Why boycotting Israel matters

Article intro:

«An academic boycott of Israeli universities isn't an attack on freedom of speech. The evidence tells us these institutions are key battlegrounds for breaches of international law towards the Palestinians, ...»

Comment: Of course, it's not just Israeli academics, it's *all* in the I/J/Z-plex, their supporters and apologists, plus regimes across the planet; all those who *could* stop, or bring power towards stopping the breaches of international law, in this case mass-murdering to steal land/property, who earn our opprobrium. Crimes must be stopped, the perpetrators punished, and the hapless, innocent victims awarded full restitution plus acceptable reparations. Else civilisation is lost.


Steve Mount :

18 Dec 2012 5:53:28pm
Sectarian turmoil, and with it, the ethnic divide. To paraphrase the Israelis, 'We will defend our homeland against all invaders', and the Palestinians, 'We will not rest until the usurpers are gone'.

To think that such base behaviour and attitudes still exist in our current time is astounding.

After centuries, and even millennia, when will such hot-heads learn the art of compromise and accomodation?

  • aletheia :

    18 Dec 2012 10:59:01pm
    Pperhaps when the improperly dispossessing, alien interlopers revest the stolen land/property, pay fully acceptable reparations and sincerely apologise?
    • The Real Al :

      19 Dec 2012 8:22:21am

      Your suggestions for compromise have already been tried – and failed.

      A generous compensation offer was made in the last round of Camp David talks a decade or so ago, and rejected by the Palestinians.

      Israel withdrew from part of the Palestinian claimed land (Gaza) only to be rewarded with an escalation of violence and rocket fire.
      • jag :

        19 Dec 2012 8:59:53am
        " A generous compensation offer was made in the last round of Camp David talks a decade or so ago, and rejected by the Palestinians."

        No, that's not true. Arafat did not reject any "offer". The talks were to resume at Taba but Israeli PM Barak walked away from the process after calling an election.
      • DG :

        19 Dec 2012 11:21:07am
        That supposedly 'generous' offer included at most a token concession on the right of return for Palestinian refugees, falling far short of what the Palestinians are entitled to under international law.
      • Orly :

        19 Dec 2012 3:19:05pm
        If the palestinians are entitled to anything, let them demand it from the international court.

        If they cannot, then they are entitled to whatever Israel chooses to give them.
    • Help101 :

      19 Dec 2012 11:17:11am
      What planet are these alien interlopers from?

      Planet Hebrew? or Planet Semite?

      Where are the semites from again?

      Who are the semites exactly? (this one I will help you with, Semites are members of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians).
Comment: Some quibbling was ...cut... from snip#1. Normally following an home-invasion/burglary, SWAT teams are sent in to arrest the perpetrators; no 'compromising' would ever be suggested. The Zs have only one territorial intent, namely to continue a) expanding by more stealing, and if not possible, b) holding onto already stolen land/property. Note the aggressive and/or belittling tone of the pro-Z trolls. The 'alien interlopers' are the Z-immigrants, partly illegal ('33-'48 Aliyah Bet). Jews in pre-UNGA181 Palestine went from 2-4% end 19C to ~30% in '39/'40 (figures hard to find (but see **ZI**); why that?)

Note: Semite  n. member of the peoples said to be descended from Shem (Gen. 10), including esp. the Jews and Arabs. [Greek Sem Shem][POD] Wiki documents 10s of 1000s of Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe (Ashkenazim), is there any proof that these people were/are "semites?" Whatever but see "5. Ben-Gurion(1936-39):" below.

Note: alien  -adj. 1 (often foll. by to) unfamiliar; unacceptable or repugnant. 2 foreign. 3 of beings from other worlds. ... [POD] Since "foreign" comes before "other worlds," immigrants are by definition aliens, and since their presence was a) *not* desired by the native ELO/Os and b) partly illegal (Aliyah Bet), the description "alien invaders" is correct. Help101 is at best pettifogging, at worst (my assumption) both deliberately misleading and outright wrong. Proof is double: a) his Semitic-speaking groups do not include the actual alien invaders, and b) those invaders claim descent (i.e. genetic) from Jews who left Ur-Palestine. Assertions must be provable; absence of DNA-tests, say, suggest no provable genetic link. Even if there were some such link, it is inadmissible to alienate land/property except through free&fair, *voluntary* exchange.


