everyone hates the jews

[cosmo]

Check out this distortion from the French Press:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009023.php

add powerlineblog to your favorites, if you haven't already.

It's a great website.

[davetlv]

Thanks forr the link Cosmo. Any site that tries to to tell the truth is well worth reading! I'm sure i won't approve of it all, but am looking forward to the read!

Merry Christmas to you my friend!

[cosmo]

Thanks forr the link Cosmo. Any site that tries to to tell the truth is well worth reading! I'm sure i won't approve of it all, but am looking forward to the read!

Merry Christmas to you my friend!

I'm sure you will agree with most of it, I did, mainly for the fact that they are the watchdogs for the mainstream media who always seem to get it WRONG.

Sure, they may have different ideological opinions, but the basis for the website is to look for the truth.

That's what I've gotten from it anyway. Check this one out too Dave.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009026.php

Merry Christmas to you too mate...!!

[Yao]

Added to my favourites...

[cosmo]

Added to my favourites...

Cool. Powerline was voted blog of the year by Time Magazine. They do tons of research, and it has been very handy at times.

www.instapundit.com is just as good. He is more of a libertarian.

[Yao]

Added to my favourites...

Cool. Powerline was voted blog of the year by Time Magazine. They do tons of research, and it has been very handy at times.

www.instapundit.com is just as good. He is more of a libertarian.

Thanx bro, also added, and will look at both with a critical eye...

[ian]

thanks davetlv for your informed insights on the situation - interesting stuff!

[DragonFire]

Well i think it's very wrong to judge people according to their religion i mean not all jews are bad but some israelis are cursed .... i mean there is no single nation now that can best represent it's religious ideologies all are mixed ...

[kyyoon]

idiot

[Palotaslaci]

I don't hate jews.

[brakada]

^^^^ If this topic sucks, then keep out of politics.

[face]

thanks davetlv for your informed insights on the situation - interesting stuff!

and this is what most people would believe. i'm so disappointed at this time that i can't even figure out where to begin. i shouldn't have expected anything less from davetlv, however.

first of all, that article about angelina jolie is ridiculous. i won't even begin to pick that one apart. arafat may have been a billionnaire but he didn't spend a single cent of it on himself. pretty much all he owned were 3 or 4 army uniforms. he used the money to reward loyalty--however you want to interpret that.

anyway, i'd rather go back to what davetlv was saying...the part that was "as unbiased" as he could make it.

do you think that arabs called it Transjordan??? who do you think came up with that name? on the other hand, you of all people should know that although there was no political entity under the ottoman empire by the name of palestine (it was actulaly 3 sanjaks or subdivisions), the names for the region (philistine, canaan, etc.) go back to the time of the greeks and before!

to say that there were no "palestinians," and that they were created by the british is just one more way of legitimizing the land grab that is taking place. the "historical" right to the land can be justified by either side of this conflict easily.

under the international law category, israel could justify its existence by pointing to the balfour declaration, the league of nations, and the united nations. on the other hand, where do these "clubs" of european countries come off mandating what is to take place on palestinian land?

on a similar note, one could say israel had a human or moral right to have its own state in mandate palestine. but again i point to the hypocrisy of europe (and the US): you're telling me that because the europeans stood by and allowed the jews to be almost entirely annihilated from their lands, that they can somehow justify displacing another entire people (palestinians) from their lands to make room for jews? unbelievable.

and as for the peace talks, there is a lot to talk about, but i'll keep it short. you think that palestinians would allow their leader to accept any sort of deal that would afford them a mere 22% of the land they once had? the deal that arafat refused at camp david 2 in 2000, at the end of clinton's second term, was something he could never accept. the deal, conjured up by dennis ross and israeli officials was tantamount to a slice of swiss cheese. pockets of settlements here, the whole jordan river aquifer there, all to be kept by israel. the issue of water (and the control thereof) is one of the main concerns of both sides.

the disengagement plan is nothing but a scam. nothing will change. israel will still control airspace, all borders, and the coastline. how is a viable palestinian state to exist when one part is not able to communicate with the other (west bank)?

the two state solution is futile. this is one point on which i agree with the psychotic daniel pipes. there can never be a two state solution; what will essentially result of the conflict is a 'de facto' one state solution.

apartheid.

the walls and fences constructed will keep all palestinians confined to ghettos, unable to travel to work, school, anywhere. they will remain second class citizens (i wouldn't even call it that). just look at what happened in south africa not long ago. or even segregation-era america. it wasn't that long ago either.

