their fabricated self-image. Israelis are convinced that the Jewish state was created after the Holocaust to secure a safe haven for Jews in case of repeated disaster. This misconception is the direct consequence of the misreading of crucial historical events. Israel is the fruit of Zionism and the Zionist ideology was well established before Hitler was born.

Moreover, there is good reason to believe that Hitler developed some of his anti-Semitic arguments after reading early Zionist texts. From Ber Borochov he could learn how socially abnormal the Jews were ('The socio-economic structure of the Jewish people differs radically from that of other nations. Ours is an anomalous, abnormal structure' Ber Borochov, 1897, published in Moshe Cohen (ed.), Nationalism and the Class Struggle: A Marxian Approach to the Jewish Problem, 1937). From Jabotinsky he could learn how crucial blood purity was. The quotes cited above suggest that Zionism and Nazism are very similar in spirit (both are nationalistic movements inspired by concepts of racial purity). One thing, however, is clear: Zionism pre-dates Nazism.

On the other hand, if we decide to go along with the Israeli self-deception which regards Israel as the outcome of the Holocaust, we should address the fact that Zionists have always been more than enthusiastic about anti-Semitism. In Zionist eyes it is anti-Semitism that will push Jews to their 'homeland'. Accordingly, the Zionists realized from the very beginning that Nazi Germany presented a great opportunity for Zionism. While before the war Zionist organizations collaborated with the Nazis transferring German Jewish wealth to Palestine, during the war, when the scale of the disaster had already been revealed, very little was done by Zionists around the world to help their brothers and sisters in Europe. One particular incident should be mentioned here. Towards the end of World War II Adolf Eichmann (on behalf of Heinrich Himmler) offered Rezso Kasztner, a Zionist Hungarian leader, the freedom of up to one million Jews in return for 10,000 trucks. Surprisingly enough, this offer was ignored by the Zionist organizations that had realized by then that the annihilation of European Jewry would help generate enough support among the nations for the future establishment of the Jewish state. Apparently, the Nazi offer was reduced to a single train and just 600 devoted Zionist Hungarian Jews. Clearly, the Zionists were interested in saving neither assimilated nor Orthodox Jews.

Sadly enough, we must admit that, at least tactically, the Zionists were proved right: the liquidation of European Jewry indeed generated great support for the Zionist cause that led eventually to the establishment of the Jewish state. Nonetheless, if we do adopt this line of thinking, we must regard the Zionist leaders as partly responsible for the liquidation of European Jewry.

3. To regard themselves as innocent people and thus as victims of the Israeli­Palestinian conflict.

It is hard to believe but Israeli people do regard themselves as innocent beings. Even those very Israeli people who ethnically cleansed the Palestinians and terrorized them for decades (such as Peres and Sharon) have the chutzpah to regard themselves as victims. Even the clear fact that for more than half a century the Israeli people have been voting in favor of denying the Palestinians the most basic human rights has never brought Zionist minds towards some skeptical contemplations. To date there isn't a single Jewish political body in the Israeli parliament that acknowledges the Palestinian right of return.

Considering the fact that world Jewry led by the Israeli government is pretty efficient at raising demands concerning pre-World War II Jewish interests (in relation to bank accounts or properties in eastern Europe), it is rather bizarre that Israelis are so successfully ignoring very similar Palestinian rights. How does it happen that Jews who are so enthusiastic about Swiss banking injustices are found to be completely deaf and blind to their own continuous robbery of Palestinian land, assets and dignity? I have two possible answers to suggest:

a. Israelis and Zionists aren't genuinely concerned about the injustices done against their people in the past; they are simply motivated by greed, by political enthusiasm or both.

b. Israelis and Zionists are very unusual creatures that do not follow any recognized human pattern of empathy, therefore we shouldn't expect them to feel any sensation of compassion or guilt regarding their own crimes against gentiles in general and Palestinian people in particular.

It is widely known that thousands of young Israelis travel to Poland every year to visit different 'Shoah' tourist attractions. These journeys are sponsored by the Israeli government and many other Jewish organizations. One would expect that when those cheerful youngsters go on to join the Israeli army they would apply the moral lesson and feel some genuine compassion towards their Palestinian neighbors. However, though it becomes clear that they have learnt a lesson, it is unfortunately the wrong one: when in the occupied territories they behave very much like the vermacht. No wonder Israelis invest so much money in these 'educational trips'.

4. To believe that they live in a democracy and therefore that their atrocities are legitimate.

In spite of the fact that more than half of the population living within Israeli borders is denied the right to vote, Israelis still regard themselves as democratic people. Moreover, Israeli people (very much like many Americans) believe that their 'freedom' of political choice gives them a mandate to decide the fate of other people. Israelis are sure that their murderous acts are fully legitimate only because they are 'the only democracy in the Middle East'. This can be explained with reference to the Israeli interpretation of the Jewish concept of 'chosen-ness'. While Orthodox Jews regard being chosen as an ethical and spiritual burden, Israelis regard their 'chosen-ness' as a form of cosmic gift: a condition you are born into which makes you superhuman. In a very short time, Israeli people have developed a system of 'chosen people democracy' which allows them, the chosen people to dictate their worldview to those who are too weak (for the time being) to fight back. It is important to mention that Israel is not alone in having a 'chosen people democracy'. American democracy follows very much the same line of thinking. Since World War II, American people have decided for the rest of the world how the latter should participate in supporting American wealth. No wonder those two 'chosen people democracies' are so enthusiastic about each other.