Privatise Aunty :

18 Dec 2012 6:35:23pm
The writer appears to have a pathological hatred of Israel, I could be wrong but this seems to be the only thing he writes about.

As a casual observer I find it strange that Israel, a democracy with the rule of law is constantly vilified, our ABC gives a constant voice to this.

Never a peep out of these types re the thousands slaughtered in Syria, the alarming abuses of fundamental human rights in Egypt and the rest of the Arab world, in Iran, Africa, China and the list goes on.

I recently saw a bunch of rent a crowd no hopers attempting to boycott a chocolate shop with apparent Israeli connections for crying out loud.

The hypocrisy and double standards are too obvious, this in my opinion is anti israeli propaganda.

  • Orly :

    18 Dec 2012 7:28:14pm
    Nothing so complicated.

    The palestinians are fighting a war. The BDS supporters are trying to assist the militants to win that war, but they can't publicly admit it.

    This article an example of their propaganda. Endless excuses and justification, while motive remains unspoken.
    • Dove :

      19 Dec 2012 9:46:51am
      Good to see your even handed support of free speech, Orly, as usual.
    • Max Gross :

      19 Dec 2012 10:13:13am
      Your "militants" are fighting for their very existence in the face of Israel's relentless assaults on Palestinian land, Palestinian lives and any hope for a Palestinian state.
      • maus :

        19 Dec 2012 12:13:29pm
        Well if they are fighting for there very existence and are tired of Israels relentless assaults then may i suggest they stop firing rockets at Israel and sign one of the many peace accords they have been offered.
      • PeterM :

        19 Dec 2012 12:44:49pm
        Are you deliberately mis-informed or a simpleton?

  • ...cut...
  • aletheia :

    19 Dec 2012 12:13:19am
    Privatise Aunty: "Israel, a democracy ... constantly vilified, ... re the thousands slaughtered in Syria, the alarming abuses of fundamental human rights in Egypt ..."

    Hmmm; how many fallacies?

    Z is less evil than Y; red herring when the subject is Z.

    Z is less evil than Y; any choice between evils is by definition still evil.

    Z is less evil than Y, therefore choose Z = false dichotomy, when there are many Xs *far* less evil than both Y and Z.

    A vital prerequisite of democracy is full and fair info-flow; when valid criticism is not answered by rational argument but stigmatised as anti-something OR worse, some reasonable discussion is outright forbidden by law, THEN the vital prerequisite fails, as does the democracy. BTW, a privatised aunty would not help much if at all - see the very privatised theAus, say.
    • The Real Al :

      19 Dec 2012 8:09:11am

      “any choice between evils is by definition still evil”

      It seems that in your opinion, it is ok to use the full force of the law to pursue a jaywalker or a shoplifter, while allowing murderers and child rapists to go free. Both are wrong and evil, there is no difference according to you.

      Israel is not perfect and has many issues that need to be addressed. But the constant vilification of Israel while ignoring the extreme human rights abusers out there really shows the true colours of those making the claims. They are only interested in denigrating Israel, not in any justice or promotion of human rights.
      • jag :

        19 Dec 2012 11:30:48am
        "Israel" is the only colonial project in the 21st century. It is unique.
      • atomou :

        19 Dec 2012 11:53:29am
        Not what aletheia said, Real Al!
        If you are going to argue that a jaywalker is not as bad as a child rapist, then you are not discussing the evil of the jaywalker but, instead excusing him, thus, being evil in the process.