as for israel, and israeli palestinians, that is a similar issue. anyone (including our president) who is able to call isarel the 'only true democracy in the middle east,' is truly blind. there can be no true democracy in a theocratic state--pure and simple. muslim and christian palestinians living in israel proper are second class citizens. many have assimilated into the society, yet remain marginalized in many cases. the minority in israel is somewhat represented in the knesset--but how can a christian or muslim palestinian bring himself to accept the national charter that states that israel is the homeland for all jews, and still believe he is an equal next to an israeli jew?

the events taking place in the occupied palestinian territories are nothing short of apartheid. settler colonialism, sometimes sponsored by the evangelical american right, is spreading more and more in palestine, and again the map looks more and more like swiss cheese.

the settlers in israel and the occupied territories believe they are fulfilling the will of god. this includes about 187,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, about 20,000 in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, more than 5,000 in the Gaza Strip, and fewer than 177,000 in East Jerusalem (July 2004 est.).

the evangelicals in america are funding and supporting these zionists, while they believe that in the end all jews will be killed on judgement day and only the true believers will be saved. essentially the evangelicals are smiling and nodding, letting the zionists do their work and just waiting for the time to pass. rather silly, i think.

what some people tend to neglect is the demographic-time factor. palestinian arabs make up 20% of the israeli population. it is estimated that by the year 2012, palestinian arabs in israel will outnumber jews. palestinian arabs inside israel hold one of the highest fertility rates in the world. no one talks about this, but this is why time is in fact on the palestinians' side. israel must do all it can to end the conflict in their favor, before a demographic turn for the worse (in their view).

if you were watching the news this week after the palestinian national elections, you may have seen jimmy carter speak about the polls and the roadmap. while carter had nothing to complain about israel's role in the elections, he did point out something that no american official has ever dared to say. he said that palestine and america are prepared to accept every term of the roadmap for peace; only israel (sharon) is refusing to accept the roadmap. israel has made public a list of i think 14 reservations it has about the roadmap. i'm not sure but i'm guessing these have to do with settlements in strategic areas, the right of palestinians to return to their lands or be compensated, and the control over jerusalem.

the roadmap is dead. israel will not accept it as it is, and that is why the US is no longer pursuing it. how can the US be a mediator between palestine and israel when it is clearly biased toward israel? perhaps you would argue that delegates from the EU would be too biased towards palestine to be mediators? well i wouldn't agree, but fine. why have mediators at all. abbas and sharon could meet face to face, alone, and talk. but that would never happen.


i've gone on way too long and am getting way to angry so i'll stop here. what you think you know as a fact is probably just an opinion. and whoever it was that mentioned an "unbiased" journalist should think about what he said and wonder how dumb that comment was.

read some books on palestine and israel and don't listen to stupid people who tell you their opinions as facts:

yezid sayigh "armed struggle and the search for a state"

rashid khalidi "palestinian identity"

glenn robinson "building a palestinian state"

samih farsoun "palestine and the palestinians"

nathan brown "palestinian politics after the oslo accords"

clayton swisher "the truth about camp david"

khater "sources in the history of the modern middle east"

that last one contains primary sources such as the balfour declaration, the sykes-picot agreement, the king-crane commission, the hussein-macmahon correspondence, and many others.

[ftc]

@thesightless
there are some very informative easy-reading books available covering the history, the politics and policies of the region. when i return home i can recommend you some as i am never good at remembering names. one that comes to mind is an autobiography by palestinian lawyer/writer Raja Shehadeh called "Strangers in the House: Coming of Age in Occupied Palestine" that offers a moving view of life inside occupied territories which i highly recommend. you should check it out

[davetlv]

and this is what most people would believe. i'm so disappointed at this time that i can't even figure out where to begin. i shouldn't have expected anything less from davetlv, however.

If you shouldn't have expected anything less from me i am pleased that i was able to reach expectations.

anyway, i'd rather go back to what davetlv was saying...the part that was "as unbiased" as he could make it.

do you think that arabs called it Transjordan??? who do you think came up with that name? on the other hand, you of all people should know that although there was no political entity under the ottoman empire by the name of palestine (it was actulaly 3 sanjaks or subdivisions), the names for the region (philistine, canaan, etc.) go back to the time of the greeks and before!

No i think the nations that carved up this region called it Transjordan, and the names Philistine and Canaan go back some 5000+ years.

to say that there were no "palestinians," and that they were created by the british is just one more way of legitimizing the land grab that is taking place. the "historical" right to the land can be justified by either side of this conflict easily.

