The Hezbollah and Israel

[Leyla Shen]

millipodium wrote:

But leyla, don't you think the mythological homeland of the jews is worth it? They're god's chosen people, haven't you heard?

I know I should take the advice of those on this forum that are not “inanely masculine” since I am obviously a deluded anti-Semite woman of Ottoman descent (could you get any worse?) British subject, permanent resident of Australia but -- just between you and me -- no, I don’t. (Man, if I were to build an army, I reckon I'd have grounds to claim the whole world, let alone a single country.)

How can any sane person think so?

I have asked but all I get in return is that, “Muslims are emotional, religious fanatics,” and “Well, Palestinians can find another place to live, why should Israelites?” and a few trite remarks in the same vein -- as if that is supposed to satisfy anyone who thinks.

I might‘ve been more interested in discussing the impact on Western energy resources in relation to the existence of Israel in its current geopolitical/geographical position. So many seem to want to make this Islam that they can‘t even begin to wonder what might really be driving the US -- hegemony, oil -- and Europe, even if in politically opposed directions -- that is, minus the hegemony.

There are plenty of declassified NSC memoranda for those who are interested in Middle Eastern affairs and US Foreign Policy. Course, there are plenty too that have not yet been declassified…

But, naturally, we ignorant goyim must confine our arguments within these parameters: Muslim fanaticism and US/Israeli “democratic” righteousness. We are the free democracies of the world, after all.

What selfless martyrs these Jews must be that they will stand firm with heavy US military and financial aid in the name of righteousness and democracy for the good of such an ungrateful world.

They must be a race of fully enlightened Buddhas.

.

[Edit for clarity.]

[MKFaizi]

Kind of interesting that no one has replied to Dan's long post. In fact, since that post, this thread seems to be disintegrating rapidly into personal exchanges.

Faizi

[Tharan]

Why should I reply to Dan's long post? It is an expose from religious texts, as if exposure to religious lunacy were necessary to the members of this board. I was speaking of relevant military history that paralleled the charges of sadististly glutonous child murder by the Jews in this modern crisis. Of the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism is the least Messianic and fanatical.

And the red herring of "could not the Jews find another place to live" completely disregards the issue of Jerusalem and its religious status. In terms of irrational emotionalism, the Jews have an equal claim to it as do the Muslims. When childish emotionalism is the prime motivator, blood will spill. The incessant whining and moralizing over the outcomes only displays how correct my assessment is on the matter.

[Matt Gregory]

Diebert, I generally like what you write, but am I really supposed to respond to "I heard that Isreali pilots eat live kittens" or something similar?

Please explain for our dear readers WHY Israel occupied southern Lebanon. Was it for treasure? Women? Oil?

Land, of course. Why wouldn't they continue seizing land like they've always done? I mean, expansion is the whole purpose of Israel's existence, is it not?

[Tharan]

That would imply Isreali settlements in Southern Lebanon. Can you back up your claim with actual examples, Mr. Gregory?

[Matt Gregory]

Gaza? West Bank? Israel? They could conceivably begin settling in Lebanon in the future by creating buffer zones and settling in them, creating more buffer zones, etc.

[Matt Gregory]

I mean, the whole purpose of Zionism is to create a new state, so I don't think it's far-fetched at all to assume that expansionism is a primary part of their M.O.

[MKFaizi]

Tharan wrote:

Why should I reply to Dan's long post? It is an expose from religious texts, as if exposure to religious lunacy were necessary to the members of this board.

It does seem necessary since the presumption of this mostly enlightened board has been that Israel is the innocent victim. This board is willing to acknowledge partially that Christianity is lunacy and that Islam is the religion of bestiality. But it uplifts Israel as a land of atheism and enlightenment. Israel can do anything in defense, even slaughtering children -- and that is all right because they are defending themselves against the monster Arabs and Shi'ites.

Why should you reply to Dan's post? You should not.

However, I can imagine the response to it if it exposed the idiocy of the Koran. There would be a great outpouring of wrath -- the seventy two virgins; martyrdom. Much agreement.