5. To be convinced that they live in an open society which enjoys political and ideological diversity.

"The problem with the [Israeli] left is that they think that being for peace is a matter of singing a song. I say, if you want to sing a song, become a singer." (Shimon Peres, the Independent, 4.8.03)

Israeli people tend to believe that they enjoy a politically diverse society with a real left­right debate. Traditionally, left-wing thinking is identified with a struggle towards social and legal equality while right-wing politics is classed as the endeavors of the strong. Funnily enough, when it comes to Israel such a distinction is not applicable. Zionism is all about being strong and Jewish. Palestinians (and cheap foreign labor) are somehow out of the game. The Israeli left doesn't try to make them equal players and right-wing Zionists don't even allow them in the pit. In practice, both the Israeli right and left have adopted Jabotinsky's right-wing 'Iron Wall' philosophy which aims to build a power that 'the native population cannot break through' (Vladimir Jabotinsky, 'The Iron Wall ', 1923).

I assume the reason that Israelis fail to see that their society lacks any real debate between right and left is because they fail to differentiate between an ideological debate and a political one. While in practice there is no ideological difference between the Likud party and Israeli Labor, Israeli people still regard their political clash as an ideological debate. In the UK, by contrast, most people now understand that Tony Blair is a Tory leader in Labor disguise. British people are far more advanced than the Israelis in realizing the ideological context of their own political game. In Israel, only very few people grasp that differences between Peres and Sharon are nothing but marginal. If this were not enough, even the left-wing Israeli organizations such as Peace Now, Women in Black and Gush Shalom, who fight courageously for Palestinian rights, support the unacceptable 'two states solution'. Thinking about those 'Israeli left' movements in categorical terms reveals the devastating fact that their political agenda is not at all ideologically far from Sharon's. As sad as it is to admit, there is no such thing as an 'Israeli left'.

6. To believe that the ghetto is behind them.

Nationalistic Jewish aspirations started to appear in the late nineteenth century following the emancipation of European Jews. Zionist ideologists followed the growing wave of European nationalism. Early Zionists regarded the possibility of Jewish assimilation as a grave threat to Jewish existence. Many of those thinkers also agreed that Jewish people suffered from severe social malfunctioning, referring to traditional Jewish occupations as non-productive. The Zionist assumption at the time was that this form of unhealthy social condition was a result of living in a ghetto in a foreign land for too long. Zionism was regarded as a remedy for the many different 'traditional Jewish sicknesses'. It aimed to create a new Jew: a secular, civilized and productive man that lives and cultivates his own land while communicating in his own language (Hebrew), very much the opposite of the eastern European ghetto character. This experiment proved to be very short-lived. In practice, that 'new Jew' has never been created. Zionism has never been a secular movement. While secularity is an alternative philosophy to religion, when it comes to Zionism and Jewish secularity, Zionism rejects some Jewish rituals only to then adopt new ones.

From the very beginning Zionism adopted many biblical and mystical heroic Jewish symbols, mostly suicidal ones (the stories of Massada, a tale of collective kamikaze, and Samson, the first Jewish suicide bomber, are typical examples). Moreover, the decision to resurrect the Jewish state in Palestine related directly to the biblical promise. Although in the beginning it looked as if a real effort to establish a Hebraic civilization was being made, every visitor to Israel nowadays would agree that most Hebraic cultural aspects are vanishing from the collapsing Israeli culture. Even the Hebrew is getting minced by the day. Needless to say, soon after their arrival, the Zionists found that it was far easier to use Palestinian labor than to get burned themselves in the open Mediterranean fields. In retrospect, it would be hard to point out any major cultural Hebraic rebirth except of some barbarian habits that naturally developed during many decades of sadistic oppression. A consideration of the wide and impressive contribution made by Jewish people to world culture will reveal that very little has ever come from the Jewish state. This is not particularly surprising. As we know, very little cultural contribution came out of the Jewish ghetto. When we think of great Jewish thinkers and artists we find that all of them are emancipated Jews who preferred assimilation to Zionism or Orthodoxy. Sharon's remarkable 'Defense Wall' is there to explain why Israel has never been culturally productive. In practice, the Zionists have never left the ghetto; they just moved it from eastern Europe to Palestine. The concept of segregation is probably inherent to Zionist existence.

7. To be convinced that the 'Jewish state' is a legitimate concept.

This mistake results from misreading the twentieth-century cultural shift. When Zionism was born it was more than a legitimate ideological philosophy. It was part of the nineteenth-century European nationalistic movement and developed at a time when hatred of the Other was more than common within European intellectual and political discourse. Revisionist Zionists led by Vladimir Jabotinsky openly praised Italian fascism and regarded Mussolini as their ideological mentor. Further, Jabotinsky adopted the idea of racial purity many years before Hitler even mentioned it. At the time, Zionism wasn 't the only philosophy to push for a nationalistic state based on racial purity. After World War II and the fall of Nazism, however, things changed. The idea of a state based on racial purity was no longer legitimate. Even the new American form of fascism is multiracial. As a matter of fact Israel is the only remaining example of a nationalistic state based on racial purity. The Jewish state isn't a legitimate concept anymore.

8. To think that Israel is a shelter for the entire Jewish people and the best answer to anti-Semitism.

It was recently revealed by Mrs Tzipi Livni, the Israeli Minister of Immigration, that Jewish immigration to Israel has stopped completely. In other words, she admitted that Israel is not the most attractive place for Jewish people to come to live in. Not long ago I heard a presentation by a Palestinian spokesman here in the UK. The spokesman was asked whether he could justify Palestinian suicidal acts against Israeli civilians. Saving himself from the over complicated moral aspects of this much repeated question, the spokesman restricted himself to the pragmatic aspects of the different forms of Palestinian struggle. His argument was very simple: 'If Israel is the state of the Jewish people, it is Palestinian terror that should make this state into a very unattractive place for Jewish people to live in.' There is no doubt that suicidal attacks are found to be very effective in achieving such an aim. Tzipi Livni's words confirmed that Palestinian terror is defeating the Zionist venture. But the failure of Zionism is far more dramatic. Not only has Israel not stopped anti-Semitism, if anything, the devastating inhuman crimes that are daily committed by Israel 'in the name of the Jewish people' make anti-Semitism into a legitimate philosophy. No doubt the next Jewish disaster is going to be a reaction to Zionism.

