Israel

[Torurot]

Two articles clearly ghost written by the Israeli department of disinformation. Poor Israel, and do remember the holocaust, excuse for every egregious act of a terrorist state. Israel right, every other neighbour and the rest of the world (except USA) wrong. Yep I think I have the measure of the direction!

[Guest]

Very nice of you to cut and paste,anyone can do that,but what do YOU think????-Andrew Roberts incidentally describes himself as "extremely right wing" BTW.

Israel is actively pursuing an apartheid state within its borders,with specially designated roads only for Jewish motorists,and inferior roads for the "aboushim"(equivalent to nigger)It keeps the Palestinians deprived of food medicine and building material to rebuild their homes,the IDF terrorise their women and children,and kill them at will (a ratio of 10:1,Palestinian to Jew)

How can any thinking person defend the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians? For Gaza read The Warsaw Ghetto.

[Tomcat]

"Thinking Person" , i choked on me cornflakes there!. Anyone would think we all live by the Ten Commandments.

Morality is in the mind , not carved in stone. What you perceive as the correct moral standpoint may not be the same as mine or indeed anyone elses..Of course you can argue till the cows come home but it proves nothing .

[Guest]

(Tomcat @ Mar. 12 2010,15:18)
"Thinking Person" , i choked on me cornflakes there!. Anyone would think we all live by the Ten Commandments.

Morality is in the mind , not carved in stone. What you perceive as the correct moral standpoint may not be the same as mine or indeed anyone elses..Of course you can argue till the cows come home but it proves nothing .

Ok for "thinking "person substitute decent person.What has morality to do with it?

Everything.

Are you saying might is right?The fact that the Israelis can treat the Palestinians like shit,gives them the right to do so?

Wasn't that the reasoning the Nazis used?

It's simple-treat others like you would like to be treated,thats not a complicated moral standpoint is it?

PS wasnt apartheid in South Africa condemned unilaterally,and ultimately brought down, because it was morally indefensible?

[Tomcat]

Plenty of people are stoned to death each year for adultery, dont see many threads about that.. The fact is you could rant on for ever about perceived injustice in the world.

Civilisation is only skin deep. It dont take much looking back through the history books to work that out.

Bashing up the other guys is Human nature isnt it. Im being realistic here , not moralistic.

[geezer]

The guy was one of the leaders of hamas for fuck sake. He knew the rules when he started to play the game. No point crying now because it didn't work out for him.

I'd also like to point out that when criticising Israel a tatic that is often used by the Israeli's to styfle debate is to label such people "Nazi's." Quite interesting given some posters past comments on this site.

Lastly honest question more about US politics that Israel, but as an outsider it seems to me as though most American Jews vote democrat. I've never really understood why though as it seems the Democrats are much more sympathetic to the plight of the palestinians than the republicans. Is it more of a N.E reigonal thing where the WASPS vote republican and the Jews vote democrate or is there something else in play?

[bill520]

The prevention of Islamic terror is an enormous burden on Israel, but some here seem to think the Israelis have check points to search and interview Palestinians just to harass them, and not to protect themselves. They think the Israelis should let Palestinians walk around Israel with no restraints.
 
   They lost that privilege when they started strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up school busses filled with children,  killing and maiming as many people as possible, then call themselves martyrs or freedom fighters.

 How can you compare the Israelis to Nazis, 5 or 10  years ago Palestinians could walk around Israel with very limited restrictions, but they proved they did not deserve the privilege.
 
  It is not apartheid when you do what you do to protect yourself from Muslim fanatics with bombs strapped to themselves, and no it is not the reason the Nazis used.

  Islam is spreading across the world like a cancer, and trying to appease Muslims gets you nothing.  Daniel Pearl tried cooperating with them you know how that worked out for him. They cut his head off just because he was an American Jew.

   They all seem like nice guys when they live next door to you, Just ask the neighbors of some terrorist who flew planes into the World Trade Center, but it's all just an act.

  Palestinians don't want to live peacefully alongside of the Israelis, They want to eliminated  Israel altogether. They don't walk around in there terrorist uniforms, and carrying cards claiming they are torrorist. They try to blend in with the the rest of the Palestinians.

