8 Children Killed in Israeli Attack

[blackice]

CyberGnu your opinion is noted but it is an opinion, unless you would like to prove what you say is fact?

If you want to have true facts you can not lump all cusualities into one group. You have to break it down which is what they did. I will dig up more reports of casuality break down stats if you like. The UN has a good one. They did disclose their sources and in this conflict you have to have those breakdowns. It is very clear though that the majority of Israelis killed are non combatants and a awful lot of women and teenagers.

I also find it amazing thier is far less rage when a bomb goes off in a market square in Israel killing innocents and many of them.

The bombing was wrong but so is the bombing of a bus of innocents, or a market square or any other place where there are innocent people.

[KrazyHorse]

There are only 2 (from what I've seen) people here who condone the indiscriminate killing of civilians as practiced by certain Palestinian nationalist organisations. There are far more who think that it's okay to do stuff like what happened a day and a half ago. We don't post stuff complaining every time a palestinian nutjob sets off a bomb on a bus because there's nobody to argue with. It's like asking why we don't post stuff complaining about homicidal maniacs every time somebody goes on a shooting spree in the US; we post stuff either arguing for or against gun control...

[Shiber]

Morning has come, and after a good night's sleep I've managed to find some additional info and facts for you all:

* The report handed over to govt. and mi. officials detailed the expected damage to nearby population as "scratches and shock wounds" only. I guess that settles it for any claims that anyone in the high ranks had any idea of the magnitude of the collateral damage and still authorized the operation, or that Sharon approved it intentionally to terrorize Palestinians or several other ridiculous claims I've heard.

* The total number of those killed is now up to 17 (including Shhada and two of his associates), dunno if that's because people have died of their wounds or rather because more bodies were recovered.
AFAIK noone who wasn't in the particular house that was attacked or in the nearby improvised housings was killed. This confirms my thoughts that the intelligence agency simply did not alert the other bodies of the army that there are homeless people living in improvised housings (tents etc') in the spaces between Shhada's house and nearby apt. buildings, which were supported by the walls of Shhada's house. They were killed as rubble came down on them.
Had the army known of their presence, they wouldn't have authorized the attack.
Had there not been so many people sleeping in such housings there would have been 13 less casualties.

* Shhada's wife and daughter were not there during the attack. The fact that Israel was so quick to admit that they might have been there during the attack is because the intelligence efforts were so sloppy that the house was observed by intelligence several hours before the attack, and the report that concluded they were not there was only valid for that time, not the time of the attack.

* I haven't heard of any other casualties which lived in other floors of the building that was attacked. I wouldn't be surprised if the other two apartments in the building turn out to have been empty, as this apt. building was not a regular apt. building where people's homes were but has been used by the Hamas as a hideout and a meeting place.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Please continue your propaganda.

Since when is professional historical research to be dismissed as propaganda?
Your remark rather suggests you have run out of arguments and are too lazy to check source references or read some literature on a subject formerly unknown to you.

I am still grateful for your recommendation of the study by M.Tessler, but have not yet succeeded to get hold of the book.

You also confuse anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
When you would truly study the subject you would discover that Zionists were(are) the most anti-Semitic of Jews.
While Orthodox Jews, liberals and socialists cooperated to set free Dreyfus, the Zionists did nothing.
They gloated at anti-Semitism because this force would drive the obstinate Jews to Palestine!

Since I prefer not to throw away my academic reputation, I will back up my opinion with a quotation:

"In March 1942 Chaim Greenberg, then the editor of New York's Labour Zionist organ, Jewish Frontier, painfully admitted that indeed, there had been:

[*]a time when it used to be fashionable for Zionist speakers (including the writer) to declare from the platform that 'To be a good Zionist one must be somewhat of an anti-Semite' ... To this day Labor Zionist circles are under the influence of the idea that the Return to Zion involved a process of purification from our economic uncleanliness. Whosoever doesn't engage in so-called 'productive' manual labor is believed to be a sinner against Israel and against mankind.[14]"

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

[14] Chaim Greenberg, 'The Myth of Jewish Parasitism', Jewish Frontiers (March 1942), p. 20 [*] like the author I use another type to indicate that those were Greenberg's own words

note for Sirotnikov: "Zionism in the Age of the Dictators' is not identical to 'How Israel Was Won' by B.Thomas; it was written by another author and has a different title; nor was it published by Neturei Karta

Or perhaps this is also just 'anti-Jewish/Israel propaganda, this time enunciated by a Zionist himself?

For someone who actually studied History you have remarkably little respect for your colleagues.

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Shiber
Wow S. Kroeze, I have to admit that I'm way out of your league. I don't know enough of history to even understand most of your arguments or how they relate to the current topic. I am merely a 17 yr. old who likes to hang around in forums (), while you seem to be more learned as well as older than me. When it comes to debating, you are obviously more than just my match.
All I can do is group any of the arguments I could think of to answer back to your arguments in this message. Perhaps the bigger fish, e.g. Siro and others can answer you better.