(It is important to note again that Zionism is consciously enthusiastic about anti-Semitism. Here we face a vicious circle initiated by the Zionists: Israel deliberately commits inhuman crimes in order to initiate anti-Semitic acts that will supposedly lead Jews towards the realization that Zionism is the one and only solution for the 'Jewish problem'.)

9. To regard themselves as humanists.

No, this isn't a joke. In spite of the pain that they inflict on their neighbors, Israeli people still regard themselves as humanists. Moreover, it seems as if the humanist image is very important to the Israeli people. You will find Israeli rescue teams and medical emergency crews in every disaster location around the globe. For some reason, however, you never find those Israeli humanist knights in Gaza or Jenin.

I would assume that the Israeli humanist disguise has something to do with the universal Marxist legacy partially adopted by the early 'left' Zionists. That said, we must remember that there is nothing in the Zionist philosophy to echo any universal moral code of behavior. Zionism is all about Jews. It was invented by Jews and can only be applied to Jews. The call for the unification of world proletarianism that appeared for years on some left Zionist papers was a pretentious call with very little behind it. Furthermor e, the left-wing parties that were calling for international cosmopolitanism were in practice very active in the robbery of the indigenous Palestinians. The vast majority of Israeli Kibbutzim are located on confiscated Palestinian lands. The robbing of the Palestinian lands stands at the very core of all Zionist philosophies. I believe that the denial of the most basic human rights by the Israeli people can be explained by their self-perception as a chosen race. Why should Palestine belong to the Jews who left it two millennia ago and not to the Palestinians who have been living there since time begun? Probably because Jews are chosen and their biblical text is superior to any other text (including legal documents). How can you be chosen and a humanist at the same time? This is a major question that should be addressed to Israelis. It would appear that in the new Jewmerica dominated world, you are entitled to regard yourself as a humanist as long as you have enough nuclear weapons at your disposal to support your self-image.

10. To be sure that Israel is immortal.

As a matter of fact, Israel is pretty much a dead entity already. It is going through a rapid process of disintegration into isolated sectors that share no common collective aim. Sooner rather than later the currently rejected Israeli sectors will understand that they have far more in common with the Palestinian people than with the Zionist zealots. The so-called 'left' Zionists will realize that they have more in common with Nabil Sha' ath and Saib Arikat than with any Likud Party members. The Orthodox Jews will realize that they have far more in common with Islamic fundamentalism than with the so-called Israeli secular liberal front. The new Russian immigrants haven't even tried to integrate into the Hebraic society which they regard as inferior. The Ethiopian Jews, who are not even allowed to donate blood, and the many oppressed foreign cheap laborers will soon realize that Zionist supremacy is their biggest enemy. The days of the Zionists are numbered. There is no need for a war. Let them destroy themselves in 'peace'. Within the new self-imposed ghetto walls they surround themselves with they do not have any other option.

Where does this leave us?

It seems as if any form of communication with Israelis is pretty much impossible unless one decides to engage with Israeli self-deception. Since it is clear that the Israelis are pretty good at self-destruction, we need only help them by serving as a catalyst. A gradual scheme of bans and boycotts would do the job. We must start with cultural boycotts and market boycotts. We must make sure that Zionist and Israeli war criminals are arrested as soon as they land on the free world's soil (assuming of course that there is such a thing). If these don't provide the goods we must move forwards and ban Israelis from traveling to Europe unless they state their complete rejection of Zionism. Those many enlightened states who are brave enough to ban anti-Semitism, neo-Nazi propaganda and any other form of racist activity should immediately consider adding Zionist activity to their list of prohibited activities.

It won't take too long. Facing a moment of truth, many Israelis will be happy to leave Zionism behind and rejoin the human family.

Gilad Atzmon was born in Israel and served in the Israeli military. He is the author of the new novel A Guide to the Perplexed . Atzmon is also one of the most accomplished jazz saxophonists in Europe. His new CD, Exile, was just named the year's best jazz CD by the BBC. He now lives in London and can be reached at:  atz@onetel.net.uk

www.counterpunch.org/atzmon08282003.html

Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons and PROVEN WMD?
-Answer: Israel.


- Which country refuses to sign a non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspectors?
- Answer: Israel.


- Which country has seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force, which it continues to hold in defiance of UN resolutions?
- Answer: Israel.


Which country is in defiance of 69 UN resolutions and has been protected in 20 of these cases by a US veto on the Security Council?
- Answer: Israel.


Which country has assassinated a high-ranking UN official?
- Answer: Israel.


Which country has just re-elected as Prime Minister the man who ordered that assassination?
- Answer: Israel.


Which country has dispossessed 4,000 Palestinians by demolishing their homes, has created 762,000 refugees, refusing them permission to return to their farms and businesses?
- Answer: Israel.


Which country regularly breaks the Geneva Convention by imposing collective "punishments" on whole towns and villages?
- Answer: Israel.


Which country has used a weapon of mass destruction - ie a "smart bomb" - on a densely populated civilian area, killing 15 civilians, including nine children?
- Answer: Israel.


Which country receives weaponry from the United States for nothing, which it sells to China in defiance of protests from the US?
- Answer: Israel.


Which country, reckoned to be the 16th richest in the world, receives a third of all US overseas aid (2/3s of which is spent on arms to kill Palestinians with)?
- Answer: Israel.