There is no such stomach for acknowledgment of Jewish fundamentalism. For some reason that is beyond my understanding, rather than to acknowledge that, one would prefer sticking his head in the sand.

THE JEWS ARE BETTER!! THEY DO NOT COMMITT ACTS OF BARBARISM!! THEY ARE CIVILIZED LIKE US!! THEY MAKE MONEY! THEY ARE EDUCATED!!

It astonishes me how Jews are not held accountable for tribalism and atrocious acts.

What would happen if Al Qaeda invaded Israel or Iran invaded? There would be a great uproar.

BAD ISLAMICS!! TERRIBLE FANATICS!!

Why is Jewish fanaticism all right?

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Tharan wrote:

disregards the issue of Jerusalem and its religious status.

Why does a people of much atheism -- as asserted -- care about its religious status?

Faizi

[Ryan Rudolph]

Leyla wrote:

I might‘ve been more interested in discussing the impact on Western energy resources in relation to the existence of Israel in its current geopolitical/geographical position. So many seem to want to make this Islam that they can‘t even begin to wonder what might really be driving the US -- hegemony, oil -- and Europe, even if in politically opposed directions -- that is, minus the hegemony.

Here is an interesting article, I dont know how much truth is in it, it is in bits and pieces so it maybe difficult to absorb:

There appears to be a relationship between the bombing of Lebanon and the inauguration of one the world’s largest strategic pipelines that will channel more than a million barrels of oil a day to Western markets.

The Ceyhan-Tblisi-Baku (BTC) oil pipeline, which links the Caspian sea to the Eastern Mediterranean, took place on the 13th of July, at the very outset of the Israeli sponsored bombings of Lebanon.

One day before the Israeli air strikes, the main partners and shareholders of the BTC pipeline project, including several heads of State and oil company executives were in attendance at the port of Ceyhan. They were then rushed off for an inauguration reception in Istanbul, hosted by Turkey's President Ahmet Necdet Sezer in the plush surroundings of the Çýraðan Palace.

Also in attendance was British Petroleum's (BP) CEO, Lord Browne together with senior government officials from Britain, the US and Israel. BP leads the BTC pipeline consortium. Other major Western shareholders include Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, France's Total and Italy's ENI. (see Annex)

Israel's Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Binyamin Ben-Eliezer was present at the venue together with a delegation of top Israeli oil officials.

The BTC pipeline totally bypasses the territory of the Russian Federation. It transits through the former Soviet republics of Azerbaijan and Georgia, both of which have become US "protectorates", firmly integrated into a military alliance with the US and NATO. Moreover, both Azerbaijan and Georgia have longstanding military cooperation agreements with Israel.

Israel has a stake in the Azeri oil fields, from which it imports some twenty percent of its oil. The opening of the pipeline will substantially enhance Israeli oil imports from the Caspian sea basin.

But there is another dimension which directly relates to the war on Lebanon. Whereas Russia has been weakened, Israel is slated to play a major strategic role in "protecting" the Eastern Mediterranean transport and pipeline corridors out of Ceyhan.
The bombing of Lebanon is part of a carefully planned and coordinated military road map. The extension of the war into Syria and Iran has already been contemplated by US and Israeli military planners. This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil and oil pipelines. It is supported by the Western oil giants which control the pipeline corridors. In the context of the war on Lebanon, it seeks Israeli territorial control over the East Mediterranean coastline.

In this context, the BTC pipeline dominated by British Petroleum, has dramatically changed the geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean, which is now linked , through an energy corridor, to the Caspian sea basin:

"[The BTC pipeline] considerably changes the status of the region's countries and cements a new pro-West alliance. Having taken the pipeline to the Mediterranean, Washington has practically set up a new bloc with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Israel, " (Komerzant, Moscow, 14 July 2006)
Israel is now part of the Anglo-American military axis, which serves the interests of the Western oil giants in the Middle East and Central Asia.

While the official reports state that the BTC pipeline will "channel oil to Western markets", what is rarely acknowledged is that part of the oil from the Caspian sea would be directly channeled towards Israel. In this regard, an underwater Israeli-Turkish pipeline project has been envisaged which would link Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon and from there through Israel's main pipeline system, to the Red Sea.