[whore]

What do you mean they try to blend in with the rest of the Palestinians? Do you mean they are not ALL terrorists. Do you mean that the Israeli blockade of Gaza isnt just starving terrorists?

[blonde_havoc]

(geezer @ Mar. 13 2010,18:24) Lastly honest question more about US politics that Israel, but as an outsider it seems to me as though most American Jews vote democrat. I've never really understood why though as it seems the Democrats are much more sympathetic to the plight of the palestinians than the republicans. Is it more of a N.E reigonal thing where the WASPS vote republican and the Jews vote democrate or is there something else in play?

Yes a majority of American Jews vote democrat. Most Jews in America are seen as "liberal" and a large majority of Jewish politicians are elected as Democrats.

Republicans are not a large and overwhelming presence whatsoever in the North East (or New England, whatever acronym you meant by N.E.) *except* in New Hampshire (though I'm fairly certain Obama won NH in '08 anyway). Pretty much every other state in that area is a solid blue state. One large reason for this is the area's history with unions. There are even certain cities in north New York state where you will not get your trash collected if you are registered as a Republican. Believe it, or not. Therefore, the whole "WASP" angle doesn't really play.

But you're right that American Democrats tend to support the Palestinian side of things more so than the Republicans (although to be honest, there is some mixing. This is the hard side of a two-party system... you can't pigeon-hole everyone, as much as some people on this forum *cough* torurot *cough* would like to).

And before anyone accuses me of being a WASP and saying I have no right to speak on the matter, I'm not Anglo-Saxon and I'm not a Protestant (or any other religion for that matter).

[Guest]

(bill520 @ Mar. 13 2010,21:20) The prevention of Islamic terror is an enormous burden on Israel, but some here seem to think the Israelis have check points to search and interview Palestinians just to harass them, and not to protect themselves. IThey think the Israelis should let Palestinians walk around Israel with no restraints.
 
   They lost that privilege when they started strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up school busses filled with children,  killing and maiming as many people as possible, then call themselves martyrs or freedom fighters.

 How can you compare the Israelis to Nazis, 5 or 10  years ago Palestinians could walk around Israel with very limited restrictions, but they proved they did not deserve the privilege.
 
  It is not apartheid when you do what you do to protect yourself from Muslim fanatics with bombs strapped to themselves, and no it is not the reason the Nazis used.

  Islam is spreading across the world like a cancer, and trying to appease Muslims gets you nothing.  Daniel Pearl tried cooperating with them you know how that worked out for him. They cut his head off just because he was an American Jew.

   They all seem like nice guys when they live next door to you, Just ask the neighbors of some terrorist who flew planes into the World Trade Center, but it's all just an act.

  Palestinians don't want to live peacefully alongside of the Israelis, They want to eliminated  Israel altogether. They don't walk around in there terrorist uniforms, and carrying cards claiming they are torrorist. They try to blend in with the the rest of the Palestinians.

Yes,FYI ,the Israelis do have checkpoints for the sole purpose of harassing and inconvieniencing Palestinians.Anyone who has spent any amount of time in Israel can testify to that.Ive seen them dragging old women out of cars and humiliating them in the name of security(with my own eyes)
  Everyone ive ever spoke to who has spent any time in Israel ,has witnessed similar.
Im not pro-islam,I detest all religions,and the fundamentalists who commit atrocities in the name of their God.BTW,do you remember the fundamentalist jew who went into the Mosque at prayer time and killed scores of moslems?

I think if you were living in the conditions the Palestinians were living in,you might be tempted to strap a bomb to yourself ,and take a few of your opressors with you(im paraphrasing Mrs Tony Blair here)

As for comparing the Israelis to the Nazis,its a fair comparison.Both ideologies,Nazism and Zionism base their beliefs on a racial superiority(for master race read chosen people)Both created ghettos for the "untermensch" to live,both treated them worse than dogs,and both have attempted /are attempting to wipe them from the face of the earth.Up til now,Israel has been very sucessful,their Goebbels like propaganda machine springs into action whenever anyone even criticizes them.There does not  seem to be any critiscism of them at all in the US,at least in Europe we get a fairer view.

Finally,i suggest Palestinians DO want to live peacefully,like we all do,but not at any price.

[Torurot]

A toss up whether to put this here or in the politics thread.