In consequence of America's Zionist policy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO bombs dropped on Israel,


NO sanctions are enforced against Israel,


NO international condemnation of Israel,


NO protest from the west,


NO enforcement of the implementation of UN-resolutions against Israel.



Learn more about the state terrorism of "israel" here:

 http://www.israel-state-terrorism.org


What is "terrorism" [it is not "Jihad" - that just means "struggle"]?

"the term "terrorism" means an activty that (i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (ii) appears to be intended (A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (C) toaffect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assasination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking." Executive Order on Terrorist Financing,George W. Bush, President, United States, September 2001


UNDER THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S DEFINITION OF TERRORISM THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT IS A TERRORIST GOVERNMENT. AS MANDATED BY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER ON TERRORIST FINANCING WE CALL UPON OUR GOVERNMENT, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, TO IMMEDIATELY STOP FUNDING ISRAEL, AND THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO TAKE ALL MEASURES NECESSARY TO IMMEDIATELY FREEZE THE FUNDS OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT IN U.S. BANKS, AND THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THOSE PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO ISRAEL INCLUDING ALL PACS AND NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.


STOP FUNDING AND SUPPLYING WEAPONS TO THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT; FREEZE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT ASSETS AND THE ASSETS OF ITS FINANCIAL SUPPORTERS; STOP USING THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL VETO TO THWART THE WILL OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO ENFORCE THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND OTHER APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL LAW WHICH WOULD STOP THE BUTCHERING; SEND THOSE RESPONSIBLE TO THE HAGUE FOR PROSECUTION AS WAR CRIMINALS

Israel is not a zionist state, 20 per cent of Israelis are arabs who have the same rights as Israeli Jewish citizens. Israeli arabs are also exempt from national service and have a higher standard of living than arab citizens of arab countries.

Israel did not illegally occupy the West Bank and Gaza strip in 1967, it won them from Egypt and Jorden after the six day war.

In 2000 Israel offered the Palestinians a Palestinian state based on 97 per cent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Yasser Arafat flatly refused the offer!

Suicide bombers daily target Israeli civilians. Israel had a right to defend itself and its people!

"some facts about israel" was not written by rockwell was it?

"it won them from Egypt and Jorden [sic] after the six day war."

Oh, would that be the same way that Saddam Hussein "won" Kuwait after invading it in 1990?

Seriously Rockers, instead of parroting the Likud Party line, how about responding to the Q&As that a previous poster has posed?

How do you justify support for a country that possesses ( real not made up) WDMs and believes that killing democratically-elected heads of state (and children) is acceptable behaviour for an allegedly civilised nation?

How?

The rockwell in this thread has to be an identity theft (it has happened to me sometimes) or the situatio with UK-IMC organisation is very very grave.
Rockwell was very active organising anit-DSEi stuuf the last I remember.

Either way fuck Israel and all the biblical mumbo jumbo.

Mad Monk wants someone to respond to the ‘Q&As’ posted by Angry Manc (what, by the way, is the difference between a 'Mad Monk' and an 'Angry Manc'?), under the rather misleading title ‘Israel & Al Mossad – By Way of Deception’. (‘Misleading’ because his posting never actually mentions Mossad or explains why they’re ‘deceptive’).

Anyway - allow me to do the honours:

1. Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons and PROVEN WMD?  - Answer: Israel.

So what? There are many countries in possession of Nuclear weapons and WMDs. The issue is whether Israel has used these weapons in an unacceptable way – and the answer is no. So what’s their crime? Despite the relentless provocation from their Arab neighbours (such as Iraq launching dozens of Scud missiles into major Israeli cities during the Gulf War – even though the war had nothing to do with Israel), Israel has refrained from unleashing its arsenal upon its enemies.

Furthermore, the whole point of nuclear weapons is that they are the great equalisers. Surely Israel – a population of roughly six million - surrounded by an undeniably hostile Arab population of roughly 200 million (and a population that has initiated several wars against Israel and openly called for its destruction), has a legitimate justification for using WMDs as a deterrent against further attacks.

Do you really think there is any Arab/Islamic state that would have exercised a similar level of restraint if they had the nuclear option? Let’s say, for example, Iran or Iraq when they were busy slaughtering one million of their fellow Muslims. Do you seriously think Hussein or Khomeni would have thought twice about pushing the button?

In fact, the whole concept of Israel as some hi-tech, well-armed, imperialist murder machine is totally contradicted by the daily reality of their actions on the ground. If the IDF truly wanted to wipe out the maximum number of Palestinians, they would be targeting large congregations of civilians (in the way that suicide- bombers do), rather than individual Hamas terrorists; they would shoot real bullets rather than rubber ones; they would have bombed Jenin by air – rather than entering on foot – they would have blown Arafat and his compound off the map, rather that let him play the martyr for the media hacks.


2. Which country refuses to sign a non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspectors? Answer: Israel.

Well actually, Cuba, India and Pakistan have also refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty – but I doubt you’ll be complaining about Castro anytime in the near future. As far as other countries that have ‘barred international inspectors’: perhaps you’ve read recently about a country called North Korea and their response to a UN request for inspections, as well as a little dispute the UN and various Western nations have had recently with Iraq on this very same subject?



3. Which country has seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force, which it continues to hold in defiance of UN resolutions?  Answer: Israel.

I’m afraid your use of the phrase ‘seized by force’ is rather misleading. When exactly did Israel increase the size of its territory as set forth by the UN in 1947?

It did so in 1948, when several Arab nations – who, along with the ‘Palestinians’ had rejected the UN’s proposal for a separate Palestinian state - launched a war against Israel’s very existence. There were roughly 500,000 Jews in Israel at that time; the last thing they wanted was to do battle with tens of millions of their Arab neighbours. Against all odds (and without any US military assistance), they defended themselves in a most noble fashion, against a most ignoble enemy – and if they gained some territory in the process, they had every right to keep it.

From 1948 to 1967 the ‘sovereign territory’ that you refer to was ‘occupied by Jordan (the West Bank), and Egypt (the Gaza Strip). For nearly 20 years the Palestinians were not allowed – nor in any way assisted – to create their own state on the land that the UN had designated for them. Funny that you fail to mention this – and funny that the Palestinians never sent suicide-bombers against their Arab ‘occupiers’.

In 1967, Israel was once again forced to defend itself – this time from a joint attack spear-headed by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan – and with the full support of the Arab world – as well as the diplomatic and military support of the Soviet Union. In what is generally considered one of the greatest (and most lopsided) military defeats in modern history, Israel not only defended itself, but also managed to out-battle the numerically superior forces of its enemies in just six days. Once again, this was not a war that Israel wanted; no nation is so suicidal or so deluded as to take on an army that is at least 25 times its size. Nonetheless they won – and in the process they captured the territories of Gaza and the West Bank. Once again, they earned and deserved whatever they gained.

This is hardly ‘seizing sovereign territory by military force’. ‘Military force’ suggests an act of aggression – which was absolutely not the case in 1967.

If you want an example of an ‘act of aggression’ look no further than the Yom Kippur war of 1973, when Egypt and Syria (with the active assistance of six other Arab nations), launched a surprise attack on Israel during the holy holidays, trying to take back the land that they had lost – fair and square, and of their own doing – back in 1967.

As far as the UN resolutions, there is only one resolution that is ultimately significant in this argument, and that is the oft-sited Resolution 242. So what exactly does it say?

That all nations involved in the 1967 war should observe a:

"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency… "
"…respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every State in the area… "
"…[every State's] right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories in the recent conflict."

In other words, the Arab states were being asked to end the state of war that had been initiated and maintained by them since 1948; to recognise Israel's right to exist; and to accept that Israel had a right to clearly defensible borders.

Israel was expected to withdraw from ‘territories’ (but not necessarily ‘all’ territories) if and when the Arab nations (who had started the war in the first place), were prepared to accept Israel as a sovereign state with ‘territorial integrity’ and the ‘right to live in peace’. But if you read your history you’ll find that there were no Arab leaders willing to accept these pre-conditions. In fact, high profile figures like Nassar came out very publicly and very passionately against any so-called ‘concessions’ to Israel.

So then, it is actually the Arab states – not Israel – who were (and still are),  unwilling to abide by the requirements set out in Resolution 242.


4. Which country is in defiance of 69 UN resolutions and has been protected in 20 of these cases by a US veto on the Security Council?
Answer: Israel.

I’m glad you brought this up; there’s nothing more I’d like to talk about than the strange relationship between the UN and Israel:

The fact is that a large portion of UN member states are Arab nations (22) or Islamic nations (52), or nations that cannot risk offending their indigenous Muslim populations or their Arab oil suppliers.

This might explain why that of the nearly 700 resolutions passed by the UN’s General Assembly since 1945 - roughly 450 condemn Israel. In other words, out of 190 nations in the United Nations, over sixty percent of all General Assembly resolutions condemned just ONE member, Israel.

Let me put this another way: were talking about a sixty year span that has included such mass-murdering villains as Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and Pinochet; a half-century of inhumanity that has witnessed such atrocities as the tribal slaughter of over one million in Rwanda, the Chinese oppression of Tibet as well as their actions in Tienneman Square, the Muslim-on-Muslim violence of the Iraq-Iran war which led to another million deaths, the institutionalised apartheid of South Africa, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, the brutal French occupation of Algeria, the American misadventure in Vietnam, the bloody struggle between Russia and Chechnya, the killing fields of Cambodia, the continuing slave-trade in the Sudan, the barbaric subjugation of women in Afghanistan as well as wide-spread clitoral circumcision in the Islamic world… And yet, out of all this horror, humiliation, and bloodshed which has led to the torture, rape, and murder of millions upon millions of innocent people – it would appear that Israel (at least according to those noble and non-biased members of the UN), is responsible for a full sixty percent of the total world-wide violations of human rights. (Which would also mean that the Palestinian people have endured an incredible 60% of all the total suffering inflicted upon mankind during the second half of the 20th century.)

Does anyone really buy these numbers? If you don't (and if you do you might as well stop reading now because you're beyond redemption), then you should begin to view the rest of the UN's policies in the same surreal light.

The UN stood by during the atrocities of Bosnia, Rwanda, Iran/Iraq - and in one of the view instances where they actually got involved - East Timor - made an absolutely bloody and deadly mess of it.

And just for the record: in all this time not a single resolution has been passed against any Arab country nor any Arab terrorist organisation.

As far as the US siding with Israel in 20 of 69 resolutions; is this any more disturbing than the fact that out of the same 69 resolutions not a single Arab nation, nor Russia, Cuba, China nor a large portion of the supposedly non-biased democracies that comprise the UN, have ever voted in Israel’s favour?

Lastly, there are numerous occupied peoples around the world seeking statehood or national liberation, including the Tibetans, Kurds, Turkish Armenians and Palestinians. Only one of these groups has received official recognition by the UN, including observer status and invitations to speak and participate in committee work. That group is the one that invented and perfected modern international terrorism — namely, the Palestinians.

