8 Children Killed in Israeli Attack

[orange]

I read your post the first time, thank you, but it was even funnier the second time.

[Shiber]

Orange, which post were you referring to and what was so funny about it?

P.S. Is that the Metroid logo there? Hey, another Metroid fan! How're ya doing!

[Shiber]

It was just declassified this morning that Sh'hada was working on the preparations for a new attack. He wanted to blow up a truck loaded with 1000kg of explosives in a population center (ironically, the same weight as the bomb that was dropped over his apartment). I guess this is why Israel was in such a hurry to eliminate him.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Eli


CyberGnu and...? Imran? Kroeze? WarVoid?

I was thinking of Cyber and Imran. I know who Kroeze is, but haven't seen him condone tactics of indiscriminate bombings (not saying he hasn't, just that I haven't seen him do it). I don't know who WarVoid is...

[CyberGnu]

Shiber, if one were a cynic one just might contemplate the coincidence that the army, who right now are being critized by the entire world, miraculously come up with a 'planned terrorist act' of proportions only matched by 9/11 and McVeigh.

Well, only if one was a cynic, of course.

[Shiber]

Oh, so you're saying the army made this up. You know this will get us nowhere. I can deny anything you or the Palestinians say and we'll be stuck in the same spot.
If we want to have a proper discussion then we have to give each one some credit, don't you think?
As for the army "miraculously" coming up with this story, it's bull****, mind the expression. The Israeli intelligence has been releasing warnings that the Palestinians are planning attacks involving trucks packed with explosives for months now. Besides, this isn't the first time Pal terrorists have tried something of this magnitute. We once found a bomb strapped to the bottom of a fuel truck which was entering Pi Glilot (a huge oil reserve). Had we not been lucky and had the bomb gone off THOUSANDS of people would have been VAPORISED (yes, VAPORISED) on the spot and tens of thousands more would have been wounded by this attack, which would have had the same effect as of a huge fuel bomb.
But when we try to stop the terrorists that are planning and carrying out such and similar atrocities we are condemned by the world, even when noone but the target was killed (which is true in over 90% of the cases).

[Shiber]

Yes, you were right, I did confuse the two. I apologize.

Regarding the British white paper: the British feared that arab land owners would sell more of their land in Palestine to Jews and that the previous owner's arab workers will be left with no job, as they will be replaced with Jews who will come to work this land.
By limiting Jewish immigration, the British could force Zionists to stop buying land or buy land at a slower rate because there will be no Jewish workers to work the fields.
Besides, the British also had an interest in keeping Jews out because they would rather not see the Jewish/Palestinian conflict in Palestine heat up because then they might be pressured by the rest of the world to end their mandate over Palestine, which is something they wanted to avoid because the mandate was giving them a lot of economical benefits (such as cheaper ways to transfer arab oil). This could be another likely reason why the British limited Jewish immigration into Israel.

P.S. I'll try to explain the "next year in Jerusalem" tradition again, as I see you haven't quite gotten to the bottom of it.
First of all, you've missed quoted the Passover Hagadda, which instead reads "next year in *built* Jerusalem". A Jew who reads this passage is mourning over the loss of the 2nd temple and is expressing his hopes that the era of the 3rd temple of Jerusalem will soon come and that he will live to see it. Jewish people can say this without being complied to migrate to Israel because the 3rd temple hasn't been built yet (according to tradition it will be built after the Messiah will come from the heavens to Jerusalem).
Just so you would know what Jews are "mumbling" about.

[muxec]

CyberGnu, do you know what it means to feel that you are next?

To europeans: think about actions that you country would perform in war that lasts 54 years with no stop. Now it's very popular in europe to criticaze Israel, Indian, Russian and even American anti-terror operations. Pleace remember that responce of your country would e worse. European politics- beoil-paid whore.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Shiber
Dear S. Kroeze,
I have to note that I am not surprised you read so many so-called academic texts which contain so many blunt mistakes or holes.
Many self-proclaimed researchers rely heavily on Hebrew texts and/or quotes from various Jewish figures that were put out of cultural and/or religious context by the translator, the researcher's source(s) or the researcher himself (though often unintentionally).
Since you do not come from a cultural or religious Jewish background, I advise you to double-check your facts and conclusions with those who do before you bring them here.

As could be expected, you have decided to avoid serious debate -probably because you have run out of arguments- and instead to rely on insinuations and discrediting of sources.
BRAVO!

Of course only Jews can say something about other Jews!
For your information: most authors (Chaim Greenberg, Brenner, Ben-Gurion) -those self-proclaimed researchers- I quoted verbatim, are/were Jews!

Perhaps you might notice that those self-proclaimed researchers at least mention their sources which shows they understand the basics of academic research. Since you seem to doubt their integrity it is your task to double-check their facts and conclusions. I have still some faith in humanity and have no reason to suspect these authors -though some of them were Zionists!