The objective of Israel is not only to acquire Caspian sea oil for its own consumption needs but also to play a key role in re-exporting Caspian sea oil back to the Asian markets through the Red Sea port of Eilat. The strategic implications of this re-routing of Caspian sea oil are farreaching.

What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel's Tipline, from Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon. In April 2006, Israel and Turkey announced plans for four underwater pipelines, which would bypass Syrian and Lebanese territory.

"Turkey and Israel are negotiating the construction of a multi-million-dollar energy and water project that will transport water, electricity, natural gas and oil by pipelines to Israel, with the oil to be sent onward from Israel to the Far East,
Diverting Central Asian oil and gas to the Eastern Mediterranean (under Israeli military protection), for re-export back to Asia, serves to undermine the inter-Asian energy market, which is based on the development of direct pipeline corridors linking Central Asia and Russia to South Asia, China and the Far East.
Ultimately, this design is intended to weaken Russia's role in Central Asia and cut off China from Central Asian oil resources. It is also intended to isolate Iran.

Meanwhile, Israel has emerged as a new powerful player in the global energy market.

Meanwhile, Moscow has responded to the US-Israeli-Turkish design to militarize the East Mediterranean coastline with plans to establish a Russian naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus:
"Defense Ministry sources point out that a naval base in Tartus will enable Russia to solidify its positions in the Middle East and ensure security of Syria. Moscow intends to deploy an air defense system around the base - to provide air cover for the base itself and a substantial part of Syrian territory.
(S-300PMU-2 Favorit systems will not be turned over to the Syrians. They will be manned and serviced by Russian personnel.)

Moreover, Moscow and Damascus have reached an agreement on the modernization of Syria's air defenses as well as a program in support to its ground forces, the modernization of its MIG-29 fighters as well as its submarines. (Kommerzant, 2 June 2006). In the context of an escalating conflict, these developments have farreaching implications.

Prior to the bombing of Lebanon, Israel and Turkey had announced the underwater pipeline routes, which bypassed Syria and Lebanon. These underwater pipeline routes do not overtly encroach on the territorial sovereignty of Lebanon and Syria.

On the other hand, the development of alternative land based corridors (for oil and water) through Lebanon and Syria would require Israeli-Turkish territorial control over the Eastern Mediterranean coastline through Lebanon and Syria.

The implementation of a land-based corridor, as opposed to the underwater pipeline project, would require the militarisation of the East Mediterranean coastline, extending from the port of Ceyhan across Syria and Lebanon to the Lebanese-Israeli border.

Is this not one of the hidden objectives of the war on Lebanon? Open up a space which enables Israel to control a vast territory extending from the Lebanese border through Syria to Turkey.
Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert has stated that the Israeli offensive against Lebanon would "last a very long time". Meanwhile, the US has speeded up weapons shipments to Israel.

There are strategic objectives underlying the "Long War" which are tied to oil and oil pipelines.

The air campaign against Lebanon is inextricably related to US-Israeli strategic objectives in the broader Middle East including Syria and Iran. In recent developments, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice stated that the main purpose of her mission to the Middle East was not to push for a ceasefire in Lebanon, but rather to isolate Syria and Iran.

[MKFaizi]

Replying to Comic's latest writing:

None of it made any sense.

Faizi

[Jamesh]

Why should I reply to Dan's long post? It is an expose from religious texts, as if exposure to religious lunacy were necessary to the members of this board. I was speaking of relevant military history that paralleled the charges of sadististly glutonous child murder by the Jews in this modern crisis. Of the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism is the least Messianic and fanatical.

Yeah, but it was still interesting. If the Talmud is so clearly intrinisically inane for the modern world, as is the Koran, and indeed the bible, then why is there such a marked difference between these three groupings of believers?

In the end it has to come down to differences in IQ's (IQ defined as the ability to process information in order to obtain some form of lasting benefit).

One thing it shows is that consistent and frequent forced access to varities of opinion (as the Jews historically have experienced whereever they may reside) will provide a higher group IQ.