5. Which country has assassinated a high-ranking UN official? Answer: Israel.

I’m afraid I don’t know which incident you’re actually referring to here, but if you’re interested in assassinations you might look at recent events in Iraq. Not only was chief UN representative Sergio Vieira de Mello killed in a terrorist attack on the UN headquarters (along with 21 others), but several leading Shiite clerics including Baqer al-Hakim, Sayyed Abdul Majid al-Khoei and Muqtada al-Sadr have also been the victims of targeted attacks. No, one can’t blame a specific nation for these unspeakable crimes, but I’ll go out on a limb and blame a group of people: Islamic extremists.

6. Which country has just re-elected as Prime Minister the man who ordered that assassination?  Answer: Israel.

Again, I can’t comment because I have no idea what you’re talking about.

7. Which country has dispossessed 4,000 Palestinians by demolishing their homes, has created 762,000 refugees, refusing them permission to return to their farms and businesses?
Answer: Israel.

Let me first answer your question with another question:

Imagine that you move into a house and your next door neighbour makes it very clear that he doesn’t want you around. You’ve bought the house legitimately and you have every right to stay there, but he starts a subtle campaign of hostile actions to drive you out. One day, he suddenly declares war on you and launches an unprovoked attack. However, you are so successful in repelling his attack, that he chooses (for a variety of reasons ranging from fear to humiliation),  to leave his home rather than to hang around and eventually have to get along with you.

Eventually you invite your sister to move into the vacated house, which – thanks to much hard work and financial investment – she manages to turn from a hovel into a home.

Several years later, upon seeing the ‘new and improved’ home, your neighbour demands his ‘right of return’ – despite the fact that he brought about his own exodus in the first place.

How would you react?

The first big wave of Palestinian refugees were a result of the war of 1948; a war that was, without question, launched by the Arab world – in support of and with the support of the local Palestinians. Some fled from defeat, some fled from fear, and many fled because the other Arab nations promised them a swift defeat of Israel and a triumphant return in the near future.

The Arabs nations lost the war. But what about their ‘Palestinian brothers’? Not a single nation offered them citizenship, housing, or financial aid. Instead (as I mentioned above), Jordan and Egypt occupied land that the UN had designated for the Palestinian state.

Flash forward twenty years: The Palestinians are still living in refugee camps. It was Arab aggression along with their own hubris that reduced them to such a state – but for all the talk of ‘Muslim brotherhood’, no Arab nation was willing to lend a hand. And all during this time there was no talk of a ‘Palestinian people’ or a ‘Palestinian state’.

The next great wave of refugees occurred in 1967 – once again provoked by an Arab-led war against Israel – fully supported by the Palestinians.

In other words, your neighbour from hell, has not only returned, but this time he has firebombed your house. Once again you chase him away – and once again he insists on his ‘right of return’ – regardless of the fact that he clearly has no intention of living in peace with you.

A bit of historical fact, rather than fiction:

The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs: "This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks

In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:

"Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.

The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade," said Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951). "He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighbouring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."

Even Jordan's King Abdullah, writing in his memoirs, blamed Palestinian leaders for the refugee problem:

"The tragedy of the Palestinians was that most of their leaders had paralysed them with false and unsubstantiated promises that they were not alone; that 80 million Arabs and 400 million Muslims would instantly and miraculously come to their rescue."

Lastly, it should be noted that while we hear much about the
plight of the Palestinian refugees, little is said about the Jews who fled from Arab states. Their situation had long been precarious. During the 1947 UN debates, Arab leaders threatened them. For example, Egypt's delegate told the General Assembly: "The lives of one million Jews in Muslim countries would be jeopardised by partition."

The number of Jews fleeing Arab countries for Israel in the years following Israel's independence was roughly equal to the number of Arabs leaving Palestine. Many Jews were allowed to take little more than the shirts on their backs. These refugees had no desire to be repatriated. Little is heard about them because they did not remain refugees for long. Of the 820,000 Jewish refugees, 586,000 were resettled in Israel at great expense, and without any offer of compensation from the Arab governments who confiscated their possessions.


8. Which country regularly breaks the Geneva Convention by imposing collective "punishments" on whole towns and villages?
- Answer: Israel.

Firstly I can think of lots of other examples. How about Sadam and the Kurds. How about the Islamic extremists in Nigeria who keep up an incessant and often violent harassment campaign against their Christian neighbours? How about Mugabe’s policy against white farmers? Are you familiar with the current situation in the Congo or the Ivory Coast? How about Chechnya, where both sides – the Soviets and the Islamists – punish each other through revenge killings?

But that’s not the big issue….

If you want to talk about ‘collective punishment’ let’s talk about the Palestinian approach. Notice that even you used the word ‘punishment’, because the Israeli’s don’t collectively ‘murder’ their enemies. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Palestinians who have publicly declared their moral and political right to kill as many Israeli civilians as necessary in their ‘struggle for independence’.

Let’s see…An Israeli bulldozer crushes the home – and perhaps the surrounding homes  -of a known suicide bomber who has killed a large number of innocent people. They are careful not to kill anyone in the process. You call this ‘collective punishment’.

On the other hand, the Palestinians  - in response to the bulldozing or the targeted assassination of a known terrorist with blood on his hands – choose to blow up a bus full of innocent civilians, because in their minds, all Israelis are the enemy and deserve death.

Which variation of collective punishment would you prefer?


9. Which country has used a weapon of mass destruction - i.e. a "smart bomb" - on a densely populated civilian area, killing 15 civilians, including nine children?  Answer: Israel.

What exactly is your point here: that Israel used a ‘smart bomb’, or that Israel used it in a ‘densely populated area’? Because on both counts you’ve already lost your argument.

If Israel used a ‘smart bomb’ – as you suggest – that means that their intention was to hit a specific and isolated target (and we know that to be the case in the instance you’re referring to). The fact that the ‘smart bomb’ turned into a dumb bomb is extremely unfortunate – but it was clearly not their intention – otherwise they wouldn’t have used a smart bomb in the first place. As I already mentioned above; if the Israel army wanted to wipe out a maximum number of Palestinians, they could be dropping dumb bombs all day long. But they don’t.