A Passionate Attachment
Taboo Thwarts Candor on Israel / Iran
http://counterpunch.org/mcgovern03122010.html
By RAY McGOVERN Weekend Edition March 12-14, 2010

Participants at an otherwise informative discussion on €œIran at a Crossroads€ at the Senate on Wednesday seemed at pains to barricade the doors against the proverbial elephant being admitted into the room €” in this case, Israel.

This, despite the fact that the agenda virtually dictated that the elephant be allowed in. The cavernous hearing room also could have accommodated it €” however awkward and untidy the atmosphere might have become.

Otherwise, as was entirely predictable, the discussion would be lacking a crucial element. Which is exactly what happened. Which is exactly what always happens.

The tongue-tied impediment displayed by some of the presenters can be chalked up mostly to the all-too-familiar timidity on Capitol Hill to countenance candid discussion of any issue on which Israel can be revealed to be a fly in the ointment.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, obtained use of the hearing room for the organizers of the discussion, the thoroughly professional National Iranian American Council headed by Professor Trita Parsi. This is to Levin€™s credit, in my view.

At the same time, Sen. Levin holds the all-time-high record for PAC contributions from groups affiliated with the self-described €œAmerica€™s Pro-Israel Lobby€ €” the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). I€™m guessing that Levin€™s office may have asked that some caution be exercised, so that it would be difficult for Fox News to misrepresent the proceedings as €œIsrael bashing.€

Setting the Stage

In any case, a truly distinguished panel launched a discussion on €œThe U.S. and Iran: Back to Confrontation?€ which Professor Parsi moderated. The panelists began by setting a fact- and reality-based context, which in turn raised hopes of a no-holds-barred discussion. Their observations included, or implied, the following:

-The status of the U.S. as the €œworld€™s sole remaining superpower€ may have €œturned a corner.€ In many key respects, China, India, Russia and Brazil now represent a rival €œsuperpower€ strong enough to thwart American policy objectives.

-The consequences of nuclear weapons proliferation in the general area of the Persian Gulf would be so truly ominous that €œeverything imaginable€ should be done to head it off.

-The main €œpositive€ of robust sanctions against a country like Iran is simply that those who impose them can feel good. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to target sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps without hurting the Iranian people at large.

-The experience of the past several years demonstrates that the U.S. and Iran share €” and can act on €” a range of common interests (in Afghanistan, for example). Neither country would profit from hostilities involving Iran.

-Iran is nowhere near a nuclear weapon, so there is time to reconsider what guarantees could be offered to Tehran to dissuade it from pursuing a nuclear weapons option.

-No member of Congress has set foot in Iran since 1979.

No Discussion of Implications

With these observations on the table, it was as if the doors to the hearing room were clanked shut and bolted, lest the Israeli elephant be allowed to intrude. And this, despite a palpable yearning in the audience for the panelists to address uncomfortable questions like:

-If there are no intrinsic factors dictating implacable hostility between Iran and the U.S., how does one account for its persistence? What promotes, what feeds it?

There was, of course, the sad history of 1953 when the CIA and British intelligence engineered the overthrow of Iran€™s first democratically elected government, and the outrage of Iran€™s holding 52 American hostages for 444 days at the end of Jimmy Carter€™s presidency.

But aside from those incidents, could the mutual hostility today have anything to do with Israel and its ability to enlist the U.S. behind Israeli strategic objectives?

-Do the Iranian leaders see as contrived the oft-expressed concern that Iran might eventually obtain a nuclear weapon, when American officials do nothing about Israel€™s actual nuclear weapons, or for that matter, those of Pakistan and India?

-Is the real objective of Israel and, by extension, the U.S. the same as it was with respect to Iraq seven years ago €” that is, €œregime change€? (How I dislike using the euphemism in vogue for what we used to call overthrowing governments!)

Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton let drop last month that, even if Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, this does not €œdirectly€ threaten the United States.

-Is it true, as one of the panelists asserted, that €œNo one believes that the Green (opposition) movement in Iran is supported by outside forces; that rather it is clearly an entirely indigenous, spontaneous movement?€

Into the memory hole went past news reports about the Bush administration earmarking $400 million to support covert operations designed to frustrate Iran€™s nuclear program and to destabilize its political system. Also unmentionable were troubling reports that the United States has helped €œgood€ terrorist organizations, like Jundullah, to strike violent blows against Iran€™s regime.