When my sources contain factual errors (or mistranslations) it would be very easy to point them out. Just read some reliable study yourself and show me/us the differences. (Yes, this will require some effort on our side) Next we could discuss the differences.
When you would possess greater intellectual integrity you would at least try to give examples of important Zionists publicly condemning Nazism, Fascism, Anti-semitism and/or bravely defending the rights of Jews in the Western world or the Muslim/Christian Arabs in Palestine. Before 1945 this will be rather difficult, but you could have tried. Good luck!
When you would be less lazy you could search for and read the articles referred to in the footnotes.

My sincere apologies for trying to have a serious debate; I am truly sorry I overestimated you.

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

PS: When you will ever graduate you will possibly learn to judge the 'academic' quality of some study. Judging a book without having read it, is not a sign of intelligence, nor of moral integrity.

[muxec]

The history never repeats. Simply historicans repeat each other.
S. Croeze you act as stupid. Do ypu know about the difference bettwen opinion and fact?

[muxec]

Denmark is the only european country that agree with Israel/ The only

[Shiber]

Did I say that those specific researchers you've relied on are fakes? No I haven't, nor did I mean to. I wouldn't have judged them without first reading their studies and compared them with parallel studies.
I did however point out that there are many fakes out there. Not everyone who publishes academic papers is a real researcher.
As for your rediculous claims that the author deserves more credit because he is Jewish - I take it you haven't heard about Jews who deny the holocaust. They too publish academic-looking papers and mention their sources.
As for the validity of the studies and other sources that you referred to, I cannot judge them nor could I have responded to most of your arguments as I am not familiar with history nor with the Zionist movement as you appear to be, nor am I really interested in those subjects.
Sure, it's easy to quote a research and say "this is an academic research I'm quoting. If you want to refute it then why don't you move your lazy ass down to the library and read a truckload of books and articles over a subject which never really appealed to you, and do all that just to answer a post made by some guy you didn't even know a day before". In other words, I don't really give much of a f*** about all this to spend so much time reading so I could be up to your level of knowledge.

To sum up:

What you are doing right now is equal to me walking over to a 10 yr. old kid and saying for example "the holocaust never happened!" and then throw a bunch of facts and refer to several academic papers and say "now refute this!". He simply won't be up to my level. I'd rather discuss issues with my peers who would throw arguments at me that I can properly answer.

Because in order to intellectually respond to all of your arguments I'd have to spend a lot of time studying about something that hardly interest me at all, and because otherwise I won't be able to relate to your arguments, refute them or decide over their credability, I suggest that we terminate this discussion as of now.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ned
This is a Islamic jihad against Israel. On the whole, this is not about the Palestinians getting back their land. It is about the Infidel governing muslim land.

From the Israeli point of view, Israel exists. Regardless of whether Zionism was in part racial - although I have a hard time with that since both the Jews and the Arabs are Semites - to insist that Israel is a colonialist racial conquest that deserves a short and painful deal is to be racist as well.

As a rule I only quote those parts I judge to be interesting.

Much of the Muslim agitation against Israel is just rhetoric meant to satisfy the general Muslim public.
Nevertheless I do not doubt that in the long term, Palestine will be reintegrated with the Muslim world. Since it is mostly desert and does not contain many valuable raw materials, I think Western Christianity will be able to survive this loss.
Perhaps you still grieve for the loss of the Crusader States?

As you should know by now, I define a Jew by religion, not by race, ethnicity, culture or language.
Nor do I think states should be based on race or religion.
In my view it is of the utmost importance that ALL inhabitants of a country have the same legal/political/economic rights. Nor do I think it desirable that borders do change -generally speaking. This can only promote war.

I am quite certain that some of my ancestors once upon a time lived in Russia and the Middle East.
Yet when I would be so foolish to migrate to Russia or the Middle East (with some other agnostic patrician Dutchmen) I would not expect that the people living in the area would move out. Nor would I wish that those few natives remaining would be treated as second-class citizens, nor would I expect that Dutch would become the language of the country, agnosticism the dominant religion and the prevailing culture patrician.
Nor would I pass laws that would restrict immigration to Dutch, patrician agnosts.

When people would nevertheless pursue such a disastrous policy, they can expect that the people driven out or those reduced to second-class citizenship will not be really enthusiastic. I wouldn't be surprised when they would try to drive me out or to reconquer the lost territory.
Doubtless I would develop some ideology that would establish my superior rights. The natives would be portrayed as barbarians and savages, while Dutch agnosticism would be glorified as the true bearer of civilisation.

So when I migrate to Russia or the Middle East I should accept the fact that Dutch is not the dominant language in the area, agnosticism not the dominant religion and its prevailing culture different.
When I would conform to the local conditions, life could be tolerable. And I would hope that -as in every country- ALL inhabitants of this country have the same legal/political/economic rights, regardless of race, religion, culture. If not, I would strongly advise, not to migrate to this region.
When you condemn this as racist, so be it!