Secondly (and far more offensively), you seem to be suggesting that the notion of targeting ‘densely populated areas’ is something unique to the Israelis. Have you ever noticed the preferred locations of Palestinian suicide bombers: crowed buses, pizza parlours, hotels, and cafes – are these not ‘densely populated areas’ filled with innocent civilians?  Such gruesome tactics are far more of a Palestinian problem than an Israeli one. And how about 9 /11? 3000 people.  How about the Bali bombing? 300 people. Once again, I can’t pin the blame on a place, but I can pin it on a people: Islamic extremists.

10. Which country receives weaponry from the United States for nothing, which it sells to China in defiance of protests from the US?
Answer: Israel.

Firstly, there are plenty of Arab nations that also receive weaponry from the US. So what? It’s not what you have – it’s how you use it.

Secondly, I don’t know where you got the idea that the US gives away weapons for free – but you should know by now that’s just not the way the world works. Nothing is for free.

As far as US protests about Israel’s dealings with China…Are you suddenly switching sides and seriously asking us to condemn Israel because they might have upset the mighty Military Establishment of the United States?

Whose side are you on?


11. Which country, reckoned to be the 16th richest in the world, receives a third of all US overseas aid (2/3s of which is spent on arms to kill Palestinians with)?    Answer: Israel.

I don’t get it: are you for the US or against the US? If you don’t like the way they dole out their overseas aid, shouldn’t you be happy that Israel pissed them off a bit with China?

Anyway, Israel doesn’t spend its overseas aid on ‘arms to kill Palestinians with’. It spends the money on arms to defend itself against Palestinian and other Islamic terrorists. There’s a big difference. For some reason you’ve got it in your head that Israelis sit around dreaming up new ways in which they can slaughter innocent people in Palestine. But why would they do this? It makes no sense. They know they’re outnumbered. They know that international public opinion is against them. Unlike the Palestinians – and so many of their Arab neighbours – the Israelis have not been driven to pointless acts of violence in an attempt to punish someone – anyone – else for the horrific and hopeless conditions they live in. The very fact that – as you claim – they are the 16th richest country in the world (after less than 60 years of existence) – is not only a testament to their culture and commitment – but also the best reason of all for them to want to live in peace – and in their case, prosperity.

Do you really think Israel wants to be in the West Bank or Gaza? What advantages does it bring them? Nothing financially. Nothing diplomatically.
Do you really think the average twenty-year-old Israeli soldier - or 40 year old Israeli reservist looks forward to risking his life on a daily basis at some god-forsaken checkpoint surrounded by people that he knows despise him? It’s nothing but an unrewarding drain on their time, energy, spirit, and bank account. Their only motivation is survival. Just as ‘one man’s terrorist can another man’s freedom fighter’ – one man’s occupying army can be another man’s last line of defence.

Regarding who the US gives foreign aid to….

As we witnessed during the recent conflict in Iraq – the United States has very few supporters amongst the international community. Israel is one of the few long-time and loyal friends of the US and with the increasing threat of Islamic extremism in the Middle East has become more important than ever.

So why shouldn’t they give more money to Israel? Nobody else gives Israel money – whereas numerous countries and organisations – from the UN to the US to the European Union give generously to the PLO and Palestine (billions of dollars in ‘aid’, the majority of which – according even to the Palestinians  -has been siphoned off to Swiss banks by Arafat and his cronies).

America gives three billion dollars a year to Israel – a country that supports its policies – but it also gives 2.1 billion dollars a year to Egypt – a country that voted against the US in 68 percent of recent UN resolutions. I’d call that more than charity – I’d call it monetary masochism.

If Bush has his way, Afghanistan and Iraq will be receiving far more in foreign aid this year than Israel could ever dream of. Does that make you feel better?


One final note to Angry Manc who wrote in a later posting: What is "terrorism" [it is not "Jihad" - that just means "struggle"]?

I’m sorry Mac, but even the most politically correct Islamo apologists have never suggested that ‘jihad’ has the singular meaning of ‘struggle’ – they’ve said that it can ‘sometimes’ mean struggle along with its more popular usage which is ‘Holy War’.

Let me give you an example: Here is an excerpt from a sermon delivered by Dr. Mahmoud Mustafah Najem in the Sheikh Ejlin Mosque in Gaza as part of the Palestinian Authorities Official Friday TV sermon.

"Muslims have a special role to torment the Jews: We shall battle them and wage "Jihad" against them ... Allah loves those who battle for Him in one line... Oh, servants of Allah, be you the ones by whom Allah tortures the Jews with harsh torment. The Jews’ future has been determined for ultimate punishment: [Allah] will not resurrect them [Jews] until Judgement Day, and then they will be tortured harsh torture."

Now, do you honestly believe that in this particular instance the word ‘jihad’ was chosen by the speaker because he was urging his audience to ‘wage’ a peaceful ‘struggle’ against the Jews, or might he perhaps have had something a bit more ‘holy warish’ in mind?

How about another example? On February 23, 1998, the World Islamic Front – issued a statement written by Bin Laden, amongst others, entitled "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders"

I’ll go straight to the ‘jihad’ bit:

"All the crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."

In other words, Bin Laden and his Islamic acolytes see ‘jihad’ as a justification for killing ‘Americans and their allies’ including ‘civilians’.

On a scale with ‘terrorism’ on one side and ‘struggle’ on the other, where exactly would you place this all-too-common interpretation of ‘jihad’?