Dear Shiber,

In my view your are a far more intelligent debater than Sirotnikov. His favourite tactics are insulting and discrediting of professional historical research.
I have asked about a dozen times to recommend a recent professional study that supports his view but he has consistently declined to do so.

My time is limited so I will not react in detail to your arguments. And I agree this discussion does not belong in this thread, but I couldn't resist reacting to your historical survey.
In my view one can only understand the present conflict from a long-term view. It is essentially a colonial war and I believe that in the end the coloniser will lose.

Discussing Zionist ideology is very important to this issue because it shows that it was never a 'nice' doctrine, but essentially a racist theory that thought/thinks that one race has superior rights to some other race. What do you think would happen when ALL people would migrate to that part of the earth where presumably some of their ancestors lived 2,000 years ago?

It is no accident that people like Strangelove will ignore legitimate questions like
Did Zionists ever try to combat anti-Semitism, Fascism, Nazism?
because the sad answer is: NO.
Of course after the Holocaust they tried to hide their shame!

In my view a Jew should be defined by his religion, not by race or ethnicity. I hope you do not subscibe to the concept of 'racial purity'.
There is freedom of religion in the entire Western world. Nor do I think it is agreeable to live in a country -mostly desert- that is at perpetual war.

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

[Ned]

Does Israel have a laser-guided bombs other than the 2000 pound bomb dropped. The critizism is that the bomb was much too large for the location - a residential neighborhood.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Frogger
There are only 2 (from what I've seen) people here who condone the indiscriminate killing of civilians as practiced by certain Palestinian nationalist organisations.

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

[Ned]

S. Kroeze, I don't think the issues between the Jews and Palestinians are "racial. I think they are religious. The Arabs, not just the PALs, have long been trying to evict the Jews from Palestine, or force them to live in an Islamic state, because this is Muslim land. In as sense, their crusade or jihad against the Jewish state is the same as the Latin crusades 900 years ago - motivated entirely by religious purposes, both when the West conquered and the muslims re-conquered.

As support for this argument, I cite Iran, an non Arab, but Islamic state.

Race has very little to do with the "Palestinian" side of the issue.

[muxec]

Everybody say tjat Israel is cruel. But leader of palest terrorist used childeren as a live shield, isn't it? Please think about terracts that were avoided by killing terrorist leader.

[CyberGnu]

Shiver, I got swamped at work, I'll try to get back to you. (btw, remember one of my first remarks to you? Well, the accusation of anti-semitism took a few pages to appear, but appear it did nonetheless.... It always does. )

BlackIce, define 'opinion'. I pointed out that the report you posted cann't be considered research, and is thus an propaganda piece.

muxec, think about the terracts that would be avoided by killing Sharon.

Oerdin, you do realize that you thus deflate the main justification for stealing land in palestine: that jews need a nation of their own?

I agree comepletely that jews should have a nation of their own. But refusing an offer of one because it isn;t good enough (like the zionist movement did with Uganda) takes the argument from 'we need on because we are persecuted' to 'we want one because we're greedy'.

You also seem to have selective perception. After every major palestinian bombing in israel Eli, Siro or Natan usually start a thread within hours. Just do a search in the archives and you'll see that there is at least parity if not more.

[CyberGnu]

OK, have a few minutes to spare:

What diplomatic techniques were they using that you'd consider wrong?

It is not the diplomatic techniques par se, it is the goal. Using diplomacy to unlawfully gain something is still immoral.

Had the conditions in Israel were better and more Jews were inclined to migrate to Israel and 75% of the pop. would have been Jewish, what would you say? That we deserved 75% of the land?
The Zionists wanted a national home for generations to come, not a state for that 25% of the population.

No, I don't think they had legal or moral right to any of the land, but that wasn't the issue here. I merely expressed my loathing for a group that after managing to steal a substantial chunk of land cried out because they didn't get more... Especially when even disregarding the moral and legal issues, the size of the land is STILL twice as big as it should have been...

Perhaps, but the Germans have a national home. The Americans have a national home. The Jews don't.
Every nation strives to gain an independent state in a region which that nation relates to historically, religiously or culturally, it being Israel for the Jewish nationl.

Shiber, there were no jews in palestine for 500 years. Then a small contigent moved to Jerusalem, and has stayed every since. Clearly, it was possible to move and live there. Furthermore, as Kreuze pointed out, persecution of jews was less in arab lands than in Europe.

Yet no other jews moved back. If Israel was so important, why did they elect to stay in europe?

Basically, the jewish people gave up their claim on Israel a long time ago. Just mumbling a 'next year in jerusalem' on holidays does not impart an ownership of land that other people have toiled for hundreds of years.

We could have shared. There was plenty of room (if over than 6 Mil. people can live in Israel today (this including Israeli arabs) then couldn't the Jews and the Palestinians have lived together then?

That is what the arabs wanted. The palestinians fought the Ottomans because of a british promise for independance in a democratic state. But after the Balfour declaration it was clear that the zionist movement intended to have their own, jewish, state.