        Israel is certainly not perfect but it clams to be and it claims to be the messiah of the human universe and acts ruthlessly to that end. That's why it gets constant criticism. It is, by and large, constructive criticism and it is time its leaders -the electoral system is a disgrace in itself and the very antithesis of democracy- woke up to the reality that their way does not lead to peace for anyone!
      • Budovski :

        19 Dec 2012 12:23:54pm
        "constant vilification of Israel while ignoring the extreme human rights abusers"

        Who exactly is doing this? Can you please put a name up, an organisation or publication?

        I have serious doubts about the validity of your argument, at least attempt to support it with evidence.
Comment: The fact that they argue against facts, often deploying fallacies, speaks for itself. Of course, to maintain their fictions, they cannot admit to the basic home-invasion/burglary analogy, but more telling, not only can't admit it, they don't even try to argue it.


Orly :

18 Dec 2012 4:32:46pm
The BDS supporters do not condemn or sanction palestinians for launching unguided rockets at Israeli cities.

They do not take action against China for it's treatment of Tibet. They do not take action against Syria or Iran for how they treat their own people. They do not sanction African nations.

No. They single out Israel for separate treatment. And for that reason, BDS is clearly racist if not anti-semitic.

Yet for some reason, people like the author insist on claiming that BDS isn't based on racist motives. Given that most anti-semites who support BDS would disagree, it is hard to take his claims seriously.

And given that the goal of BDS is to assist palestinian militants to defeat Israel, why not call BDS for what it is: Material support for islamic terrorism.

Hamas will attack Israeli civilians with rockets, while BDS will attack Israeli civilians using sanctions and picket-lines. What a partnership Hamas and BDS make. Partners in terrorism.

So why do the BDS apologists insist on keeping the relationship a secret? Are they ashamed? Do they fear that the western world will not approve?
  • somon :

    18 Dec 2012 6:41:29pm
    I am pretty sure USyd has no partnerships with Palestinian Universities. Even assuming that they agree that some action should be taken in the cases you mention, not doing everything is not an argument for doing nothing.

    But, oh, you're just running the ad homenin anti semite argument again. My accusers are racist so I must be in the right. Oh, they are terrorists too so anything I do is ok. pfft.
    • Marcus :

      18 Dec 2012 8:46:31pm
      Palestinian universities? They don't believe in higher learning.
      • somon :

        19 Dec 2012 10:48:26am
        Yes, of course the real reason there are no Palestinian Universities is because they are not interested in learning, only killing. Not bigoted at all.
      • Eric the Echidna :

        19 Dec 2012 12:20:16pm
        Somon, you and Marcus should try googling "Palestinian universities".
      • somon :

        19 Dec 2012 2:10:34pm
        Indeed, sometimes rhetoric takes over to make a point.
      • Marcus :

        19 Dec 2012 2:35:55pm
        I stand corrected.

  • ...cut...
  • aletheia :

    19 Dec 2012 1:51:00am
    Orly: "why not call BDS for what it is: Material support for islamic terrorism."

    1. Herzl: "Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly ..."

    2. Balfour: "For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country ..."

    3. Jabotinsky: "No native population would stomach the intrusion ... Unremitting force ... to Arab objections to Zionist control of the territory."

    4. Immigration by Jews into Palestine (1934-48), partly illegal (Aliyah Bet) = alien invasion.

    5. Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We ... are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending ... [they] own the land ...”

    6. The King David Hotel bombing was an attack carried out on July 22, 1946 by the militant right-wing Zionist underground organization the Irgun ...

    7. Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin (1948) = ethnic-cleansing using genocidal attacks - plus all the other similar, down through the 64+ years.

    8. "On September 17, 1948, Cohen ... fired inside the car with a MP40 machine gun, killing Bernadotte and his aide, Andre Serot."


    9 + a few squillions. The latest incursions by the IDF into Gaza; 2008/9 = ~1300 dead Palestinians, 2012 = Between 158 and 177 Palestinians died in the operation.

    Terrorism? What terrorism?
    • Orly :

      19 Dec 2012 12:28:43pm
      You forgot the following points.

      10. Israeli independence.

      11. Borders not final, subject to change.

      12. All your points = irrelevent. Western world does not care.
    • Miowarra :

      19 Dec 2012 1:50:12pm
      Too many excisions from the quotes to be trustworthy.

      Post the original references instead so we can read the WHOLE document and make up our own minds.
  • Reco :

    19 Dec 2012 2:05:51pm

    Many Jews support the BDS movement.

    Hajo Meyer is famous for it.

    Are they "self-hating Jews"?
Comment: Again, some material was omitted (...cut...) from snip#3. Aletheia's "9 points" show the skeleton of the 'Case Against the Jews;' this will be filled out in **CAtJ**.

Then, there is this eternal allegation: That Palestinians are terrorists, and Arab/Muslims are continually attacking Israel, as if all that were somehow criminal. But here, we need some perspective; i.e. who is the actual attacker, and who the defender? A: Supplied by Ben-Gurion; hardly anyone with more credibility on this topic, and please notice *when* he said it = pre-WW2.

Yes, there is war, in and around pre-UNGA181 Palestine, but vis-à-vis Israel, it is war instigated and carried forwards by the invading alien Zionists, their heirs and successors, following Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall" strategy = perpetual war (at least until the ELO/Os surrender their homelands - or are 100% genocided). As such, the wars are *not* of Arab/Muslim origin, but directly due to the initial aggravation, *not* civil but "supreme international crimes," all thanks, but "No, thanks!" to the Zionists.

Next is Orly; 19 Dec 2012 12:28:43pm. Note the non-contesting of the "9 points" (see "Silence is acquiescence"[*]), then the non-sequiturs/red-herrings, the admission of the territorial expansionism and final arrogance: "...irrelevent [sic]. Western world does not care." In any sane world, capital crimes must be stopped - yet the Z-crimes are not only not stopped, but they're allowed to continue, and even worsen. This is *proof* of rogue-regimes; the prime perpetrator = IL, the main accessory = the US (dog wagged by Z-tail plus UK as poodle), subsidiary accessories like D (supplying armaments, like nuke-capable subs, say) - and the rest of the do-nothings, *all* criminal, only argument is to what degree.


Israel doesn't deserve unconditional loyalty

 Here's the beginning of the article:
«Last week, Israel's far-right foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman visited the UK. His visit was protested by progressive Zionists. Yet he responded with a remarkable declaration:

My expectation from all Jewish communities around the world is that they support any Israeli government. It doesn't matter if you have a left government or a right government.
Jews are to support the Israeli government: any government. Doesn't matter what it does, what policies it pursues.»
You may or may not agree, but it evokes a statement of mine: *All* in the I/J/Z-plex are responsible for the vicious Z-crimes (excepting those 100% in active opposition); any difference in degree descends in the order of perpetrators / accessories / apologists and even idle bystanders (see Silence is acquiescence[*].)

aletheia :

30 May 2012 1:31:06pm
"The Palestinian Arab homeland is called Jordan ..."

IF one were to claim that Jordan is the 'Palestinian homeland' THEN that would imply a) that the 'Palestinians' (= ELO/Os, erstwhile legal owner/occupiers) - resident in 'the mandate' were somehow immigrants AND b) could be advised: "Go home!" Problem with that is, a more recently arrived group should, by rights, vacate the land/property *they* improperly (and violently) dispossessed from said ELO/Os, as the first priority (on the (9th?) principle of neo-liberalism = sanctity of private property [actually 10.Legal security for property rights]). IF you don't agree THEN I'd like to suggest that introducing the 'Jordan = Palestinian homeland' is a non-sequitur/red-herring = furphy (aka irrelevant).


aletheia :

30 May 2012 2:31:51pm
Quote: "... a dark cess-pit of instability, unrest and rogue nations."

'I don't particularly like X; but some of my best friends are X-ian.'

Substitute what *you* (don't) like, for X.

Of course, certain Y-ians aren't to keen on A-ians, for the simple reason (according to Y-ians) that *their* country is only for *them* (see headline article for new laws emphasising this), and A-ians might 'pollute' the neighbourhood (see headline article for language describing this).

Only trouble is, that in a certain Y-case, *their* country is not exactly theirs OR can anyone show a record of the voluntary transactions entered into ('a fair exchange is no robbery') - by the former possessors = hapless ELO/Os, erstwhile legal owner/occupiers?

As for the tombowler quote: 'Pot, kettle;' also IF so THEN why would any sane (= non-cognitive-dissonanced person) ever want to move (recall overwhelmingly alien origins) there?


aletheia :

30 May 2012 4:03:12pm
"Israel is a free, democratic and wholly franchised society where all citizens have a vote."

Your opinion.

But IL squats on improperly-alienated land = no legal title.

And IL + hasbarah-ists refuse to admit it = 'loose with the truth.'


aletheia :

30 May 2012 4:22:19pm
"Jordan comprises 80% of historic Palestine. Look it up."

Totally irrelevant, and by your continued repetition, perhaps a deliberate attempt at derailing cogent discussion?

What *is* relevant is the fate of 'the mandate,' and the people who lived there - namely the hapless Palestinian ELO/Os, and their improper dispossession = ethnic cleansing by genocidal methods (Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin - and all vile successor operations, down to the current moment.) *That's* the original-IL-problem, and so far I see no remedies on offer, only eternal, *inane* obfuscation.


aletheia :

30 May 2012 6:23:53pm
Comparing the Nakba to the Holocaust is what's called a 'false dichotomy;' the two are *not* comparable = fallacy. Further, claiming the latter as excuse, justification - or any sort of relation to the former is both pathetic and psychopathic.

Before 1897 (say; 'pick a number' said Herzl), a few Js (single-digit %s, perhaps) lived amongst the great majority of Ps, basically (one supposes) at peace. But - here recall "... a dark cess-pit of instability, unrest and rogue nations," for some ('dark?') reason, Js began to immigrate - and some were able to *freely purchase* land/property. But the natives started to get restless; and the P-real-estate market pretty-well dried up for Js. In 1923, Jabotinsky (frustrated intending-buyer, perhaps) said: "Don't take offence, take a wall!" - and the guns started to come out (down the track, $US50mio for guns, thanks Golda) - and it was 'on.' Now *that* is the Nakba, and nothing much changed since; refer to the burglar/home-invasion analogy. End (= current) result: un-remedied crime-scene (no 'unilateral' pardons = no 'get out of jail free'). Outstanding tasks: a) Bring perpetrators to justice and b) recompense (revest+reparations) the victims. Could be an even longer wait; but where there's life, there's hope - for eventual peace, truth & justice.


aletheia :

30 May 2012 7:27:06pm
"Deserving" has the ring of 'entitled' to it.

"Deserving" may be one thing, 'earning' quite another.

I may feel deserving, but I know damn-well, that IF I want (better = would like) something THEN I have to stump up the readies - or 'flash the plastic' = same thing in the end = I pay my bills.

But the land/property IL squats on was neither gifted, nor willingly sold by the hapless ELO/Os - rather, they were driven off by violence, so perhaps it's them who *deserve* something, namely restitution and/or adequate = acceptable compensation (and are *entitled* to a big "Sorry!")

On the other hand crims deserve something else altogether.


aletheia :

30 May 2012 7:49:13pm
cosset v. (-t-) pamper. [dialect cosset = pet lamb, probably from Old English, = cottager] - WTF?

The rest is similarly non-sequitur/red-herring = furphy (aka irrelevant).

Thanks for excellently illustrating hasbarah obfuscation.

Perhaps we could now consider what, if anything, Israel deserves - by way of their "cataclysm of intervention and occupation;" no doubt that the violently dispossessed Nakba-victims (+ their heirs & successors) will be delighted to find the until-now hidden benefit they stand to enjoy - when?


aletheia :

31 May 2012 7:33:10am
"Israel is a free, democratic and..."

For a compound statement, each element must be true for the whole to be true, and here "free" and to a lesser extent "democratic" are 'contentious' = not acceptable as facts, hence 'opinion.'

IF 'Israel is a free...' THEN some are free-er than others; IL defines itself as the 'homeland for Js' and discriminates against Palestinian ELO/Os (violently, illegally, immorally dispossessed and/or illegally occupied) and now, as the headline article outlines, recent 'immigrants' - which is a bit rich, since the great majority of current IL-citizens are post-Herzl/Jabotinsky/Ben-Gurion immigrants or their descendents. In fact, IL is basically only open to a single class of immigrants (no prizes for guessing).

As for 'democratic,' no govt. has changed basic direction since the Nakba; the original crimes behind that are un-remedied & the victims still being oppressed, dispossessed and un-compensated; all parties offering 'more of the same' = un- & anti-democratic, since the voters have no effective choice. (This 'no-choice' situation is not unique to IL.)

Your responses (as Tombowler's + similar) leave the basic Q unaddressed; namely, that IL, based on un-remedied, *serious* crimes as it unarguably is, lacks a certain amount of legitimacy.


aletheia :

31 May 2012 8:22:35am
"The people of the West Bank were Jordanian citizens until 1988."

Does this indicate that all those people rushed out of Jordan and into the West Bank, did the earth itself move - OR, was the West Bank 'improperly alienated' by some inadmissible act (given UNSCR242 = "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war?")

That the West Bank was originally part of 'the mandate' that preceded UNGA181 (presumably those people were then mandate-Palestinians, *not* Jordanian), 'allocated' as part of the proposed Arab state - but is now territory regarded as 'illegally occupied' by IL following the (IL-instigated = aggressive) war of '67, raises queries as to your intent (repeat). Clarity requested.

And speaking of 'illegally,' your responses (as most similar others) leave a fundamental Q unaddressed; namely, that IL, based on un-remedied, *serious* crimes as it unarguably is (i.e. Deir Yassin + regular like-reprises, pretty-well right down to 'the current moment') - lacks a certain amount of legitimacy?


aletheia :

31 May 2012 8:43:07am
"It was Arab aggression that triggered Plan Dalet, not the other way around. But feel free to ignore this little detail."


I have listed previously [unleashed/4010336, 14May'12], quotes from Herzl Jabotinsky & Ben-Gurion, each *well* before UNGA181.

These statements *prove* prior intent to improperly *and violently* dispossess the hapless ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers, mostly Palestinians.


1897: "Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor [Palestinians] must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

~1923: "No native population would stomach the intrusion of another nation into their territory. So the gloves have to be off. Unremitting force is viewed as the only answer

1936-39: “We must see the situation for what it is. ... But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."

Once the movement of immigrants prompted by Herzl et al. began, the natives became more and more nervous - *in response*. (BTW, the British didn't always favour the alien-invaders; they tried to prevent immigration - hence many illegal immigrants, pre-47.)

In other words, the immigrants *caused* the problem, provable, at the latest from Herzl-day-one.

Your turn; the opportunity to deny documented history.


What must Palestinians do to get your attention?

 Here's the beginning of the article:

«Dear Western leaders and the international media, what must a Palestinian do to get your attention?
I ask this question as I recall watching Gandhi with my parents when I was a teenager. With the confident zeal of an adolescent, I vividly recall telling my father (born in Palestine in 1945 and dispossessed of his land in 1967) that what the Palestinians needed to do to draw international attention to their plight was simply go on a mass hunger strike.
It seemed to me, at the time, that there was only one moral and inevitable response to non-violent resistance to injustice: action in defence of the hunger strikers.»

Comment: Misplaced optimism; for some strange reason, effectively the 'Western' world listens to Zionist-apologists' lies and ignores both Zionist-crimes and Palestinian suffering. Ignoring crimes, especially crimes underway, is itself criminal.


aletheia :

15 May 2012 7:10:35pm
Claim: "a people's ability to declare independence as a unilateral act..."

I'd be interested to see any justification in support of this 'principal' in the Palestinian Nakba frame.