Ultimately, 'jihad', like so many potent words in so many languages means whatever the speaker (and his audience) want it to mean. It's all a question of context and nuance. But to endorse such a naive and apologetic interpretation serves nobody's interest.

Manc – who is clearly schizophrenic when it comes to how he views the validity of American opinion – then cites George Bush’s definition of terrorism. This, apparently, is intended as the ultimate proof of Israel’s status as a ‘terrorist state’.

"The term "terrorism" means an activity that (i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (ii) appears to be intended (A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (C) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking."

In the spirit of détente, let’s just say I agree with Manc that this definition of ‘terrorism’ could be convincingly applied to the State of Israel. Would he then, in turn, be willing to admit that it could just as easily be applied to the Palestinians? Would he deny that the Palestinians are equally culpable when it comes to committing ‘violent acts’ that are ‘dangerous to human life’; of attempting to ‘intimidate or coerce a civilian population’; to ‘influence government policy by intimidation or coercion; and to ‘affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction’?

Until the ‘anti-Israel’ brigade can acknowledge that the Palestinians - as well as the Arab-Islamic world – have as much blood on their hands as the Israelis, chaos and cruelty will reign in the Middle East.

In the meantime, I guess will all have to just keep up with our peaceful 'jihad'. Right Manc?

buzzbee

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Israel increasing the size of its territory as set forth by the UN in 1947?
You said:
It did so in 1948, when several Arab nations – who, along with the ‘Palestinians’ had rejected the UN’s proposal for a separate Palestinian state - launched a war against Israel’s very existence. The first big wave of Palestinian refugees were a result of the war of 1948; a war that was, without question, launched by the Arab world – in support of and with the support of the local Palestinians.


>> What you fail to appreciate is that this turn of events was entirely due to what was an unacceptable original situation and still is an unacceptable change of circumstances for Palestinian Arabs after plots of Palestinian’s land was sold off by the British to Zionist settlers pre-world War II, in 1931, to the extent that the number of Jewish settlers rose from 4,000 in 1931 to 60,000 in 1935. By 1949, Israel possessed three-quarters of Palestine. Now the population of Israel is more than three times the population of Palestine.

Buzz-Bee - yr legitimacy for Israel's gaining of territory in 1967 is flawed since their encroachment into Palestine from the very beginning is clearly still illegal, whatever the UN may have reached a subsequent position on. Palestinians will reject Israels' claim to the West Bank and the land seized in 1967, whoever started the conflict at the time, because the situation was brought to a head by a legacy of this original injustice, which itself is still outstanding. THAT IS WHY RIGHT OF RETURN IN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR PLALESTINIAN ARABS. NO COMPROMISE.

In regard to the following question and answer:
Which country, reckoned to be the 16th richest in the world, receives a third of all US overseas aid (2/3s of which is spent on arms to kill Palestinians with)? Answer: Israel.

Your response was:
> I don’t get it: are you for the US or against the US? If you don’t like the way they dole out their overseas aid, shouldn’t you be happy that Israel pissed them off a bit with China?

Anyway, Israel doesn’t spend its overseas aid on ‘arms to kill Palestinians with’. It spends the money on arms to defend itself against Palestinian and other Islamic terrorists.

>> this latter point from you is incredibly disingenious and fundamentally dishonest, when you must know that Israel’s method of defence is a scorched earth policy which means innocent women and children, particularly in recent times, have been at the receiving end of indiscriminate bombing and maiming, while the background of what Israel has been doing has been just as criminal (further stoking-up mutual distrust and hatred), such as restricting of water sources to Palestinian civilian populations, charging forth with the building of new Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the border-areas seized in 1967, and since the increased hostilities from Palestinian suicide bombers, the cynical tactic of destroying olive plantations in the crackdown on Palestinian terrorists.

> the number of Jewish settlers rose from 4,000 in 1931 to 60,000 in 1935.
Wow, 60,000. that's amazing. A whole town's worth of Jews! Must be sickening for u. talk about racist - what's wrong with 60,000 Jews settling in their historical homeland? We've had 10 times as many Arabs settle in Britain alone - so what? In fact, what u dont realise - probably through ignorance - is that the land named "Palestine" was invaded and conquered by Arabs only as recently as the 19th Century. Surely that is far more unnacceptable than peaceful Jewish settlements in their historical homeland, no?


> By 1949, Israel possessed three-quarters of Palestine.
Your friend the UN gave the land to Israel. You remember, its the same UN that "anti-zionists" like to spout on about when they talk about Resolutions regarding the Middle-East. even though the hostile Arab states rejected many of those Resolutions, and have blatantly violated them ever since.


> Now the population of Israel is more than three times the population of Palestine.
So what? The Palestinian Arab population has trebled since 1967, completely nullifying the "anti-zionist" accusation of IDF "genocide".


> encroachment into Palestine from the very beginning is clearly still illegal
u think that Israel's very existence is illegal? Why do u deny Israel's right to exist? Why? Answer.


> whatever the UN may have reached a subsequent position on
You dont care what the UN position is? I hope i never catch u spouting on about "violations" of UN Resolutions.


> the situation was brought to a head by a legacy of this original injustice
The original injustice was the war started by the Arabs against the fledgling UN-endorsed Israeli state back in 1948. It was the Arab leaders who told the Palestinian Arabs to flee their homes, in preparation for the impending Arab invasion. The Arabs who decided to stay in Israel now enjoy full and equal rights with all other Israeli citizens, with full access to legal counsel, the right to vote in free democratic elections, and a Western standard of living. Name me any Arab state that can offer the same to their own citizens.


>THAT IS WHY RIGHT OF RETURN IN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR PLALESTINIAN ARABS. NO COMPROMISE.
The Arabs decided to flee, now they're demanding to come back. No compromise?
Not a chance.