It also shows the folly of emotion - historically there has been a greater requirement for the Jews (as a sum) to evaluate their emotions and to control the influence of such emotions where not doing so would potentially result in some form of retailiation from non-jews.

It also shows that women do make a difference in controlling the control related emotions of male would-be-kings in the jewish religion, but count hardly at all in the Muslim religion. I wonder to what degree the relevent religious texts differ in their respective misogenic content. The Muslim religion creates no barriers to the extremes of male insanity - hence there countries have so over the top fuckwits like the Iranian president.

Of course, I have yet to decide if centuries of people living in a hot dry climate is the underlying most significant cause of the lack of male emotional control that we see in the middle East and Affrica.

[Leyla Shen]

Tharan??

And the red herring of "could not the Jews find another place to live" completely disregards the issue of Jerusalem and its religious status. In terms of irrational emotionalism, the Jews have an equal claim to it as do the Muslims.

So, you are saying that the reason Israel should be created as a country where it is is because its in the Bible and the Hebrew Scriptures -- because God says so, and because if they can do it, so can we?

When childish emotionalism is the prime motivator, blood will spill. The incessant whining and moralizing over the outcomes only displays how correct my assessment is on the matter.

How arrogant, egoistic and ignorant of you to imply your correctness when I (and many, many others) have been sending this message all along. There is one difference, though. You are still pro-Israeli on the issue rather than pro-reason -- just like Kevin, the Jews AND any Muslim who argues on the same grounds.

I shall repeat the same fundamental question: is this the only (let alone contemplating a rational one) argument you have for the existence of Israel in its current location?

.

[Kevin Solway]

My argument for the existence of Israel in its current location is the fact that it currently exists there.

I don't particularly care why it is there, just as I don't particularly care why the nation of Australia is where it is. The invasion of Australia by Europeans may or may not have been justified. But it happened. And it is not practical to turn back the clock.

[Kevin Solway]

P.S. It has been said that Israel is not seriously under threat, due to its superior military and economic might. But if the enemies of Israel are able to kill, say, 30 to 60 Israelis every day for a sustained period, through a combination of suicide bombers, mortar shelling, rockets, etc, then that would be the equivalent to the destruction of Israel through a direct military assault.

[Leyla Shen]

Kevin wrote:

My argument for the existence of Israel in its current location is the fact that it currently exists there.

Hm. I wouldn’t call that an argument, really. Like you said, that’s just a reality. Otherwise, what is the basis for your argument (?) that the Palestinians -- who also currently exist there -- simply find somewhere else to go? (You're aware that the Israelis -- under Sharon -- went into Southern Lebanon and slaughtered hundreds of Palestinian refugees there, right?)

I don't particularly care why it is there, just as I don't particularly care why the nation of Australia is where it is. The invasion of Australia by Europeans may or may not have been justified. But it happened. And it is not practical to turn back the clock.

P.S. It has been said that Israel is not seriously under threat, due to its superior military and economic might. But if the enemies of Israel are able to kill, say, 30 to 60 Israelis every day for a sustained period, through a combination of suicide bombers, mortar shelling, rockets, etc, then that would be the equivalent to the destruction of Israel through a direct military assault.

So you are saying that it is practical for the US to continue to fund Israel but not for the US to fund the Palestinians -- why?

.

[millipodium]

Why should I reply to Dan's long post? It is an expose from religious texts, as if exposure to religious lunacy were necessary to the members of this board. I was speaking of relevant military history that paralleled the charges of sadististly glutonous child murder by the Jews in this modern crisis. Of the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism is the least Messianic and fanatical.

Actually judaism is quite fanatical. They still believe they are gods chosen people. And even if one wants to subscribe to their world view, they can only hope the be a righteious gentile, noahide, never a full jew. At least muslims offer full membership to those who want it. The noahide laws are a recipe for global elitist theocracy.

And the red herring of "could not the Jews find another place to live" completely disregards the issue of Jerusalem and its religious status.