I think your next comment is covered above.

I happen to know which paper you're talking about and it was referring to jobs. The Brits worried that if more Jews migrated to Israel there wouldn't be enough jobs for everyone and people would resort to violent protest.
I'm simply not buying these claims of "lack of room". Millions lived in New York at that time and I don't hear the New York authorities complaining about lack of room (though they may be complaining about it today).
Besides, at that time there were areas of Israel who haven't been settled by humans for hundreds of years. There was certainly "room".

The white paper (I think it is from 1928-29, but I might be wrong. I could try to dig it up again) says the arable land will not support more people without displacing arabs. It doesn't mention jobs.

Kroeze covered the 'room' issue.

Ahh, time to go again....

[Ned]

CyberGnu, I am aware of the British statements to Hussein and to the Jews. They are not inconsistent. I am aware of no statements to any Palestinians concerning and "independent and democratic state." This would be flatout inconsistent with all prior British practice at that time to install monarchies with their Arab shiek pals as Kings. It is also inconsistent with events that occurred in early 1919 in Paris. Faisal negotiated with Weimann over Jewish immigration into Palestine. Faisal, as King of Syria, thought he was the King of this area as well, because then it was part of Syria. Weizmann also thought Faisal was the ruler.

Where did you get this?

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ned
S. Kroeze, I don't think the issues between the Jews and Palestinians are "racial. I think they are religious. The Arabs, not just the PALs, have long been trying to evict the Jews from Palestine, or force them to live in an Islamic state, because this is Muslim land. In as sense, their crusade or jihad against the Jewish state is the same as the Latin crusades 900 years ago - motivated entirely by religious purposes, both when the West conquered and the muslims re-conquered.

Race has very little to do with the "Palestinian" side of the issue.

Dear Ned,

I agree that on the 'Palestinian/Arab' side race is not the issue. These Arabs (Muslims and Christians) have lost their land and hope to win it back.

But how much Zionist literature did you read?
When you would have read my posts carefully you would acknowledge that the Zionists define a Jew not by religion, but by origin.

"Several Supreme Court decisions, however, forced Israeli policymakers to redefine the Law of Return on March 10, 1970. Accordingly, rights of citizenship could now be awarded to 'a child or a grandchild of a Jew, to his or her spouse and to the spouse of a child and grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who was Jewish and willingly converted to another religion.' The 'Jew', according to this redefined law, need not be alive and was not required to have had any connection to Israel. Moreover, if he or she was born to a Jewish mother or had been converted to Judaism by any rabbi and was not a member of another religion, then he or she was legally Jewish. To obtain citizenship, non-Jews who did not qualify according to Jewish religious law (halacha) could be naturalized."

(source: D.Peretz and G.Doron: 'The Government and Politics of Israel',1997)

note for Sirotnikov: 'The Government and Politics of Israel' is not identical to 'How Israel Was Won' by B.Thomas; it was written by another author and has a different title; nor was it published by Neturei Karta

What strikes me, is how easy it is with these law to become considered a Jew. Only for religious Christians and Muslims is it actually impossible to become a true citizen. So the 'natives' are kept out!

Religion defines 'Jewishness' in Israel only in a negative way: to become a Jewish citizen one should not profess some other religion. Yet an apostate or atheist is still considered a Jew.
Nor do I think -but I am uncertain about it- that someone born in Israel as a Jew will lose his Jewish identity for the law by conversion to some other religion.

So it is not accidental that the Orthodox -and the ultra-Orthodox do still today- opposed Zionism.
This is strange because only for someone believing in the 'Torah' as the word of a Supreme Being, does it make sense to migrate to the Holy Land.
Hardly any of the founders of Zionism was religious at all. Originally Herzl didn't care where a Zionist state was created.

When you would read more of pre-Holocaust Zionist literature I guess you would be truly appalled by its racist character. It is often both highly anti-Semitic AND anti-Arab. 'Racial purity' is generally considered a desirable quality.

And when 'race' wouldn't be an issue at all, why is there so much systematic discrimination against Israeli Arabs?

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[Arrian]

Cybergnu,

I'm curious (not an attempted troll - I'm serious) about something.

I agree comepletely that jews should have a nation of their own. But refusing an offer of one because it isn;t good enough (like the zionist movement did with Uganda) takes the argument from 'we need on because we are persecuted' to 'we want one because we're greedy'.

Are you saying you think they should have accepted the offer of Uganda? What about the native Ugandans?

Though I think debating the creation of Israel in 1948 is a useless exercise in the context of trying to bring about a peaceful resolution to the bloody mess that is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (it's there now, and it ain't goin' anywhere), I do wonder what would have happened if we'd somehow managed to give them Montana instead. Or New Jersey... I wouldn't miss it.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
Are you saying you think they should have accepted the offer of Uganda? What about the native Ugandans?

At the time, the section of Uganda they had been offered was virtually unpopulated.