Out of interest here face which land grab are you talking about; the supposed land grab associated with the building of the security wall or the actuall creation of the state of israel?

on a similar note, one could say israel had a human or moral right to have its own state in mandate palestine. but again i point to the hypocrisy of europe (and the US): you're telling me that because the europeans stood by and allowed the jews to be almost entirely annihilated from their lands, that they can somehow justify displacing another entire people (palestinians) from their lands to make room for jews? unbelievable.

Your notion of displacemement not only leaves a lot to be desired but your implication is that 'palestinians' were displaced solely by the new state of Israel. Whatever. . . .

and as for the peace talks, there is a lot to talk about, but i'll keep it short. you think that palestinians would allow their leader to accept any sort of deal that would afford them a mere 22% of the land they once had? the deal that arafat refused at camp david 2 in 2000, at the end of clinton's second term, was something he could never accept. the deal, conjured up by dennis ross and israeli officials was tantamount to a slice of swiss cheese. pockets of settlements here, the whole jordan river aquifer there, all to be kept by israel. the issue of water (and the control thereof) is one of the main concerns of both sides.

No, i would have hoped that since Madrid and Oslo the previous palestinian leadership would have accepted what had been pre-negotiated. The West bank and Gaza and compensation in terms of land and money for the few pockets of large israeli settlement in the West Bank.

the disengagement plan is nothing but a scam. nothing will change. israel will still control airspace, all borders, and the coastline. how is a viable palestinian state to exist when one part is not able to communicate with the other (west bank)?

Scam. . . . if it gets 8000 settlers out of Gaza its no scam. Israel will not control the airspace and borders for ever, nor do they want to, but they will until the time that the palestinan authority has centralised all the different security forces, dealt with hamas and islamic jiahad and can guarentee that rockets will not be launched on Israeli cities.

the two state solution is futile. this is one point on which i agree with the psychotic daniel pipes. there can never be a two state solution; what will essentially result of the conflict is a 'de facto' one state solution.

Futile. . . . so what is your solution?

apartheid.

the walls and fences constructed will keep all palestinians confined to ghettos, unable to travel to work, school, anywhere. they will remain second class citizens (i wouldn't even call it that). just look at what happened in south africa not long ago. or even segregation-era america. it wasn't that long ago either.

The only problem i have with the security wall is that it is being built on land Israel has no right to, if you had read any of my previous posts on this subject you would realise that i don't support the occupation of the west bank or gaza strip, but i do think my government has a responsibility to ensure my safety. I have no problem with a ten meter high wall as long as it follows the 1967 borders.

I cant be bothered discussing with you whether Israel is an apartheid state or not, i doubt whether i will ever be able to change your opinion on this. Think what you like!

as for israel, and israeli palestinians, that is a similar issue. anyone (including our president) who is able to call isarel the 'only true democracy in the middle east,' is truly blind. there can be no true democracy in a theocratic state--pure and simple. muslim and christian palestinians living in israel proper are second class citizens. many have assimilated into the society, yet remain marginalized in many cases. the minority in israel is somewhat represented in the knesset--but how can a christian or muslim palestinian bring himself to accept the national charter that states that israel is the homeland for all jews, and still believe he is an equal next to an israeli jew?

As Israels electoral system is proportional representation should all citizens of this country vote then the knesset will reflect the demographics of the country. Plain and simple. Every citizen of this country (defined here for you as pre 1967) has a right to cast their ballot including muslims and christians.

Although i would acknowledge that the situation for some Israeli Arabs is hardly that of 'equal' partners, i also acknowledge that these same human beings have a hell of a lot more freedom and liberty then if they were living in most arab states.

And while were at it, this is probably a good juncture to remind that it was not only 'palestinians' who were displaced after the creation of the state of Israel, over 500,000 Jews were expelled from Arab lands, forced to leave with little more than the clothes on their backs. its funny, when people talk about the refugee crisis created after the state of israel was created they only talk about Palestinians who left/were kicked out (however you wanna read it) of this land never the jews who were expelled from arab nations. Funny that!

the settlers in israel and the occupied territories believe they are fulfilling the will of god. this includes about 187,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, about 20,000 in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, more than 5,000 in the Gaza Strip, and fewer than 177,000 in East Jerusalem (July 2004 est.).

With the modern interpretation of settlers as being those nutters who occupy the west bank and gaza, i'm wondering who you refer to when you talk about the settlers in israel?