Red herring? Why is it a red herring to suggest jews live somewhere else. Actually it's the most reasonable solution for cessation of violence.

[Kevin Solway]

You're aware that the Israelis -- under Sharon -- went into Southern Lebanon and slaughtered hundreds of Palestinian refugees there, right?

As I say, in a war situation, and when people feel their lives are under threat, it is natural for such things to happen. Fear and hate is par for the course when you are under attack.

So you are saying that it is practical for the US to continue to fund Israel but not for the US to fund the Palestinians -- why?

I think Palestinians should also have a funded and separate homeland, if that is what they want. It's not for me to tell the US whom to fund. It looks to me as though the US is stretched just supporting the defense of Israel, without doing any more.

There are of course many Arabs and Muslims who are happy to be Israelis. But those who want a separate state, and call themselves Palestinians, have got their work cut out for them if they want to create that state out of Israel. It's their right to try to dissolve the state of Israel if they want to - I just think it is a waste of time and life.

[millipodium]

You're aware that the Israelis -- under Sharon -- went into Southern Lebanon and slaughtered hundreds of Palestinian refugees there, right?

As I say, in a war situation, and when people feel their lives are under threat, it is natural for such things to happen. Fear and hate is par for the course when you are under attack.

You mean like when powerful nations take your land and give it to others? I agree. Hatred is understandable in these situations.

[Dan Rowden]

My argument for the existence of Israel in its current location is the fact that it currently exists there.

I don't particularly care why it is there, just as I don't particularly care why the nation of Australia is where it is. The invasion of Australia by Europeans may or may not have been justified. But it happened. And it is not practical to turn back the clock.

Hmm, I can't decide whether to agree with this or reject it wholesale. It's quite a pickle to be in, frankly. I actually do agree with the first statement. Israel simply isn't going to go away and those Arabs who have a problem with that need to get over themselves. However, one has to be careful not to fall victim to political hyperbole and believe that the actual desctruction of Israel is a seriously intended outcome for other than a minority of silly people. As to not caring why or how Israel got to be there - that part I find a little misguided. Israel was created within living memory for a lot of people. That makes it somewhat of a contemporary issue unlike the colonisation of Australia. That comparison is a bit too trite for my tastes. Also, the creation of Israel has created the whole Palestinian issue. It can hardly be dismissed as irrelevant to the current state of affairs. In short, there is still important unfinished business with respect to that nation. It may sometimes be sensible to ignore history. Sometimes it is stupid to ignore it.

For example, it's not an insignificant point that Israel's creation was conditional upon certain things. On of those things was General Assembly Resolution 194, Dec. 11, 1948 "Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel.": "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

Israel has consistently ignored that resolution. It's funny how we just blithely ignore it too, and yet, we were happy to argue that Iraq has never really stopped being at war with us because the Gulf War ceasefire was conditional on Iraq acceding to certain UN resolutions (which they supposedly, but not in actuality, ignored). The West's hypocrisy is sufficiently blatant for me to almost be impressed by it. If one wants to get a fair indication of Israel's behaviour over the years, all one has to do is look over the littany of UN resloutions against it (and look into the circumstances of them as well). To be fair, there is one from '48 that the Arabs states have stupidly ignored as well, which is that of recognising Israel. A list of those resolutions and a brief description of each can be found here: Resolutions concerning Israel

And it's worth nothing that there are Jewish organisations in and out of Israel that object to the occupation of territories not owned by Israel and also of their oppression of the Palestinians. One such is the New York based Jews Against the Occupation whose mission statement contains:

Our Mission

Jews Against the Occupation is an organization of progressive, secular and religious Jews of all ages throughout the New York City area advocating peace through justice for Palestine and Israel. Our points of unity are as follows:

NO OCCUPATION IN OUR NAME

We as American Jews reject the Israeli government assertion that it is "necessary" to subjugate Palestinians for the sake of keeping Jews safe. We assert that security can only come from mutual respect, and that the occupation of Palestine is only worsening the position of Jews in the Middle East and around the world.

RESTORE HUMAN & CIVIL RIGHTS

The Israeli military fires bone-crushing rubber bullets and live ammunition at unarmed Palestinian civilians engaged in peaceful protest, failing to distinguish between peaceful and violent resistance. The Israeli government has been demolishing Palestinian houses and crops in the Occupied Territories, while allowing Jewish settlers -- many of them American -- to illegally occupy the same land.

END U.S. AID TO ISRAEL

The U.S. government provides more aid to Israel than to any other country—the vast majority of this is for military purposes. Billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have propped up the occupation and fueled the Israeli government’s war machine (as well as disguising the occupation’s true cost). This aid must end.

STOP ECONOMIC ATTACKS ON PALESTINE

The Israeli government has attacked the Palestinian economy by: closing Palestinian banks; imposing extreme taxes on business; withdrawing operating licenses; destroying industrial equipment; bulldozing farmland and banning fishing; restricting workers' movement; controlling the export of Palestinian goods; closing the borders of the Occupied Territories; and refusing to fund infrastructure like water and electricity -- even in Arab villages within Israel.

LET PALESTINIANS RETURN HOME

Thousands of Palestinians were driven out of their houses and off of their farms during and after the creation of Israel. They must be allowed to return to their homeland.

ANTI-SEMITISM VS. CRITIQUES OF ISRAEL

Jews Against the Occupation stands firmly against anti-Semitism and racism in all its forms. We see our historical struggle against anti- Semitism--a cornerstone of European white supremacist ideology--as inherently linked to all struggles against oppression. We therefore stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people in their struggle for freedom.

Judaism is a cultural and religious identity, which must not be equated with Zionism, a political movement. Criticism of the state of Israel, its policies, or the idea of a Jewish state does not by itself constitute anti-Semitism. Dismissing critics of Israel or of Zionism as "anti-Semitic" is a means of stifling debate and masking the impact of the occupation.

-------------------------------
To ignore the Palestinian issue is to pretty much to ignore the whole damn point.

Kevin also wrote:

As I say, in a war situation, and when people feel their lives are under threat, it is natural for such things to happen. Fear and hate is par for the course when you are under attack.

This is true as far as it goes, but you also used this same argument with respect to the 13 year old girl who was mercilessly slain by and IDF dingbat, who was not only not charged with any serious offense but who was acquitted of the petty charges he actually had against him. I find that argument rather glib. Those stations around Gaza are heavily armed. They are not subject to attack on a regular basis. The soldiers are simply not at mortal risk every day. In short, they are not in a war situation. Gaza is essentially the world's largest detention camp. It is the Palestinians who are in everyday mortal danger and who have to put up with cufews, tanks constantly rolling through suburban streets, low level Jet Fighter flyovers and various other forms of harrassment. These are not defenseive strategies on the part of Israel; they are blatant acts of repression. This is not merely my opinion, it is an opinion shared by people who are there, many of them Israelis.

Bottom line - there was zero reason for that IDF offcier to slay that young girl. There was even less reason for him to have been let off Scot free. And whilst I agree that horrible things do happen, and are bound to happen in actual war scenarios, that sentiment can also be used as a mere pretext for plain murderous intent. The incident Leyla is alluding to is one such case.

Tharan aso wrote:

Of the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism is the least Messianic and fanatical.

How do you figure that, because Jewry has developed a certain secular theme in some parts of the world? Judaism is deeply messianic (or at least has been since the time of the Prophets).

"Belief in the eventual coming of the Messiah (moshiach) is a basic and fundamental part of traditional Judaism. It is part of Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith, the minimum requirements of Jewish belief. In the Shemoneh Esrei prayer, recited three times daily, we pray for all of the elements of the coming of the moshiach: ingathering of the exiles; restoration of the religious courts of justice; an end of wickedness, sin and heresy; reward to the righteous; rebuilding of Jerusalem; restoration of the line of King David; and restoration of Temple service." [Wiki]


Dan Rowden

[Dan Rowden]

P.S. It has been said that Israel is not seriously under threat, due to its superior military and economic might.

And it simply isn't. Even when faced with simultaneous attacks from multiple neighbours, Israel has suffered far less death and destruction than said neighbours.

But if the enemies of Israel are able to kill, say, 30 to 60 Israelis every day for a sustained period, through a combination of suicide bombers, mortar shelling, rockets, etc, then that would be the equivalent to the destruction of Israel through a direct military assault.

Wow, that's some hypothetical. But maybe you should have picked a bigger number to make your point. A death rate of 60 per day would take 320 years at Israel's current population. But Israel probably has something more than war to worry about. The Muslim birth rate in Israel is twice that of Jews. The Muslims will eventually prevail not by dropping bombs, but by dropping sprogs. Such a strategy is not the sole province of Catholics and Mormons...


Dan Rowden

[Jamesh]

Jews Against the Occupation - yeah scanned through that earlier today. I'd prefer some bettwer idea of who these people are - as they don't seem to identify themselves on the site they could really be anyone.

It really becomes too difficult to know who to believe - this site for example has markedly different views of history.

history of jews in Arab countries

Eternal_Capital_of_the_Jews - in this article a Moslem cleric points out some interesting things apparently contained in the Koran.

"According to the Koran, no person, people or religious community can claim a permanent right of possession over a certain territory, since the earth belongs exclusively to God, Who is free to entrust sovereign right to everyone He likes and for as long as He likes:"

Say: O God, King of the kingdom, Thou givest the kingdom to whom Thou pleasest, and Thou strippest off the kingdom from whom Thou pleasest. Thou endurest with honor whom Thou pleasest, and Thou bringest low whom Thou pleasest. All the best is in Thy hand. Verily, Thou hast power over all things. (Koran, Sura 3:26, "The Imrans")

[Dan Rowden]

That view is also consistent, however, with the view of Orthodox Jewry. Many Orthodox Jews do not believe in the current state of Israel and that they cannot come together em masse until such time as God deems fit - presumably via the Jewish messiah.

[David Quinn]

Dan Rowden wrote:

Kevin: It has been said that Israel is not seriously under threat, due to its superior military and economic might.

Dan: And it simply isn't. Even when faced with simultaneous attacks from multiple neighbours, Israel has suffered far less death and destruction than said neighbours.

Isn't Israel waging this war out of fear of Iran? We all know that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons and that its leader has explicitly said he desires the elimination of Israel from the face of the planet. I would say that Israel is feeling very threatened at the moment.

One of Iran's religious leaders even said last week that a nuclear exchange bwteen Iran and Israel would be permissible, even if it comes at a great cost to Iran, provided that Israel is eliminated once and for all. That would surely make your knees quiver if you were an Israeli.

-

[Kevin Solway]

one has to be careful not to fall victim to political hyperbole and believe that the actual desctruction of Israel is a seriously intended outcome for other than a minority of silly people.

That "minority of silly people" seems to include the leadership of Iran, probably all of Hezbollah, etc. I'm not convinced it is just bluff on their part.

1948 "Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel.":

Do they still have that right to return if they want to start setting explosives at the first opportunity? I don't think it's such a simple case.

I notice that the next part excludes refugees who are militant and who do not wish to live in peace.

. . . "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date"

It's not easy to decide which refugees want to live at peace, and which are militant.

there was zero reason for that IDF offcier to slay that young girl.

I don't have enough information to decide on that issue.

If he felt he was in a state of war, and if he was filled with fear and hate as a result of that, then he might have had a "reason" - through the induced insanity.

People working on those checkpoints are in an extremely vulnerable position, and probably get death threats every day.

But if the enemies of Israel are able to kill, say, 30 to 60 Israelis every day for a sustained period, through a combination of suicide bombers, mortar shelling, rockets, etc, then that would be the equivalent to the destruction of Israel through a direct military assault.

Wow, that's some hypothetical. But maybe you should have picked a bigger number to make your point. A death rate of 60 per day would take 320 years at Israel's current population.

For the destruction of Israel it wouldn't necessitate killing all of its occupants. If you can make life uncomfortable enough for Israelis by periodically killing someone they know, and by disrupting their normal life, then you could destroy the state in a few years.