-Is it a given, as one afternoon panelist suggested, that €œEveryone knows that the Israelis would not use their considerable nuclear arsenal except in self-defense€? It seems that when Israel is mentioned in these affairs, commentary must be only in the most positive light; there can be no suggestion that Israel might use, say, bunker-busting tactical nukes to destroy hardened Iranian targets.

-Does the Israeli government honestly perceive an €œexistential threat€ in Iran€™s possible acquisition of a few nuclear weapons against the 200-300 devices already in Israel€™s arsenal? If so, is Israel prepared to €œdefend itself€ by attacking Iran€™s nuclear facilities, using the preventive-war justification which has long been a staple of Israeli policy, and was adopted kit and caboodle by Bush and Cheney?

-Are the Israelis counting on U.S. logistical support for such a preventive attack €”intelligence and operational planning support of the kind that enabled its surgical strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981? Are they expecting the kind of political support the United States provided in the wake of Israel€™s September 2007 attack on a suspect nuclear-related facility being built in Syria?

-Why is it that former Ambassador Robert Hunter, now an adviser to RAND and himself a passionate opponent of nuclear proliferation, can endorse the idea of a €œnuclear-free Middle East,€ and then with a wan smile simply throw up his hands lamenting that that€™s never going to happen. Why must this proposal be banned from the category of €œeverything imaginable,€ simply because €œeveryone is sure€ that Israel would never go along?

-If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu feels he can thumb his nose at the U.S. President (and Vice President) on the signal issue of Israeli settlements, is there reason to believe that Netanyahu is inclined to take into account repeated €œplease pleas€ from the likes of Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, who has warned the Israelis publicly that an attack on Iran would be a €œbig, big, big problem for all of us?€

-Was this week€™s chutzpah-laden Israeli announcement of new settlement construction in East Jerusalem €“ in the midst of a visit by Vice President Joe Biden €“ a case of what one might call €œpractice mouse trapping,€ to test whether the Obama administration really has the toughness to push back in a meaningful way?

Ambassador Hunter was accompanied on the afternoon panel by prolific writer, Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan, and Robert Malley, who served in senior positions at President Bill Clinton€™s National Security Council and is now Program Director for Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group in Washington, D.C.

All three have a wealth of experience on the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and this gave rise to eventually dashed expectations of a more candid discussion of several related issues as they impinge on Iranian interests.

There are, of course, limits to what can be covered in an hour and a quarter. Still, there did seem to be distinct reluctance to include Israel in any discussion of the political obstacles preventing sensible accommodation between Tehran and Washington.

No doubt the main obstacle can be traced to the timeworn €œpassionate attachment€ of U.S. leaders to Israel€™s perceived interests, and the tendency to view them as identical to those of the United States. This politically and emotionally sensitive issue needs to be addressed openly and without fear€”in the interest of Israeli, as well as Iranian and American citizens.

If Not Now, When?

Granted, volunteering to sponsor such a discussion would be seen as the kiss of death for the vast majority of lawmakers. But can it be that there is no group, no think tank with courage enough to arrange such a forum? For it truly needs to be done, and quickly, somewhere €” whether permitted in a Senate office building, or not.

Without free discussion and greater understanding, there is virtually no prospect of lessened tensions. Rather, the volatile situation seems likely to get still worse, and could even include an Israeli provocation and/or a preventive strike on Iran.

Here Admiral Mullen is right; such actions would constitute a €œbig, big, big problem for all of us.€

Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 year. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is a contributor to Imperial Crusades: Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair (Verso). He can be reached at: [email protected]

A shorter version of this article appeared at Consortiumnews.com.

[Torurot]

When do you suppose that the USA (for e.g) is going to SCREAM that Israel should allow IAEA free and unimpeded inspections of ALL it's nuclear functions??

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profil...lear/3635.html

[rossco]

Interesting

First distinguish between 'Religion' and 'Nation'.

Israel is a Nation as is Iran, Iraq, Indonesia

Judaism and Islam are religions.

