8 Children Killed in Israeli Attack

[CyberGnu]

Arrian, I agree that it doesn't solve it. But we have a problem right now where most pro-Israelis refuse to budge a single inch because 'the land belongs to the jews'. If we could finally get them to understand that the palestinian people are conducting a resistance against aggression, we could get somewhere with this conflict.


Moomin... jag vet inte... Dom suger in mig mot min vilja...

[CyberGnu]

Oh, and this was in direct response to muxec's claim that you could somehow equate the US bombings in Afganistan with Israels bombings in palestine, despite the first one being at the behest of the the goverment of afganistan against a group that support aggression versus the United States, and the second one being aggressive slaughtering of civilians in an occupied nation.

[Ned]

I know this a little off topic, but CyberGnu brought up WWII to help explain his position on the ME.

May I bring up Iraq?

History:

The Brits promise the Arabs the moon for an uprising against the Turks. The Arabs beat the Turks, with the help of Lawrence. In return, the Brits subdivide Arabia, giving pieces here and pieces there. Their legacy certainly lives on in Palestine.

We see the Brits subdivisions inevitably ending in war. Their work in Europe lead directly to WWII. Their work in India has lead to the endless confilct between Pakistan and India, and their work in Arabia lead to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

No my point, asside from the fact that Saddam is a threat to Israel, should the West intervene in conflct where the parties are simply trying to undo what the Brits did? Should we have intervened in Kuwait?

[Sirotnikov]

Krop - attacked first is easy.

Look at the anti-jewish progroms in Palestine starting from 1920.

[CyberGnu]

Were people involuntarily displaced in the partitioning of Kuwait and Iraq? It would be up to the people of Kuwait and Iraq to democratially elect to join the countries... Since this hasn;t happened, the western world has the moral obligation to stop Iraq from imposing their view on the people of Kuwait.

Just like the western world has the moral obligation top stop Israel from imposing their view on the palestinians.

[CyberGnu]

Siro, look past 1920.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned
We see the Brits subdivisions inevitably ending in war. Their work in Europe lead directly to WWII. Their work in India has lead to the endless confilct between Pakistan and India, and their work in Arabia lead to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

I wouldn't blame the British for partitioning India. It wasn't their idea, it was the Muslim politicians. If anything the British did more to unify India than anyone ever did.

Kuwait was independent from Iraq by the 19th century, at which time Iraq had been part of the Ottoman empire for 300 years. Before that it was part of Persia.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Were people involuntarily displaced in the partitioning of Kuwait and Iraq? It would be up to the people of Kuwait and Iraq to democratially elect to join the countries... Since this hasn;t happened, the western world has the moral obligation to stop Iraq from imposing their view on the people of Kuwait.

Just like the western world has the moral obligation top stop Israel from imposing their view on the palestinians.

Just like the European world had a moral obligation after WW2 to give the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust the security they had been denied by 60 years of escalating European antisemitism. What's you're proposal for remedying that problem?

[Sirotnikov]

Dear S Kroeze, I'm far from being ever present and sometimes miss replies.

As for your reply.

I understand this sentence as follows: The rabbinical courts didn't want to allow marriages between Jews and Christians/Muslims, BUT because the Supreme Court intervened it was finally allowed.

Well to me this way of understanding seems odd, as to me it seems that if anything, the letters e.g. come to give an example to issues in which the court did not interviene.

Give your opinion, do you have any basis or any fact suggesting that at some point the rabinical courts actually tried to prevent such things? Other than the sentance which meaning we seem to disagree about?

You don't. It's a figment of an overly zealous imagination.

As for the rabinnical courts rulings of marriage, it simply means the following:

1) only the rabinnical orthodox court has authority to marry two jews in Israel (but if they marry elsewhere it's fine).

2) non jews, or the marriage of a jew and a non-jew is not permitted in the rabinnical orthodox court, and is therefore not under it's authority.

I would further add, that there has been some progress in talks with the orthodox establishment, and in some time in the future, there will be a non-religious marriage option.

So in the end we seem to agree that 'mixed' marriages are allowed (since when?).

Since ever.

There never was a ruling by any court nor any law forbidding such marriages. Therefore - since ever.

Yet is still surprises me that the legislator(parliament) did NOT decree by law.

Why would a legislator want to write a law for every concievable situation?

As long as such a marriage is not fobidden, it is allowed.

In a democratic constitutional state that would have been the only possible procedure. This incident -the way I understand it (and please correct me by some source when I am wrong)- shows that the possibility of 'mixed' marriages was not matter-of-course.
And this NOT being matter-of-course is suspect in my view!

I already quoted an official figure from the Israeli interior minsiytry, about some 80,000 (or so) mixed married couples in Israel.

But it appears that you missed it, just as I missed your aforementioned reply.

It is obvious Arabs have not ALL civil rights 'Jewish' citizens possess.
Besides that there are many 'unwritten' discriminating laws.

Incorrect.
Arabs have exactly the same civil rights as Jews have.

What you may be referring to is several segregation like laws, such as laws defining the nature of the Jewish agency and it serving the jews only.

However, this seems only natural to me, as there are similar (though much smaller) bodies like the Muslim brotherhood and so on, which only serve moslems and so on.

So while each society has a body which deals uniquely with it, the Jewish body is strongest, both because of it being older, and because of it's lobby.

Naturally, given the older age of the Jewish agency, and it's early existance and goal, it, unlike most muslim brotherhoods, owns land in Israel, a thing which is rare. But still, some 10% of the land of Israel is still in private hands (mostly arab iirc) and some 17% is owned by the Jewish Agency.

As far as unwritten laws go - that's a fiction since any law is based on it being written.

I agree there are discriminating policies, but it's hardly based on unwritten laws, but rather on the well known idea of political power.

For instance, the Orthodox establishment has huge political power, and therefore orthodox schools recieve huge funds, disproportionate to the numnber of funds that go to normal state schools, and the smaller funds that are channelled into arab schools.

now before you go on ranting about more seperation - let me explain to you the idea of arab , state and orthodox schools.

In Israel, minorities have a right to establish their own schools and have their own teaching program.

A person is free to choose into which school he goes.

Most arabs, feeling closer to the issues studied in the arab program, choose to go to arab schools. But some go to general state schools.

Most orthodox, feel closer to the orthodox schools, and go there.

It's simply another option for people to better teach their culture.

I still define a Jew by religion, not by 'race'.

Then you would be drifting in your own universe, since you have zero incluence over this.

The definition of Jew is best left to jews. I don't go around choosing who is muslim or palestinian.

Your sayings that only those who honor Talmud are jews, is as stupid as me saying that only Shiites are true muslems.

Or like saying that protestants are not real christians.

It is silly - please understand that.

You can't cancel out a whole flow of judaism just because it doesn't fit what you think judaism is!!

To me 'race' is a most abhorrent concept.

You also should understand that you're not living in a fairy tale world with only one kind of people.

Call it race, ethnicity or kuala-lumpur - people from different heritages and blood lines have different genetic characterstics.

Furthermore - even forget race.

There is a thing called nationality.

Palestinians, be they moslems or christians, are after all palestinians once they have defined themselves to be such, and accepted their national image and heritage.

Jews are the same = they, whether believe in judaism or not, accept their heritage and history and national image as parts of the Jewish (hebrew) nation.


Hearing you come and say what constitutes a real jew, after reading some encyclopedia on world religions (am I right?) seems absurd.

I am still eagerly waiting for the day when Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history, will -in his boundless benevolence- reveal title and writer of the ONLY reliable and recently published academic study on Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history.

That's exactly the point.
There isn't an only reliable source. Almost each source has a bias or a goal, therefore you must consider those. And you fail to do that, time after time.

Instead of accepting neturei karta as an opinion of a minority of jews, you have said things which make it seem as if you believe them to be the ultimate authority on everything jewish, even though they are a minority

Instead of reading academic reports striving to be impartial, you are reading books which are published to advance an already known goal. When you pick up "the rape of palestine" you know that the author has already decided what he wants to tell you.

It doesn't mean it's not a reliable source. You just need to learn to address the inherent bias in its analysis of events.

Even most your book titles sound alike and present a consitent view:
"Zionism and Dictators"
"The siege and saga of Zionism"

it only misses "Zionism the false prophecy" (or something like that. it's a real book) to be complete.

Please, at least, try to balance your view by reading as much pro-Israeli books or books by zionist authors.


And as far as your view of my knowledge and sources - I studied judaism and bible from some among the best of Israeli teachers. I've read chapters from the talmud, and other sources.

I've also read dozens of books, heard several lectures, watched dozens of history shows.

So excuse me if I can't always remember every resource by heart and that I do not intend to translate the entire Israeli law to english.

At least I don't go around copying and pasting paragraphs from a "why is Israel inherently evil - including well researched quotes" internet site, which is what you seem to be doing, considering how easily you skipped from one source to another, following the same subjects and so on.

Either that, or you have wrote a paper on it, basing it on several books, and keep it handy.

[Sirotnikov]

That was a very mature message.

Oh come on.

The maturity call lost it's relevance waaaay in the 1930s.

The message was clear and targetted at the terrorists. Eye for an eye.

They try and put 1 ton bombs. We succeed doing so.

Now it seems more reasonable that Sharon gave the order to use a 1 ton bomb specifically.

[CyberGnu]

Dr Strangelove, they offered the zionist movement an inhabited part of Uganda in 1901, 40 years before the holocaust...

Furthermore, why is it that the palestinians (who historically have treated the jews a lot better than europeans) should be forced to give up land for a jewish state?

Morally, there is no answer to that question.

A moral solution to the issue of a jewish state would either have been to partition off a part of Europe (maybe old East Preussia), or a part of the US (say Arizona or New Mexico).

[CyberGnu]

Oh, or maybe part of Florida. If I've understood it correctly, that state consists of equal parts retired jews and cuban immigrants anyway, right?

[Sirotnikov]

Siro, look past 1920.

Ok.

Jews were attacked in europe.
Some Jews decided it was high time to stop being nomads without a state.
Those jews decided to return to their old time homeland - Israel & Judea, now renamed Palestine, rejoin the small number of jews living there, and form a state.

They slowly immigrated, began purchasing lands, farming them and developing them.

Some of the local leaders became scared for their power, seeing the Jewish influence rise, and began inciting the local population against the Jews.

Both Jews and Arabs get a conflicting promise for a national home in Palestine.

78% of Historical Palestine is given as a present to an Arab, non-palestinian dynasty called "The Hashemites" and is proclaimd - "Trans Jordan".

The 22% of Historical Palestine demanded today is not the occupied Territories. Rather it's Israel + the Occupied Territories.

Historical Palestine includes Jordan. Jordan never existed as a unique country. It was torn up from the geographic unit known as palestine by the Brittish.

Jordan: 92,000 km^2
Israel + Palestine: 28,000 km^2
Historical Palestine: 120,000 km^2

120,000 * 22% = 26,400 km^2 ~~ Israel

[Sirotnikov]

Dr Strangelove, they offered the zionist movement an inhabited part of Uganda in 1901, 40 years before the holocaust...

Why not offer Jews the south pole while you're at it?

Jews have and always had a connection to Israel and Zion (=Jerusalem).

It is mentioned in holy scriptures, prayer and even daily tradition and heritage (next year in jerusalem).

It's unreasonable to put jews on the moon, so to speak.

Furthermore, why is it that the palestinians (who historically have treated the jews a lot better than europeans) should be forced to give up land for a jewish state?

Why forced?
It were palestinian land lords who sold land to jews. More often than not at outrageous prices. I've even read sources dating to those times, outraged that a peace of swamp in Palestine costed more than fertile land in the US.

Furthermore, there was no reason why the two people couldn't get along.

Jews would have a state on lands they bought - Palestinians would have a state on lands they owned.

Instead, several social and religious reasons lead the palestinians to "not want Jewish neighbours" so to speak.

1) Local landlords feared Jewish competition. Jews brought new methods and soon began drying the swamps and became a serious economic competition. Very quickly, Jews, having a tiny portion of lands, out produced the whole Palestine in citrus fruits (source - one of the brittish mandate reports iirc. i followed it given Kamrat X's link one time).

2) Religious leaders had the idea of "holy moslem lands" which say that infidels should never again reconquer lands from moslems.

3) Local folks, esp. nomads, saw the lands and water as something shared and free. When Jews began putting up fences around their property, they felt robbed. I have a source on this dating to that time.

4) The intelligent layers, saw this as yet another european cultural invasion, and seeked to restore their honour by rebuffing it.

So generally, no one was in the right mood for accepting the Jewish dreams about buying lands and forming a state.

[blackice]

Since September 2000, 593 people have been killed on the Israeli side:
Jan. 1, 2001: Netanya - no Israelis killed, 60 injured.

May 18, 2001: Netanya shopping mall - five Israelis killed.

June 1, 2001: Dolphinarium nightclub in Tel Aviv - 21 Israelis killed.

Aug. 9, 2001: Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem - 15 Israelis killed.

Aug. 12, 2001: Kiryat Motzkin - no Israelis killed, 21 injured.

Dec. 1, 2001: Double suicide bombing on Ben Yehuda pedestrian mall in Jerusalem - 11 Israelis killed.

Dec. 2, 2001: Bus in Haifa - 15 Israelis killed.

March 2, 2002: Mea Shearim, Jerusalem - 11 Israelis killed.

March 9, 2002: Moment Cafe in Jerusalem - 11 Israelis killed.

March 20, 2002: Bus in Kfar Musmus - seven Israelis killed.

March 27, 2002: Hotel in Netanya - 29 Israelis killed.

March 31, 2002: Restaurant in Haifa - 15 Israelis killed.

April 10, 2002: Bus in Haifa - eight Israelis killed.

April 12, 2002: Female bomber at the market in Jerusalem - six Israelis killed.

May 7, 2002: Pool hall in Rishon Letzion - 15 Israelis killed.

June 5, 2002: Bus near Megiddo Junction - 17 Israelis killed.

June 18, 2002: Patt Junction in Jerusalem - 19 Israelis killed.

June 19, 2002: French Hill intersection Jerusalem - seven Israelis killed.

July 17, 2002: Tel Aviv - two Israelis, three foreign workers killed.

Aug. 31: Jerusalem Hebrew University, seven killed in bombing.

And CyberGnu says the numbers that were posted were pure propaganda. Ok so lets see maybe there were soldiers at all these places hummm. So Israel hit one soldier and some innocents and some of these flakes scream bloody murder. But did you scream as loud for these murders of civilians CyberGnu?

I think the only propaganda going is the ones who dismiss the obvious....And the lastest bombing is ok because it's revenge right....Flakes.