I'm done, this has used up far to much of my time and the rest of your diatribe is trash!

[face]

1) good. but i must say that not everyting in my 'diatribe' was addressed in refuting your statements. there was a lot that was just on the subject in general and not in disagreement with what you said.

2) i'm glad you don't think that palestinians called the region transjordan. and i'm glad you agree that the area was indeed carved up by foreign nations abusing their power. but your previous argument that there are no 'palestinians' per se is thereby refuted.

3) as for the land grab i was referring to the creation of the state of israel. indeed after the 1948 war israel had more land than it was alotted by the united nations proposed partition, which palestinians refused. in 1967 the territories occupied by egypt and jordan were taken over by israeli forces. today we could include in 'land grab' category the areas de facto annexed by way of the separation barrier, and the settlements in the west bank and gaza.

4) with regards to displacement of palestinians, in no way did i imply that israel was solely responsible. in fact, the whole point of that section was to elucidate the guilt of european nations. it was rather clear, i thought. moreover, jordan, egypt, lebanon, and syria did not help at all with the refugee problem.

5) like i said before: swiss cheese. there were talks and plenty of accords. i think the height of any glimmer of hope was with rabin, before he was murdered. but my point was that when you look at the camp david 2 accords, which was something that the clinton administration scrapped together at the last minute (just before he stepped down from office) to try and work something out, you can see it was truly half-assed and on the terms of the israelis. you have dennis ross and barak conjuring up a settlement and then handing it over to arafat to sign. the US can't be a legitimate mediator when it's clearly biased. i know that there have been wars and i understand the current situation, but to expect palestinians to quietly or even eagerly accept 1/5 of their land is ludicrous. in terms of international law, if there ever were a peace deal struck allowing for the creation of a palestinian state, how would israel even administer its settlements in the palestinian west bank without infringing on palestine's national sovereignty?

6) yes. the disengagement plan is a scam. even dov weisglass said in an interview in ha'aretz that the plan was a trade-off and distraction from israel's true intentions. as for hamas and islamic jihad, that's a whole can of worms (blah, i just wrote a 25 page paper on popular support for hamas and i don't want to talk about it anymore).

7) yes, futile. i've studied the region and its conflict for years and i still don't claim to be an expert. israel won't give up more than 22% of palestinian land, and many palestinians won't accept this. if you look at the polls conducted in the occupied territories you will see that only about 25% believe there is still hope for the peace process. but apparently about 57% still want a two-state solution to the conflict. there are many polls conducted; i urge you to examine the following sites:

http://www.pcpsr.org/

http://www.jmcc.org/

again, i wasn't directing my entire post at you and i never said you were for the occupation of palestinian lands. it is one thing to say that israel is defending itself, but when you look at it from another perspective you could see how it changes everything. that wall will set the borders and replace the established green line if and when a peace settlement were to be reached. courts in israel as well as international courts have ruled the wall illegal, oh well.

9) yes, people in other arab countries have a tougher time than some palestinians may in israel. but we could compare the relativity of democracies ad infinitum. i don't need any help on this subject as i myself fleed an arab country 10 years ago, to protect my rights, my family, and my life most of all. religious fanaticism will do that! and yes, i am aware of the vast number of jews who fled and/or were chased from their homes in arab countries as far as morocco. it is not only the palestinians who should have the right of return (or compensation should they decline this right), and i certainly hope that such a clause would be included if and when any short-term or final-status agreement is reached.

10) as for my data on settlers, it was actually taken from the central intelligence agency's most up-to-date world factbook, which is available through the agency's website.



that's all i have for now. some issues i did not discuss are the internal differences and conflicts between ashkhenazi, sephardic, oriental and russian jews. or the individual interests of arab dictators interfering in the palestine conflict. or the influence of religious identity in the occupied territories...

and again, this issue could be discussed for ever and ever. what you can see here is a pair of ongoing and conflicting narratives. many of the points i have brought up are clearly stated in israel's national charter, legitimating the state's right to exist and defend itself, etc. on the other hand, palestinians can easily present a valid and convincing counter-argument for each point raised.

so in fact it's really hard to break through the 'spin' and find the actual facts on the ground. what i know is that both peoples coexisted peacefully in the past and it is really a shame that such a tragedy is taking place.


p.s. i'm sorry you thought my diatribe was mostly trash. we all have our inherent biases and it's hard to put them aside, but i thought that some of the things you said needed to be contested. i don't hate you...but that is one evil looking face you're giving me!