Religion. I have no objection to anyone practicing their faith anywhere as long as it does not impede on my Civil liberties and the law of the country that I reside in.

I do have objection to Nations who practice atrocities. Israel did use phosphorous bombs last year.
These are banned unilaterally and Israel was part of that agreement.
Israel is a tough nation and does, in my opinion, use unrealistic counter measures.
Israel has never complied with the 1967 UN treaty.

We are constantly reminded of the Holocaust - every year Hollywood reminds us:
Schindlers List
The Pianist
The Reader

It is now 65 years since the end of WWII and 62 years since the creation of the Israel state.
The state was created at a time when the Allied powers were tired of war (1938-1945) and felt guilt over the damage done to so many innocents. Unfortunately Gypsies were not given a home land, nor were homosexuals, cripples etc etc

Many nations with an Islamic religion majority are also guilty of atrocities and I do not support that position.

Why has there been an 'uprising' from these Islamic nations? Perhaps too much favoritism to Israel.
The issue with Islam nations only arose in more recent times.

Israel has the 4th or maybe 6th most powerful air force in the world and a fairly sophisticated armory. If I was a neighbor I would be nervous.

The Jewish (religion) lobby is one of the most powerful within the US which does allow them an advantage.

Remember Begin and others were once terrorists.

I do believe that the pro Israel lobby in the US has fermented the anti west opinion in Islamic countries.

I worked in the Middle East, prior to the initial gulf war - justified on the basis of Iraq invading a neighbor. I found all the Arabs, that I met, hospitable and honest in business.

So what happened in the 1980's to intensify the problem.

I do wish there was a peaceful solution but it will take both parties to bury the hatchet, accept their historical indiscretions and seek a truce. Bulldozing and invading Gaza is NOT a good start.

If you push someone they will push back - fundamentalism.

I do find Israel's current tactics and diplomacy to be totalitarian.

Ironically both Judaism and Islam (and Christianity) all have common precepts - it is the current leaders who choose to interpret and then attack.

Just my 2 cents worth - or rubels or sheckles or whatever

[Tomcat]

(rossco @ Mar. 15 2010,22:33) The issue with Islam nations only arose in more recent times.

The Crusades , The Ottoman Empire.  

If it wasnt for the Teutonic Knights you would probably be speaking Turkish now
Wheres Vlad the Impaler when you need him

[rossco]

Yes and George W in his inimitable diplomatic style used the word Crusade to substantiate his war on terrorism - smart move!

Yes the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire and the British Empire and the Chinese Empire and the ..........

All existed - BUT that is history - ancient history. The current problems are modern history and have only emerged in the last 30 years. The issue is TODAY and finding a peaceful and equilibrium solution - should we all start wearing Red Crosses on our T shirts and emulate the Crusades?

It is interesting that the Crusades were not just against Islamic tribes but Judaism as well - check the history of York in the North of England and the purge/persecution of Jews.

Obviously the point missed the mark -
* Separate Religion from Nation
* Comprehend the dynamics of the modern world
* Understand the inept US policy in the region due to lobbyists

I have met many eminent Jews and eminent Muslims
I have also met many terrific Israelis and Arabs

Likewise I have met the fundamentalists in both camps.

I am sure the Iraqi people, today, really appreciate all the assistance the West have given the population! Democracy - but Western style - great for Mac Do's and Starbuck franchises but hardly comprehended the basic tribal issues. Most US citizens have no idea about Sunni Shiite & Kurd. Mind you they did decimate, historically, their own indigenous population

The issue is not about 'beating up' on one faction or the other but recent events have been molded by Western prejudice.

For the record the Islamic hordes did actually make it as far North as Poitiers in France and occupied most of Spain - Spain owes a great deal to its historical architecture to this time BUT that IS history.

By the way if Hitler had won the UK would not be celebrating winning the World Cup in 1966!
If Stalin had his way it would be Spasiba from me and Spasiba from him

My concern is for the modern world - the one we all live in today.

Israel, as a Nation, not a religion, does have some serious questions to answer. Human rights, breach of UN resolutions/treaties, invasion of territory. Many other countries also have questions to answer:

Ethiopia
Chad
Zimbabwe
etc

History should be the teacher not the reason to continue. The issue on the board is that Israel has exceeded its limits. This I concur.