Consider the burglar/home-invasion scenario:

A group of 'out of towners' move in to a block of flats, ejecting most hapless residents (erstwhile legal owner/occupiers = ELO/Os), killing more than just a few on the way, then declare themselves independent of the police, the law, all morality not to mention good sense - as a unilateral act.

Who would accept that, let alone believe that the burglar/home-invaders now had any rights? (i.e. such crims have *no* rights to occupy, certainly *no* rights to defend - improperly alienated = stolen land/property.)

The claim doesn't pass the 'giggle-test.'


Salaam Shalom Peace :

15 May 2012 6:20:32pm
So you think its all isreal's fault?

Nothing todo with decades of attempted genocides by the Arab nations and Palestinian terrorism and no blame lies at the hands of Yasser Arafat or Hamas or Islamic Jihad? Really?

You might want to check in with reality sometimes, dude.
    • aletheia :

      15 May 2012 9:01:08pm
      "You might want to check in with reality sometimes, dude."

      OK; lets consider: "Nothing todo with decades of attempted genocides by the Arab nations and Palestinian terrorism and no blame lies at the hands of Yasser Arafat or Hamas or Islamic Jihad? Really?"

      1. Item; Herzl(1897): "Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor [Palestinians] must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

      2. Item; Jabotinsky(~1923): "No native population would stomach the intrusion of another nation into their territory. So the gloves have to be off. Unremitting force is viewed as the only answer to Arab objections to Zionist control of the territory."

      3. Item; Ben-Gurion(1936-39): "“We must see the situation for what it is. ... But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."

      Dude, one side are hapless ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers (right of self-defence), the other side aggressive, invading attackers. You may now try again to work out as to with whom the fault lies.

Sanon :

15 May 2012 2:51:00pm
Very good point, Eligius4917. A future generation one day will ask, why is this happening? Why is Israel allowed to get away with this? Justice, given enough time, will eventually prevail.
    • Salaam Shalom Peace :

      15 May 2012 6:09:55pm
      Why is Israel able to get away with *what* Sanon?


      Protecting its innocent civilians from attack by rockets and bombs and crazy Jihadists?

      Do you honestly think that justice and law is only on your side of this issue? Really?
        • aletheia :

          16 May 2012 8:55:19am
          Abandon hope - all ye who build their houses upon sand - err, I mean those who comment from a somewhat uninformed position. It's all too easy to blame Palestinians for shooting primitive rockets into Israel - BUT since Israel squats on improperly alienated Palestinian land/property, AND the world so far fails to remedy that original Z-crime THEN rockets = must do something - as an alternative to accepting violent theft of almost an entire country. Yesterday was Nakba day, only one day of 365¼ when hapless Palestinians mourn their dispossession; those who would say that Israel 'won' a civil war fail to appreciate that the Zionists were (still are) aggressive invaders - of the Nuremberg-class. Proof of this is not hard to find, see Plan Dalet and associated massacres like Deir Yassin, and so many other terrorist outrages like the King David Hotel bombing. It doesn't do to sweep this (criminal!) history under the carpet, then trying to claim 'holier than them.' Any un-remediated crime scene stands as a denial of justice - IF just peace ever wanted THEN recall (and implement) right of return/revest and/or pay fully acceptable reparations and recompense (RoR+RaR) + say a sincere "Sorry!"
Comment: Israel asserts a 'right to exist' - while squatting on improperly dispossessed land/property, then demands a 'right to defend' what does not belong to them, demands a) to be recognised and b) that the mostly Palestinian ELO/Os (and/or their heirs & successors) accept peace only on Z-terms, which implies surrender and loss of the Palestinian homelands. Who, in their right mind, would ever agree to that? Meanwhile, the Zs' mass-murdering for soil continues, why doesn't the UN/world stop it?