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by muxec
The history never repeats. Simply historicans repeat each other.
S. Croeze you act as stupid. Do ypu know about the difference bettwen opinion and fact?

I am sorry to disappoint you.

Historians do not repeat one another; on the contrary, they often disagree with one another.
They generally read thousands of pages, written by eyewitnesses, journalists etc. They read inscriptions, diaries, codes of law, minute books, government orders, letters, surveys, statistical material, bills, books/pamphlets written during the period they are studying etc; they spend thousands of hours searching archives; they visit locations where important events occurred, often they interview politicians, eyewitnesses, soldiers, public servants etc.; they study maps, land registers etc.

Often they will quote verbatim their sources; if not, they will provide a footnote with a source reference. This makes it possible for other historians/people to read/check these source with their own eyes.

Just one example:

"When, after Kristallnacht, the British, in the hope of easing the pressure for increased immigration into Palestine, proposed that thousands of children be admitted directly into Britain, Ben-Gurion was absolutely against the plan, telling a meeting of Labour Zionist leaders on 7 December 1938:

[*]If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel.[23]

Britain's policy was firmly fixed; there was not the slightest chance of London suddenly allowing any mass immigration into Palestine, yet Ben-Gurion persisted, refusing to contemplate other sanctuaries. On 17 December 1938 he warned the Zionist Executive:
[*]If Jews will have to choose between the refugees, saving Jews from concentration camps, and assisting a national museum in Palestine, mercy will have the upper hand and the whole energy of the people will be channelled into saving Jews from various countries. Zionism will be struck off the agenda not only in world public opinion, in Britain and the United States, but elsewhere in Jewish public opinion. If we allow a separation between the refugee problem and the Palestinian problem, we are risking the existence of Zionism.[23]"

(source: L.Brenner: 'Zionism in the Age of the Dictators',1983)

[23] Yoav Gelber, 'Zionist Policy and the Fate of European Jewry (1939-42)', Yad Vashem Studies, vol. XII, p. 199.
[24] Ari Bobber (ed.), The Other Israel, p. 171.
[*] note for muxec: like the author I use another type to indicate that those were Ben-Gurion's own words

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Shiber
Did I say that those specific researchers you've relied on are fakes? No I haven't, nor did I mean to. I wouldn't have judged them without first reading their studies and compared them with parallel studies.

In a previous post you said: "...so-called academic texts which contain so many blunt mistakes or holes."
In my view this amounts to discrediting of sources, a rather immature strategy.

I did however point out that there are many fakes out there. Not everyone who publishes academic papers is a real researcher.

Doubtless some historians are better/more reliable than others; opinions and understanding change. Yet I would never use words as "Many self-proclaimed researchers..." without giving arguments.

As for your rediculous claims that the author deserves more credit because he is Jewish - I take it you haven't heard about Jews who deny the holocaust. They too publish academic-looking papers and mention their sources.

I would never have brought this point up, but you have repeatedly said that I was unable to understand something because I am not Jewish. Again a rather disagreeable debating trick.

As for the validity of the studies and other sources that you referred to, I cannot judge them nor could I have responded to most of your arguments as I am not familiar with history nor with the Zionist movement as you appear to be, nor am I really interested in those subjects.
Sure, it's easy to quote a research and say "this is an academic research I'm quoting. If you want to refute it then why don't you move your lazy ass down to the library and read a truckload of books and articles over a subject which never really appealed to you, and do all that just to answer a post made by some guy you didn't even know a day before". In other words, I don't really give much of a f*** about all this to spend so much time reading so I could be up to your level of knowledge.

Six months ago I had never read one book about Zionism or Israel. My interest is of quite recent date. Nevertheless I have read by now several books on the subject. When you can recommend studies please do!
When you want to know how confreres judge some publication you can search for reviews in professional historical journals.
Of course for me it will be easier to find literature because of professional training.

To sum up:

What you are doing right now is equal to me walking over to a 10 yr. old kid and saying for example "the holocaust never happened!" and then throw a bunch of facts and refer to several academic papers and say "now refute this!". He simply won't be up to my level. I'd rather discuss issues with my peers who would throw arguments at me that I can properly answer.

Because in order to intellectually respond to all of your arguments I'd have to spend a lot of time studying about something that hardly interest me at all, and because otherwise I won't be able to relate to your arguments, refute them or decide over their credability, I suggest that we terminate this discussion as of now.

I agree with your proposal. But why discuss something which doesn't interest you?
I would like to point out that you started to give an overview of Israeli history. I would never make a post without some knowledge on the subject matter. And I will usually read a bit before making a post about it.
On the other hand, you are still a far more intelligent debater than Siro and many others. You are able to admit there are things you don't know!

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze