Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
The struggle against Jerusalem's quiet ethnic cleansing
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.
This article originally appeared in The National, published in Abu Dhabi, and is published here with the author's permission.
The struggle against Jerusalem's quiet ethnic cleansing: Palestinians Face Home Demolitions Spree By Israel
By Jonathan Cook
02/08/08 ---- In the first hours of dawn, Nader Elayan was woken by a call from a neighbour warning him to hurry to the house he had almost finished building. By the time he arrived, it was too late: a bulldozer was tearing down the walls. More than 100 Israeli security guards held back local residents.
The demolition, carried out four years ago, has left Mr Elayan, his wife, Fidaa, who is now pregnant, and their two young children with nowhere to live but a single room in his brother's cramped home. It is the only land he owns and he had invested all his savings in building the now destroyed house.
Over the past few years, the Elayans' fate has been shared by two dozen other families in the Palestinian village of Anata, on the outskirts of East Jerusalem. Hundreds more families have demolition orders hanging over their homes. "Not one person in my neighbourhood has a [building] permit," Mr Elayan, 37, said.
The problem of house demolitions affects Palestinians throughout the occupied territories. But according to Hatem Abdelkader, an adviser to Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, the situation is particularly acute in the East Jerusalem area.
He noted that Israel's policy of refusing building permits to many of the 250,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem has resulted in the classification of 20,000 city homes as illegal since the occupation began in 1967. Last year alone, the Jerusalem municipality issued more than 1,000 demolition orders for "illegal dwellings". It is believed that three out of every four Palestinian homes in the city are now built without a permit.
"Illegal building is simply a pretext for destroying Palestinian families' homes and lives," said Jeff Halper, head of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD).
"The demolitions are part of a policy to stop the natural expansion of Palestinian communities in and around Jerusalem, freeing up the maximum amount of land for use by Israeli settlers," Mr Halper said. "The demolitions increase the pressure on Palestinians to move into the West Bank, so that they will lose their residency rights in the city."
In an act of defiance, Mr Halper's organisation and 40 international volunteers helped the Elayans to rebuild their home this week in an attempt to highlight what the committee calls the "quiet ethnic cleansing" of East Jerusalem. The work was carried out during a two-week summer camp funded by the Spanish government. Madrid also paid for 18 Spanish volunteers to participate.
"This is the first time a government has supported the rebuilding of an 'illegal' Palestinian home demolished by the Israeli authorities," Mr Halper said.
The issue of house demolitions is back in the spotlight now after two separate incidents in July in which Palestinians, both of whom were residents of Jerusalem, rampaged through the city in bulldozers, killing three Israelis and injuring many more. Although the two Palestinians were shot dead at the scene, Israeli officials, including Ehud Barak, the defence minister, are calling for their homes to be destroyed, making their families homeless, to deter others from following in their path.
Such punitive destruction of homes was stopped in 2005, under the threat of legal challenge, but not before some 270 homes were razed on security grounds in the first years of the intifada.
According to Mr Halper, however, the use of demolitions against Palestinians accused of illegal building is a far more significant problem. "We estimate that there have been at least 18,000 homes destroyed during the four decades of occupation."
In fact, Mr Halper said, he believes the true number of demolitions is likely to be double the official figure. Many razings are unrecorded, carried out by Palestinians themselves fearing a heavy fine if the Israeli army enforces the demolition order.
"Most demolitions are of multi-storey buildings that are home to several families, meaning that well in excess of 100,000 Palestinians may have been made homeless by Israeli administrative policies," he said.
Since its founding a decade ago, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions has rebuilt 150 Palestinian homes as part of its campaign to bring the issue of demolitions to the attention of Israeli Jews and the international community. It has been an uphill struggle, Mr Halper said. The European Union, which recently upgraded its relations with Israel, announced this month that it was withdrawing ICAHD's funding.
But this year's work camp may make the continuing demolition of homes in Anata a little harder, Mr Halper said. "It's one thing to destroy a home supposedly built illegally by a Palestinian, but another to destroy one built with money provided by the Spanish government."
Mr Halper also believes that, by exposing such groups as the summer camp volunteers to the Palestinians' plight, public perceptions may begin to change.
Alonso Santos, a 21-year-old architecture student from Madrid, said he learnt much from seeing at close hand Palestinian life under occupation.
"It was an eye-opener to realise that the principles of urban planning we are taught at the university are being used by the Israelis, but for exactly the opposite purpose from the one usually intended. The planning rules here are designed not to improve the Palestinians' lives but to make them more miserable."
The volunteers were hosted at a peace centre in Anata erected on the site of Salim Shawamreh's home, which was demolished four times by Israeli authorities. Known as Arabiya House, after Mr Shawamreh's wife, the building is decorated on one side with a mural depicting the death of Rachel Corrie, a US peace activist, by an Israeli bulldozer that had been demolishing homes in Gaza.
"Imagine your children leaving in the morning for school and returning later in the day to find their home, their whole world, has disappeared while they were gone," Mr Shawamreh said. "It's happened to my children four times. It's cruelty beyond words."
Mr Shawamreh, whose family were refugees from the northern Negev in 1948, said he and ICAHD established the peace centre to highlight the plight of the Palestinians in Anata. Today the house is overlooked by an Israeli police station across the valley, part of the advance growth of a large Jewish settlement, Maale Adumum, that Palestinians and Israeli human rights groups believe is cutting the West Bank in two.
The peace centre is also close both to the snaking route of Israel's separation wall and to a new bypass road – part of what critics call an apartheid road system – being built to ensure that Jewish settlers can drive separately from Palestinians across the West Bank.
Arabiya House is under a temporary reprieve from demolition while Israeli courts determine its status.
Mr Halper said the judges have been reluctant to confirm the destruction order because his group has threatened to take the case to the International Court of Justice if the ruling goes against it.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
The Arabs were there
Eliot, Arabs have been in the region for thousands of years. That is why the region is called Arabia.
What diaspora?
Marilyn Shepherd: "The Romans did not expel the jews from ancient Israel because they simply had no way of doing it."
So, they never even left?
Fair enough. So, who invited the Arabs in, then?
In the words of Shlomo Sand
The Romans did not expel the jews from ancient Israel because they simply had no way of doing it.
Fear of the modern
Ernest William: "If we accept that the Arabs are saying those alternatives due to their conflict with the Jews over thousands of years, who are we to say one is more true than the other?"
Over thousands of years? So much then for the Arabs' hostility to the Jews owing merely to their being "deprived of their land by the invading Israelis" after 1948.
And are we speaking also of the thousands of years Jews themselves lived on that land? Or just since they were driven off them?
Moreover, your claim that the term "anti-Semitism" , as it occurs in common usage, is due merely to the Jews themselves "repeating it over and over (with the help of their protector, the US)" is plainly rebutted by the word being in widespread use across Europe and elsewhere by people who are not Jewish. Or American.
And its is noteworthy, too, that you characterise the USA as being the Jews' principal protector.
I have indeed always understood that one root cause of hostility towards emancipated Jews and hatred of America stems from them both being emblematic of the modern.
You're telling us more than you possibly intend, aren't you?
Try to be fair dinkum, Eliot
G'day Eliot. You have a "Howardistic" penchant for skewing the facts.
Can we agree on some of the major issues of my "wondering"?
1. The Jewish people [race or religion or both] have been badly treated by a significant number of races, countries, and religions, and over a reasonable length of time including ancient history.
2. No matter how you qualify that situation, it still doesn't answer the question as to why.
The contemporary crimes against humanity by the nuclear nation Israel, if they are viewed in isolation, are to be abhorred and are against the United Nations Charter (which didn't exist in the times of Solomon).
However, to excuse Israel for real or perceived crimes against humanity, anti-Semite or not, is surely hypocritical especially when juxtaposed against the Holocaust.
Does one excuse the other? Is it revenge or is it a continuing world-wide distrust of the Jewish race or religion? And why, Eliot?
Why is there so much distrust of anything Jewish, when democratic societies make it a point to identify Jewish artists? Really, they do not need to be identified because they are as excellent or could be more so than those who are not so advertised.
Eliot, do we agree that the Jewish people/religion have a contrived or deserved bad name?
If you consider that as a fact - without the trimmings - then what is the reason why, in your opinion?
Cheers Ern G.
An entirely new level
Ernest William: "Then, as if that loose usage isn't enough, he suggests it is due to the ignorance of the users! Ignorant of what? Does he really mean ignorant of the reason WHY? "
As I pointed out, and which is plainly apparent from the historical record, the reason the term 'anti-Semitic' is principally applied to those who foster hatred against the Jews, as opposed to other Semitic peoples, is that the Jews have been the main target of such victimisation, especially in Western and Central Europe.
While the Muslims were, along with Jews, subject to persecution in Spain and Portugal, for example after the Reconquest of Granada, elsewhere mostly throughout Europe it was the Jews (as opposed to the Muslims) who were subject to the sort of persecution we are speaking of because Jews lived in Europe.
Christians by and large had to go to the Near or Middle East to persecute Muslims.
Complaining that the very victims of anti-Semitic persecution are acting unfairly in some way because they're mainly Jews and do not exhaustively encompass the entire gamut of Semitic peoples, and 'therefore' shouldn't be called the victims of anti-Semitism, has to represent an entirely new level of pedantic chutzpah in itself, I'd say.
Also, demanding that the Jews as victims of centuries of anti-Semitic persecution should offer a more complete and satisfying explanation to you as to why they have been so persecuted for so long and so extensively, implying that the absence of such an explanation somehow mitigates their persecution, is in itself a type of racist or ethnic abuse.
The very questions are concrete evidence of the renewed vigor of anti-Semitic persecution being aggressively promoted by pseudo-intellectual, phoney Leftsits all over the world today.
Racial hatreds are ever evolving
Ernest William: "The victimisation against Jewish people in Poland and Czechoslovakia is a disgrace, but it still highlights my dilemma as to WHY the Jewish people have been so almost universally despised."
Well, obviously they are not "universally" despised, because I don't despise them, you don't despise them, they do not despise themselves, and billions of other people don't despise them.
The real question is why do a proportion of ignorant bigots make a point of spreading hatred against either this or that people. As I have pointed out, in the case of the Jews they are targetted by hate-mongers as a political diversionary tactic.
Ernest William: "G'day Eliot. Unless the world has been deceived for at least two thousand years, Hebrews and Arabs are all Semites."
But as you have yourself just pointed out, it's the Jews that have been especially targetted historically for anti-Semitic hatred, especially ion Europe and the Middle East, to such an extent that anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish bigotry have become synonymous.
Part of the effort lately to rehabilitate anti-Semitic, specifically anti-Jewish hatreds as a 'respectable' political posture has been to been to quibble about the meaning of the word 'anti-Semitic' itself.
The purpose of that is two-fold: (1) to deny that Islamists are anti-Semitic by characterising that as a pseudo-logical paradox ("How can Semites be anti-Semitic?"), (2) to trivialise actual anti-Semitic attacks on Jews ("It is the Jews who are the real anti-Semites because of their conflict with Arabs.")
Call it what you will, it's still ethno-religious hatred and bigotry.
Splitting hairs, Eliot?
G'day Eliot. Please look up page 1553 of Websters Dictionary for the acceptable use of the word "universal" and add to it my "almost".
And while your at it, the literal meaning of the word Semite still means Hebrews, Arabs, Assyrians and Phoenicians.
Over many, many years, perhaps centuries, the people claiming "anti-Jewish" means only "anti-semitism" - are the Jewish people themselves. They have kept repeating it over and over (with the help of their protector, the US) until unfortunately for the Arabs, Assyrians and Phoeniicians when they are tortured, maimed, jailed, killed or deprived of their land by the invading Israelis, THEY are not entitled to claim "anti-semitism" but certainly, I believe they can claim "anti-Semitic" without the "ism"!
You write:
[How can Semites be anti-Semitic?]
[It is the Jews who are the real anti-Semites because of their conflict with Arabs.]
Firstly, that reads like a scholarly observation to me - or else it must have been written by an Arab, Assyrian or Phoenician.
Secondly, in fairness, the author/s do acknowledge the conundrum:"How can Semites be anti-Semitic?" and "It is the Jews who are the real anti-Semites because of their conflict with Arabs".
If we accept that the Arabs are saying those alternatives due to their conflict with the Jews over thousands of years, who are we to say one is more true than the other?
Wouldn't it merely ponder the thought that the Jews are "anti-Semitic"and the "other" Semites are "anti-Semitism" (the latter being the literal meaning of the Jewish as separate from the rest of the Semites by their language, culture and religion).
As I think I understand more it appears to me that the Arabs, at least in the immediate area of Israel, are entitled to claim they are "anti-Semitism" if it means "anti Jewish beliefs, behaviour and culture".
And conversely, doesn't it also mean that the Jews can claim that the Semites hate the Jewish form of "Semitism" and are therefore "anti-Semitism" but not anti-Semitic?
Am I being semantic?
Whatever - like Fiona, I too have given at least a reason for the Semites to separate into warring factions along with the condemnation of Christianity.
But these hatreds go back to the individual Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, when Jerusalem was the capital of Judah - and I still do not know why the hatred is "almost universal" and well beyond the lands of ancient Mesopotamia.
So why? Could it be just the hatred of "Semitism" as a mantra, idiom, paradigm or, as Marilyn suggests, the Jewish religion?
But even then - why?
Cheers Ern G.
Why the hatred?
Ernest, I have only limited internet access at the moment, so will have to make this link-free, and subject to amendment by others better-informed.
My understanding is that in Europe, towards the end of the medieval crusades, the canard that "the Jews killed Jesus" was increasingly being preached from Christian pulpits, often accompanied by a priestly command to go and kill the local Jews.
As hostility towards Jews increased, legal restrictions on them began to be enacted: in most European countries Jews were prohibited from owning land, and from engaging in most forms of economic activity - professions and trades i.e., making a living - except for money lending (because "usury" wasn't something with which a good Christian would soil his hands - see Thomas Aquinas).
Now, given that back then the population didn't have politicians, journalists, real estate agents and used car salesmen to despise, which occupation would be regarded as the lowest of the low? The moneylender, of course.
So there you have it: on the one hand the ancestors of these blighters had killed your Lord Jesus Christ, and on the other hand (or perhaps in their hands) they had you by the short and curlies because of that little loan that you took out ten years ago to pay for your daughter's dowry.
Add to that the Jews' long tradition of, and respect for, learning (most of them were literate) and you have the natural suspicion of the less-educated for the better-educated. Worse still, they don't indulge in the form of meat that was most available to the European population as a whole - pork. These people must be really strange...
Then, as restrictive laws forced these weirdos into ghettos and shtetls, their "otherness" became even more marked. Humans don't like the "other" - it's scary. Hardly surprising, then, that pogroms became one of the more popular participant sports in Europe.
The problem is that once a mindset has been encouraged for hundreds of years, it's highly resistant to change.
This is far too simplistic a summary of a complex phenomenon with multiple causes, but I think it is fairly accurate (and my facetiousness is meant to be ironic, rather than insulting), and hope that it helps.
Jenny, I don't think that your guest's reaction to his sartorial problem could be regarded as attributable to his religion.
Acceptable except for one thing, Fiona
G'day Fiona, I agree with you regarding the Christian hatred of the Jews because they made the choice given them by the Romans as to who the latter should crucify vis-a-vis a considered radical rabbi or a freedom fighter against Rome.
Without any proof my friend, I would nevertheless imagine that the all-powerful Jewish priests would be likely to have made that decision - not the entire Jewish population.
Roughly put, but that's the way I remember the story of that famous "choice".
I agree that the Christain Church is in fact a breakaway from Judaism and worships the said Jewish rabbi and his mother and I have written that as my belief too.
Your article answers my question to Geoff and Eliot as to WHY only partly Fiona in that the victimisation, hatred, persecution or whatever of the Jewish people goes back long before the beginning of Christianity - even to the days of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
The King James version of the Christian Bible sheds some light on that but still does not satisfy my itch of WHY?
I know there are explanations found on the net but I hesitate to use them as it seems they may offend.
Eliot dismisses it as anti-semite when the literal meaning of Semite is , according to Websters Dictionary "1. a person regarded as descended from Shem, 2. a member of any of the peoples speaking a Semitic language, including the Hebrews, Arabs, Assyrians, Phoenicians, etc. [and} 3. same as Jew: a loose usage.
Then, as if that loose usage isn't enough, he suggests it is due to the ignorance of the users! Ignorant of what? Does he really mean ignorant of the reason WHY?
Then I ask Eliot to tell us what we are ignorant of.
Good to communicate again with you, Fiona. I trust your mother is well.
Cheers Ern G.
Hatred
Fiona, I can well remember as a kid growing up in Yorkshire often being confronted with "you killed Christ". My standard reply was, "it was not me, it was those lads from Manchester". That usually kept them quiet as they struggled with the enormity of what I said.
Anyone who won't eat Babe gets my vote
Fiona, anyone who won't eat Babe, for whatever reason, will get my vote. They are extremely intelligent animals and what we do to them in those intensive pig barns beggars belief. If anyone would like to see the undercover video AL in Victoria obtained in one such, or the one taken, again undercover, in a NSW abattoir a few years back, then let me know but you won't eat pork afterwards I can guarantee. It was what they did to pigs that convinced me to stop eating meat 20 years ago.
No I suspect the Scot here would also have shed his pants in the same situation. It of course had nothing to do with religion, but was the first time I had ever entertained anyone of that faith - so it was rather memorable.
Mindsets for hundreds of years - indeed, can take many hundreds more to change, if they ever can be changed. Who, when the Mongolians are mentioned does not immediately see in their minds from their school history books the Mongolian horders sweeping across Europe.Who when they visit Germany can honestly say that they do not see in their mind's eye the concentration camps. Maybe we should just erase history as a school subject. Start the whole show from scratch. We seem to spend so much time arguing here, and all over the world, over the past, instead of focusing on the future and how it can be made better.
History is like a dysfunctional family that has perpetuated dysfunction in its children. Yes, time to start again. Forget the lessons of history. They are too awful for words.
Who ya gonna call?
Jenny: "Start the whole show from scratch. We seem to spend so much time arguing here, and all over the world, over the past, instead of focusing on the future and how it can be made better.
History is like a dysfunctional family that has perpetuated dysfunction in its children. Yes, time to start again. Forget the lessons of history. They are too awful for words."
I agree Jen. Too many people are bogged down in the past, instead of looking to the future.
We all have the power to make a positive difference and move forward in this oft troubled world filled with turmoil and tribulation.
If we can only exorcise the ghosts of the past, and lay them to rest, for good.
Time to stop arguing about the past and move on
"Forget the lessons of history. They are too awful for words."
Actually, Bill, that was something that Jenny wrote, and I quoted, in my post.
My reply to Jenny's statement was:
"I agree Jen. Too many people are bogged down in the past, instead of looking to the future."
You really need to read Jenny's statement in its entirety, Bill, to get the full picture. Here it is again for you.
"Start the whole show from scratch. We seem to spend so much time arguing here, and all over the world, over the past, instead of focusing on the future and how it can be made better.
"History is like a dysfunctional family that has perpetuated dysfunction in its children. Yes, time to start again. Forget the lessons of history. They are too awful for words."
It's all about looking to the future and not dwelling in the past.
Lest we remember?
Kathy Farrelly: "Forget the lessons of history. They are too awful for words."
Sounds like something said by Pol Pot and his mob. Brush everything away and start anew at year zero, was their policy.
Don't worry, Kathy. Global warming, the running out of the hydrocarbons we are addicted to, the idiotic concept of world superpowers and our own idiotic gimme-gimme-gimme greed will conspire to bring about a worldwide year zero before too long.
Support for Ernest certain
Ernest: "If I wanted to be a Communist I would hope that you would support my right to be one."
Of course I would, Ernest. In fact, some of my best friends are Communish.
Good show, Geoff
G'day Geoff,
Re: "In fact, some of my best friends are Communish". And some of my best friends are Jewish.
Cheers Ern G.
Unpredictable guests do Jewish folk make
Geoff, it can be a bit disconcerting to invite one's Jewish acquaintances and family to dinner. We felt we should invite two we hardly knew to dinner, since one had just publicly voted the Scot here a genuis for inventing a three person chessboard. Mind you he stripped him of his status a week later when some Yank wrote in to say that some bloke over there had invented the same thing a year before. Great minds do sometimes think alike, but the honour could only go to one. So the Scot, being a bit tardy with his invention, lost out.
But back to dinner. It got off to a bad start. We handed a glass of red to the chief of the Order of Geniuses and he promptly spilt it in his lap. He leapt up screaming my new trousers, my new trousers, and promptly there in the middle of the lounge room in full view of the lady of the house, stripped off to his red flannel undies. He then bolted for the bathroom with said trousers to try and undo the damage. What would Hyacinth Bucket have done in such a situation? Anyway, a great evening was had by all.
Now I have nothing against the Jewish folk and my dear little niece has just had her first baby with her Jewish partner. The rellies visited us for a couple of days and I carefully avoided buying ham, recalling the embarrassment years before when me old Mum had once inflicted same on some American tourists only to find it all left on the plates later. I told the story to the rellies and they then informed me, that except for the father, they did eat bacon and ham.
I wonder if some Muslims also eat ham and bacon? None that I ever knew did and I thought Jewish folk were just as rigid. Seems one learns something new every day. As for my dear Buddhist girlfriend of 40 years from Sri Langka, she used to rouse on me if I tipped boiling water on the ground when were students together in Pakistan. I was not allowed to kill a single insect by doing that, so she always made me let it cool first. So if Bill Avent wonders why I take the cockroaches outside and sweep the ants off the log before puting it in the fire, then that is what got me going. I cannot tread on an snail without thinking of that young Ceylonese Buddhist girl, now grandmother like me. Mind you, as I said elsewhere I have not seen a snail in years.
Indeed, any example would be useful
Bill Avent: "Examples of that are to be found all over; and I am not the only one to have commented on it."
I'm not aware of Jenny ever saying anything "anti-islamic". Could you show us an example?
Eliot - look for the other agendas
Eliot, thank you for your back up. But as you know, you only have to criticize anything that is done in the Muslim world by Muslim people to be labelled anti Islamic by the one-eyed around here. It does not matter if you are actually stating facts, as Ernie points out.
It seems if is done by people in the Middle East, be it cruelty to animals, or blowing up a bus full of people, then one must remain silent and not condemn the actions for fear of being seen as anti Islamic or against Middle Eastern people in general.
Quite ridiculous. So look for the real agenda driving those who try to pull that stunt on you.
Take this from my Live Exports thread from Mr Avent:
Now, one can only wonder at a statement like that on a thread that was devoted to the high death rate of animals on boats leaving this country, but touching also on the terrible fate of many of them on arrival in the ME (the primary destination of animals exported live) through cruel handling and slaughtering practices that would not be acceptable in this country. Oh dear, such anti Islamic remarks. Well garbage. If I were less polite I would use the other word.
I suppose if the majority of the animals were being shipped to South Korea and not the ME and I wrote that thread, I would be anti Buddhist and anti far eastern people.
Not worth even engaging with such nonsense. My policy is to either ignore such or simply use it as I did here as an example of the valid point Ernie was making.
Cheers.
Judaism is not a race
For heaven's sake Geoff, there is the human race and that is the only "race". Then we have ethnic groups within the human race who are simply different because of skin or hair or eye colour and not much else.
Then we have a bunch of religions invented by men.
That is all they are. That is all Jews are.
Sheer ignorance
Ernest William: "And Geoff, whether you believe it or not, I have wondered for many years about the reasons, or the excuse, for the anger against the Jewish. It seems ironic that we never hear about anti-Jewish sentiments in Communism."
The main reason "for the anger against the Jewish", as you put it, is sheer racist ignorance.
And as for never hearing about "anti-Jewish sentiments in Communism", anti-Semitism was a widespread feature of the former Communist regimes in Eastern Europe.
For example, here is a reference to two books dealing with anti-Semitism in Communist Poland.
Here is a note on the post war anti-Semitic show trials in Communist Czechoslovakia.
There are plenty of other examples.
Plain ignorance is a major force behind the contemporay push to rehabilitate political anti-Semitism as a "respectable" standpoint.
Let's at least agree on facts
G'day Eliot. Unless the world has been deceived for at least two thousand years, Hebrews and Arabs are all Semites. Meaning, I believe, the original inhabitants of Mesopotamia.
As an obviously educated person, do you support arguing against the historians and all modern dictionaries, especially on the basis of hatred?
Firstly Eliot, to put a genuine point of view, it seems to me that you should first prove that the accepted "facts" are not true? You make anti-semitism sound like "anti a people" while selectively dismissing certain races of that people for whom you have no regard.
The victimisation against Jewish people in Poland and Czechoslovakia is a disgrace, but it still highlights my dilemma as to WHY the Jewish people have been so almost universally despised.
You and Geoff have convincingly argued the facts of Jewish people being terribly treated and you have described the crimes - the "opportunity" period - but not the "motive".
IMHO the mistreatment of the Jewish people seems to be evident even before the beginning of Christianity - well into Biblical history.
I am still trying to understand why.
And I still cannot get an answer from the two people on whom I rely to advise me.
Cheers Ern G.
Just a fair dinkum comment.
Should we think and reason at the reports which are coming from Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Kurdistan, Afghanistan and other "-stans" - what do they all have in common?
Is there a similar concern about the African nations?
It is a matter of record that the United States of America has 6% of the world population while it absorbs 50% of its resources.
If de-stabilisation and unrest are the underhanded activities of "terrorists" then who gains financially in every instance?
It seems that I aggravate some people by asking questions.
I have always believed that questioning was to be encouraged and cultivated especially by the universities of the "free" world! That is a statement not a question. Make that ALL universities.
Let us hope that we never deny anyone the right to question.
Cheers Ern G.
And just what do the Amish want, anyhow?
Ernest: "In the hope of increasing the already significant interest in this thread I would like to engage you, once again, as to whether the "Jewish people" are a race or a religion."
Okay. I'll go first.
If Judaism is just a religion, is the Church of England the British counterpart to Zionism, and is the Queen the head of a "racist state" which deliberately prevents Muslims from becoming the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Then there's the "apartheid" Channel which stops French people from working in the UK.
Also, I'm a bit concerned about Pakistan, which is not only an Islamic Republic, therefore "racist" in the same way that Israel is, but which has "stolen" most of its territory from India.
And they've got them bomb.
And what about the Vatican? A blatantly "racist" dictatorship with a vast, influential Catholic lobby infiltrating and manipulating bingo halls and old-folks homes and kindergartens from here to Alaska to Tierra Del Fuego to the Philippines to Madrid to Sao Paulo to Cootamundra.
Millions of them.
What do they do in those cathedrals, anyway? And why do they wear those funny hats?
Don't even get me going on the Amish. You cannot even tell which way their hats are supposed to face. Blatanly discriminates against Home Boys.
And you try doing a drive-by shooting from a horse-drawn carriage.
Clip-clop-clip-clop--clip-clop--clip-clop--clip-clop- BANG!
Make a get-away at nine miles per hour, no way.
Eliot, is there something to hide?
G'day Eliot and Geoff,
Eliot - firstly, concerning your opinion of the Amish and others - I asked a question that you obviously could not answer without disguising it with a poor attempt at indignity.
Simply put, your reply was at best a "political style" effort to avoid the real issue. I recommend:
"Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story."
I suggest, Eliot, that you take the advice of the most ignorant Prime Minister in my living memory and realise that you have choice - to answer or not.
And Geoff, whether you believe it or not, I have wondered for many years about the reasons, or the excuse, for the anger against the Jewish. It seems ironic that we never hear about anti-Jewish sentiments in Communism.
Boy - will Eliot make an issue of that!
When a people, or a religion (like the Muslims) are denigrated because of what they are - I wonder what they are - that is so offensive.
Undoubtedly for example - because of the mind-set of bigoted people - an African/American must be almost perfect to be "equal".
Without losing the thread as Eliot did, please consider what I am trying to learn without bias, misinformation or angst.
Since I have involved myself with this issue, I have tried to be investigative and willing to try to understand a problem that has been active over many centuries.
Remember Geoff, that you are not obliged to defend anything. Actually, on a much smaller basis, neither am I.
The issues in the Middle East, and indeed the entire world, seem to be forcefully argued by those who cannot depend on the factual situation without using colour, race or creed.
I think that Marilyn in her convincing fashion, made a significant mark with me and I thank her for it.
OK - I have been interested in this issue since I was a young man and I would like to understand the justification for the "inherent" hatred attitude of anything Jewish.
Geoff, we are brain-washed into believing that at certain times, certain peoples, and certain religions are enemies of "our" society.
In all fairness mate, I have tried to go back in recorded history and the Middle East is fascinating.
The "isolated" issue of Palestine could perhaps be understood (not excused) by the history of that region back to pre-Christianity.
Between you and me, Geoff, how many wars in recorded history had NOTHING to do with religion?
If we can I would like to continue to engage with you.
Cheers Ern G.
There's truth in that, Ernie
Ernest William Graham: "The issues in the Middle East, and indeed the entire world, seem to be forcefully argued by those who cannot depend on the factual situation without using colour, race or creed."
First Ernie, nice to see you around again and I trust you and your good wife are well.
As to your above statement there is truth in that but I would also say this.
One cannot forcefully argue any issue in the middle east, or indeed the whole world, without risking being wrongly accused of ignoring or even using the facts as a basis for expressions of prejudice of some kind or other, racial and religious being the most common.
A classic example of that was made by a commenter on my live export thread recently. He chose to ignore the facts I had put forward of the cruelty to our animals in the ME and instead tried to claim that in talking about that issue I was anti Islamic people. It is best to ignore such nonsense which I did. But it does show how people will ignore the facts in order to pursue some sort of prejudice and agenda of their own.
That sort of thing if taken seriously would mean that one could not argue against the stoning of women in Iran without being accused of being anti Middle Eastern Muslim people.
Thank you for the welcome back Jenny
G'day Jenny, my wife and I are both well thank you. With regard to your comment:
Simply indisputable! And very annoying.
One of the most disappointing issues I had when I served on juries was the sometimes preconceived ideas of some otherwise decent people. I believe that there is too much emotion in juries, and having a computer programmed with the appropriate laws and overseen by one judge would be a better and fairer alternative. The computer decides guilt or innocence, and the judge decides the resultant order.
Some of us have been conditioned to believe that black is the colour of evil and white that of purity. Conversely, African/American and African athletes are accepted as outstanding, but if anyone says they can't swim too good they are called racist.
If we criticise democracy (US/Howard's New Order style) we are "red raggers". During the cold war, Soviet states broke from Russia and were supported by the US. One of those states, Georgia, attacked a smaller segment for breaking away and the reverse happened but - in both instances Russia was wrong - strange.
There is not doubt in my mind that G.W. Bush literally stole the Presidency of the US and was confirmed by a majority Supreme Court, most of whom were appointed by his father. This, after his brother and cousin handled the fraud which was the Florida election.
If half the accusations levelled at Israel are true then to continually harp on the Holocaust as an excuse just raises the spectre of hypocrisy. I am still trying to find the real reason for the unthinking criticism of the Jewish race or religion.
The Roman Catholic Church continues to be wounded by paedophilia, and yet the hierachy (including Cardinal Pell) consistently hides the culprits while maintaining archaic views on human relations.
There are many, many other instances of bigotry for and against, so what do we do about it, Jenny?
Rather than see the United Nations controlled by the US or Russia or any of the Security Council - it has to have something going for it to continue to exist.
Decent countries like Australia should never elect governments that are puppets of the US (like the Howardists) or any other power mad Military/Corporate. That would be a start at least.
Cheers Ern G.
Another thing, Ern
Ernest William: "maintaining archaic views on human relations."
I expect you mean the issue of celibacy, Ern.
Take the case of Father Michael Cleary (mentioned a while ago by another Webdiarist - I forget who). All thought he was a squeaky clean priest, practising what he preached. In actual fact his housekeeper of 26 years was basically his common law wife. Not only that, he also bedded many a single mother he was supposed to have been counselling. He had a common law wife (and I am not condoning this) after all, wasn't that enough? The man was a complete and utter bastard masquerading under the guise of a good and caring priest. A bloody hypocrite.
Many people try and make celibacy an issue with regards to priests who abuse helpless children. Got nothing to do with it. These bastards are paedophiles pure and simple. Had they been allowed to have a wife it would not have made any difference! Heck, I have many friends who choose to be celibate, and have been in some instances been happy and celibate for many years. They don't go around molesting and raping.
Priests choose their vocation. They are not forced. They can at any time (as many have) relinquish the priesthood, if that is their wish.
One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, Ern
Ernest William: "The Roman Catholic Church continues to be wounded by paedophilia, and yet the hierachy (including Cardinal Pell) consistently hides the culprits while maintaining achaic views on human relations."
With respect, Ern, the Catholic church of the 21st century is trying to clean up its act ( and so it bloody well should too!).
Many of the incidents coming to light now happened many years ago. For example today's disgusting bombshell.
The days of shoving it under the carpet are gone. They must and will be held accountable!
There are many decent people in the Catholic church (and many other Christian churches) who are dedicated and caring people, working hard to alleviate suffering of their fellow man. The few bad apples in the barrel are not indicative of the overall quality of the rest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DhgP8fydHQ
For what it is worth, Kathy
G'day Kathy, I agree with both your comments but with some qualification.
Re the Roman Catholic Church - history records massive crimes of lust and/or war by popes, cardinals, priests and sisters but, over the many centuries, that Church has made progress into modern times and the power has become more psychological than physical.
Perhaps it would be a step forward if that Church automatically defrocked the people who do not maintain their standards of papal law and then should they should face the laws of their societies rather than that of their religion alone.
However, Kathy, I tend to disagree with the somewhat fatalistic attitude of "so be it". No offence intended, but I think history seems to have shown an improvement in the lives of various nations by giving the power of decision to the indigenous peoples. They then have to go through the experiences of that which most of the western countries needed to maintain their existence.
Although it still seems to me that my unpopular belief viz "A nation is only entitled to that which it can defend" is still well alive and thriving.
The wars of conquest continue despite the efforts of the United Nations and so much of world politics is argued at the point of a gun.
The US tells us that they are the people who should rule the world. No longer for their own paranoic protection but, so they can decide who is right and who is wrong. Keep wrong-footing your opponent - destablise - Guantanomo Bay - sanctions - Redemption - and all the while refusing to sign up to the International Criminal Court.
You are right about the state of our world, but hope springs eternal. Nations are beginning to stand up to the bullies, and in several cases have triumphed over almost unbelievable abuses of liberty and freedom under the aegis of democracy.
Keep faith, Kathy, with the inherent decency of the majority of human beings and maintain your compassion for all of them.
Cheers Ern G.
Not much really Ern
Ernest William: " There are many, many other instances of bigotry for and against, so what do we do about it, Jenny"
There is so much that divides the peoples on this earth I doubt you can do much about it at all, Ern. It was ever thus and ever will be. I think if history has taught us anything it has taught us that.
Even if there was no poverty in the world and everyone had everything in the way of material comforts that they needed, I still think people all over the world would be at war with each other. Hell, they will even seek retribution over a bump from a donkey cart and a mango in one part of the world. And here people are just as bad. I had a woman scream abuse at me the other night simply because the door of our car on a very dark night accidentally touched hers, no mark, nothing to get excited about, but she was yelling like a banshee about her car being wrecked - yes wrecked. She would be the sort of person in other parts of the world who would draw a gun and gun you down in a situation like that.
If this is a decent country as you say, then at times one could be forgiven for questioning such. Decent behaviour, even here, seems to be in somewhat short supply at times.
Anyway, nice to see you back. I don't have much time to be on these other threads these days but I try to stick with seeing through the ones I start.
Cheers.
Thee and me
Jenny, we had a saying in Yorkshire: "All the world is queer 'cept thee and me, and even thee's a bit queer at times."
Sums it all up really.
Richard: Is that what you said while walking on ilkla morr baht hat?
Ilkley Moor
Richard, I spent many happy hours camping and walking on Ilkley Moor as a young man. Whenever I go back there I have lunch at a little pub and have a couple of pints of Tetleys. Makes one forget the troubles of the world.
A classic example
Of someone talking about the truth, while not telling it, Jenny Hume.
In truth I did not try to claim that in talking about that issue you were "anti Islamic people". I merely gave voice to my impression that you use every discussion on every topic even remotely associated with the Middle East to demonstrate your prejudice against Islam. Examples of that are to be found all over; and I am not the only one to have commented on it.
As to ignoring the facts you put forward, I felt no need to comment on them, because they contained nothing new. I repeat, it is we who export sheep; and so it is we who are mostly in need of criticism. We need to lift our game before we criticise others. Remember Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
No defence
Ernest: "If we can I would like to continue to engage with you."
Me too, Ernest. But we have to have points of engagement. You find Marilyn convincing? Only the moderators have stopped me from fully describing how I find her.
Nothing "anti-Jewish" in Communism? Communism is a religion, mate. More intolerant than most. Like Greenism.
Digressing?
G'day Geoff. The irony of our relationship - I believe - is that our politics are obviously diametrically opposed.
If I wanted to be a Communist I would hope that you would support my right to be one.
Why I mention Communism is because my understanding is that the Russian Jewish people were sacrificed in the occupied areas but not by the Soviet Union as a principle. I am not sure of that, Geoff.
But, I tend to wander. Getting back to the thread.
Is the perception of the criticism of Israel in the middle east influenced in any way by an ancient degrading perception of anything Jewish?
I guess, Geoff, that I may appear to you to be a person who knows nothing of the history and the life-blood of the Jewish people, but somewhere there is the reason for the anti-Jewish bigotry.
Keep advising me Geoff.
Cheers Ern G.
I sense some anger, Geoff
G'day Geoff. If we are to seriously discuss this issue, let me explain and for the meantime, let us forget the blame-game in the Middle East.
I grew up from the Great Depression, through WW 2 and because of the suffering of every country involved I experienced a deep sadness - except America, which made a profit.
You would think that I would see the US as the major warmonger of all time and you would be right. [Are they Jewish?]
However, people are, as one WD contributor called us, "sheople", and are manipulated by whatever powers that be. Ancient Rome, and a plathora of empire builders, have always achieved their objectives by force. The only meek who are supposed to inherit the earth are restricted to six foot of it. Are people only entitled to that which they can defend?
In my youth, wealth and Jewish were synonymous - but, unheralded - it also applied to the financially aggressive nations, the dictators and the US. So why blacken only the Jewish? Hitlerism united on the basis of hatred of something - or some country or race.
It was almost as though society resented the financial success of the Jewish people - like they were the only experts in that field, that they alone took advantage of the laws of whatever country, as though they were cheating the other business people. Was that a compliment or just envy?
No Eliot, I am not trying to con Geoff. I am sincerely trying to understand why I have been expected to hate anything Jewish especially when the going gets tough. Isn't it convenient to have someone to blame for your own shortcomings?
That is why, Geoff, I have provoked thought and reasoning because I cannot honestly say that I am for or against the Jewish people and for God's sake, why is that an issue?
Are crimes committed by Israel worse than that by others because they argue the Holocaust? I am captive to the media as is everyone else so I have to depend on consistency, commonsense and logic to form an opinion.
It may appear to you, Geoff, that I am insincere but, as an interested Gentile, will you please explain to me why anything done by ancient or contemporary Israel is suspect - and more so than any other nation in the world?
Why do I ask questions, because at a very old age, I am still willing to learn.
Does anyone really believe that the Jewish people, race or religion, should be the scapegoats of history? The logic is, of course not.
Are we still manipulated by the powers that be?
Cheers Ern G.
La Manche
Eliot: "Then there's the "apartheid" Channel which stops French people from working in the UK.."
We're all part of the EU, Eliot: there are no restrictions on French people working in the UK.
Answer to Ernest's earnest question
Ernest: "In the hope of increasing the already significant interest in this thread I would like to engage you, once again, as to whether the "Jewish people" are a race or a religion."
Yes.
And no.
And neither.
Inconsistency
Ernest William: "In the hope of increasing the already significant interest in this thread I would like to engage you, once again, as to whether the "Jewish people" are a race or a religion."
That's an idea. We could also consider whether the "Muslim people" are a race or a religion while we are at it?
That would be directly pertinent to Hamas's programme of imposing an Islamic state on Palestine-Israel, perhaps after the model of the Iranian theocracy which funds them.
Ernest William: "It seems to me, Eliot, that the powers that be have employed the word terrorism to selectively identify resistance to their demands?"
Indeed. I've noticed this in the UN Human Rights Council which has now passed 60 per cent of its resolutions on Israel alone and nothing on China and Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia.
Imagine that. China, with its appalling human rights record, a superpower that can spend 80 billion dollars on the Olympics and has 20 per cent of the world's population under the control of a thuggish communist dictatorship, and there's never been a resolution passed against it in the UN Human Rights Council?
The Council instead literally devotes most of its business to castigating Israel for its "crimes" and "terrorism" against the likes of Hamas, which as you know is not a terrorist organisation according to Vladimir Putin and other such peace activists and champions of human rights.
The Council even resorts to trivial anti-Semitic harassment like scheduling meetings on Jewish high holy days and the like. What next? 'Juden rauss' painted on the windows in bright yellow?
You mentioned the hypocrisy surrounding the 'debate' over Israel.
It's more like an obsessive preoccupation with Israel that feeds now into a spiraling global effort at the rehabilitation of political anti-Semitism the only apparent purpose of which is to provide rhetorical diversions for dictatorships like Syria, feudal tyrannies like Saudi Arabia, and as a cloak of fake moral rectitude for neo-Nazis and other assorted bigots who, incredibly, these days parade as advocates of human rights and otherwise use the "anti-Zionist" tag to weasel their way in amongst respected churchmen, philosophers and social commentators.
Jacob A. Stam: "I subsequently invited you to put up your supposed historical facts for scrutiny here, which I can see no indication of happening."
Please see Fiona's comment at August 24, 2008 - 3:00pm.
Judaism is a religion only
Zionism is a poltical movement attached to the religion whose only goal when invented in the late 1880's was to steal Palestine.
This professor has an interesting story to tell which resonates with the works of other Israeli historians but goes just that few steps further.
Ilan Pappe exposes the myth of the empty land, the leaving of the arabs by consent instead of force and this professor "proves" there was never an exodus.
Things that have also been shown in other films which show that muslims and jews lived together for 1000 years in peace.
Switzerland of the East
Ernest William: "The major interest in this thread is surely the perceived hypocrisy ofIsrael
Well, of course, exactly the same could be said of Hamas. But won't be.
In some ideal situation, perhaps a hundred years from now, the Palestine-Israel region would be at peace.
What would it be like then? Perhaps neither Israel or Palestine would exist as such? Perhaps instead there would be some third, separate entity that was inclusive of Jews and Muslims (and others).
I dunno? Let's call that hypothetical State the 'Federal Republic of Judea-Palaestina'.
Judea-Palaestina might be a democratic, multicultural republic whose constitution guarantees separation of religion and state; guarantees religious freedom, takes a pro-active approach to respecting the cultural traditions of its constituent communities, preserves the built heritage of its various communities, the rights of women, the right to vote, to freedom of expression and assembly, etc, etc.
For those genuinely interested in such a thing, the question isn't "Who is more hypocritical than whom", but how to move from the current situation of mutual hatred and recrimination to the one envisaged in a 'Federal Republic of Judea-Palaestina'.
So, Ernest, do you think Hamas and its supporters (and opponents) would be interested in moving towards such a goal? Or would they rather keep the hatreds bubbling over?
Excellent comment, Eliot
G'day Eliot,
Since I have returned to this truly enjoyable interchange of ideas and opinions, I have been attracted to the plight of the Middle East in general.
Your questions are very interesting - and there is obviously no simple answer. Indeed, what would Solomon do?
It seems, however, that the concentration of war and destalisation in that general area is the new; revived or perhaps the re-invented Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
Should we consider the right of the Jewish people to have a land of their own to the exclusion of the rights of the majority of the century-old inhabitants of those lands? I believe not - otherwise that principle would turn the entire world of upside down without considering the indigenous peoples. Australia is no exception.
We are told that the ancient "Brits" are the Welsh - how about them regaining what the Romans, Normans, Anglos, Saxons and Jutes have taken from them?
What about the lands in which the greatest conflict is occurring - lands of the Amorites, Canaan and the Philistines (refer to The Nations of the Genesis 10). I would guess that the descendents of those tribes could be hard to find less than attempt to judge any claim of original ownership.
If we could begin a linear chart of those lands going back as far as recorded history, and cut it at the end of each era, which race would have the most claim to possession of the now disputed area?
The thread we are contributing to is indeed fascinating. Contributions by so many people including you, warm me to the thought that the problems of the Middle East could be because of the changing of the colonial powers.
Along with the inconsistency of judgement (as with our friend Geoff) which, at best, is destabilising any genuine effort to bring about a just peace.
So, is there a clear line of demarcation like; "possession is nine points of the law" or; perhaps like a statute of limitations by which the United Nations (NOT the US) would be guided in their ultimate decision- and one in which ALL signatories to the Charter are bound?
Who knows, Eliot - perhaps our discussions may help us to fairly apprehend the most important issue in this disgrace to the memories of those who perished in two World Wars - and on?
Cheers mate - Ern G.
Fair enough
Fiona: "Eliot, it is for Marilyn to decide now whether or not to respond to you."
Oh, sure. I understand that. So, what if in future, where appropriate, we ask Marilyn just one question per thread, which she can then choose to ignore?
Fiona: Does butter melt, Eliot? As you are, I am sure, well aware - given your sagacity regarding other people's motives - the moderators regard your habit of incessant questioning as close to abuse, if not already over the line. By the way, thanks for observing my comment about style. You are nearly there.
I won't answer Eliot
But Alan, thousands of US citizens shoot each other to death each year and they don't have the excuse of a civil war or an occupation, do they?
Perception is the basis of politics.
G'day Geoff. This discussion of the Jewish Middle East ethnic cleansing could conjure up many different opinions.
For example: If it exists, does it negate the Holocaust? Of course not! Is it intended to do so?
The major interest in this thread is surely the perceived hypocrisy ofIsrael
If you consider a crime is a crime, no matter who commits it; no matter who suffers it; then the only consideration is the punishment to suit the crime?
I understand thatGermany
It is clear that theUS is politically and financially involved with the Middle East . And their embedded representative is Israel
Geoff , does this really have anything to do with the misunderstood Jewish State of Israel, or the American manipulation of that oil wealthy area?
We are only pawns in the scheme of things, Geoff, but if you were to consider the world problems, can you say thatIsrael
And because of the media – what do you believe?
Cheers Ern G.
Looking forward to Marilyn's comments.
Marilyn Shepherd: "That is why I defend the Palestinians."
Well, Hamas hasn't been what you'd call an unqualified boon for the Palestinians, has it? Any more than Fatah before it. In fact, less.
Anyway, given your support for the Palestinians, and the failure of Hamas or Fatah to deliver them peace, what is your solution to the conflict between Israel and the Arabs? Or indeed, between Hamas and its Palestinian victims?
Since Hamas's policy of destroying Israel has been a manifest failure, what do you suggest should be done?
Unlike you, there are people out there, I suspect, who actually enjoy the idea of keeping the conflict going, they perhaps want to perpetuate the Israeli/Arab conflict as a sort of on-going political diversion by preserving inter-racial hatreds between Muslims and Jews.
Takes the heat of various failed and corrupt regimes in the region.
So, what would be your main constructive suggestions regarding ending the conflict, Marilyn? You must have many thoughts on the matter.
Fiona: Eliot, it is for Marilyn to decide now whether or not to respond to you. Please do not continue this approach either here or on other threads: you are not cross-examining counsel and Marilyn is not in the witness box. Would you also please pay attention to the request that I made in my email yesterday. Thank you.
Civil war
Let's see now. The Israelis wouldn't deal with Fatah because of Arafat and his corruption so Bibi helped to form Hamas.
When Hamas won the electionIsrael declared them a terrorist organisation and early this year armed Fatah along with money from the US to help Fatah murder as many Hamas as possible so that Israel would have a puppet regime in the West Bank as well as Gaza
That boys and boys and other little children is called a contrived civil war and is not terrorism.
As for the killing of Jews on buses - ever seen or heard me cheering? I think it is despicable and revolting but doesn't give the Israeli's the right to slaughter 45 civilians for every Jew.
Iraqis have been involved in a civil war since we stupidly invaded, Afghans have a nice civil war,Pakistan has one with their part of Kashmir , India with their part of Kashmir .
This is not terrorism. It is civil and tribal war as old as the hills.
I really fail to see how the use of one mentally disabled boy as a failed suicide bomber is more repugnant though than murdering 16 members of one family while they were trying to flee a bomb.
Perhaps you don't know that the journalist whose family was slaughtered worked for SBS and other foreign stations as a translator and that 82 people were murdered in Beit Hanoun in 6 days in November 2006 alone, with 500 murdered in the few months after Gilad Shalit was taken during his job of tormenting Palestinians.
And the nation with 200 or more nukes, the world's fifth biggest army and is the occupier of another whole people against a few bloody AK47's and rocks is not match.
That is why I defend the Palestinians.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20591.htm
Or perhaps you prefer this sort of savage to live in your towns or cities as they do inHebron
Which part of this isn't terrorism, Marilyn?
Marilyn Shepherd: "Sniper fire into bedrooms to kill children?"
Suicide bombers on buses? Murdering women and kids? Using retarded kids as remote bombing drones? Rocket attacks on Israeli townships? Bombs in old folks community centres? Hiding behind civilians all the time?
I've often wondered, Marilyn, what is your solution to the conflict between Israel and the Arabs?
How would you settle it? Maybe a brief outline of your ideas, instead of constantly sneering at Jews?