Meetings with Inhumanity

June 11, 2003 1:22 PM

The life of an Israeli paramedic. "The worst thing in the terror attacks, in my point of view, is to see young babies, who have done no harm," he said. "If they are alive, shouting, burns all over their body. They are experiencing pain, very big pain. There is no stronger pain than having burns."
posted by darren (79 comments total)

Did someone remember to call the fire department?
posted by magullo at 1:48 PM on June 11, 2003

magullo, that is one of the most offensive remarks I've seen here in a long time. What would compel you to write that? I understand that you might not see the need for such a story, but have some fucking decency.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:25 PM on June 11, 2003

That must be one of the most depressing jobs to have. How could you go into work and do that day after day, watching the worst of humanity put people into the worst shape imaginable?

I know I couldn't handle that kind of work.
posted by mathowie at 2:31 PM on June 11, 2003

Magullo: as someone whose friend's wife was knocked to the ground while others died in a suicide bombing aimed at civlians I think you are a total asshole.
posted by Postroad at 2:39 PM on June 11, 2003

Darren, I wonder if in your pursuit of "fair and balanced" editorializing you even considered linking to some article that discusses what it's like to be a Palestinian paramedic after one of Sharon's relentless "freedom bombings"? Linking to this story without putting it into the broader context of this conflict (where both sides are comitting heinus acts of terrorism) is something worthy of FOX news yellow journalism, and I know you wouldn't be party to that kind of crap.

Right?
posted by sic at 2:58 PM on June 11, 2003

Matt, unfortunately there are plenty of places where you can get that kind of exposure (as a paramedic), not just Israel, not just the Middle East.

To the rest - I stand by my words: this is highly flammable material. For instance, Postroad, why do you quickly assume that I don't have my own victims *lost* in exactly the same circumstances? Does that increase my moral superiority or provide me with deeper insight? I don't think so - must be because I am apparently a total asshole.
posted by magullo at 2:59 PM on June 11, 2003

Depressing work? I'm sure it can be. But it depends on how you look at it.

Suicide bombing is psychological warfare as much as anything. "We can get you anywhere, anytime" is the message.

NY Times Magazine did an awesome story over a year ago about the crews who not only care for the wounded but clean up after these bombings. By caring for the wounded as well as possible, and getting the site back on its feet as a business (or whatever) as quickly and effectively as possible, these crews help the country resist the far-reaching effects of these attacks.

Israel is hunkered down in a way that is hard for Americans to imagine. They're way past holding weepy memorials every time an attack occurs. They focus on keeping going.

Having extremely competent emergency response crews is very, very important to this. I'd see working in this capacity as much less depressing than being a soldier, where your main job is to create death and destruction, not mitigate its effects for those involved and their countrymen.
posted by scarabic at 3:12 PM on June 11, 2003

There is also a very strange job carried out by the Orthodox, who work very hard to ensure that all possible body parts are discovered, bagged, and buried. It is a very gruesome job but these men are deeply religious and it's a part of their faith to do this, so they seem stoic at the scene. They are often seen in pictures that come out after these attacks, holding garbage bags and wearing long beards.

As for whether or not such a post is inflammatory, it doesn't have to be. There is a truth and the truth is that terrorism kills people, and others have to work in this environment. That exists on its own as well as part of the larger context. You always look like an asshole when the subject is grief, and you are looking for parity. However at the same time there is a continuous effort to humanize one side of this conflict that the other side is not afforded, and I can see how this would get to people. Still, all in all if you are looking for parity, dumping scorn on a post that exists both within and without the larger context is a mistake, I believe.
posted by cell divide at 3:31 PM on June 11, 2003

I agree with Cell Divide that "there is a continuous effort to humanize one side of this conflict that the other side is not afforded" and we all know which side is which. And it is precisely because of this that it is unconscionable to discuss any component of this confilict as if it existed in a vacuum, especially something so blatantly inflammatory aw this article. The plain fact is that in the United States this type of article, which insinuates that the Israelis are purely innocent victims in this mess, will get 99% more media play than an article that discusses any of the number of horrible thing Sharon's Likud government is doing to the Palestinians.

That's why I call bullshit on this post.
posted by sic at 3:39 PM on June 11, 2003

Israel is hunkered down in a way that is hard for Americans to imagine. They're way past holding weepy memorials every time an attack occurs. They focus on keeping going.



They sure do keep going, don't they?

.
posted by sic at 3:44 PM on June 11, 2003

Doesn't a call for balance assume that the acts of one side are morally equal to that of the other?

Is firing an inherently innacurate missile at a military commander riding through crowded streets morally the same as sending a very accurate suicide bomber into a bus crowded with civilians? Doesn't one sound like manslaughter and the other like murder one?
posted by ednopantz at 3:45 PM on June 11, 2003

it is unconscionable to discuss any component of this confilict as if it existed in a vacuum

Word.

They sure do keep going, don't they?

Again. Word.
posted by scarabic at 3:49 PM on June 11, 2003

Yes, they are equally immoral, because they are both murder.
posted by sic at 3:50 PM on June 11, 2003

sic, couldn't you have found a better news source, one with perhaps a less flagrant bias?
posted by kickingtheground at 3:51 PM on June 11, 2003

Oh, is the article more biased than the one that started this post?
posted by sic at 3:54 PM on June 11, 2003

here you go.

not that CNN is actually any less biased.
posted by scarabic at 3:54 PM on June 11, 2003

Here's what I linked to in full. Tell me what is biased about it, other than they are speaking of both the bus bombing and the Israeli retaliation.


Gaza - Israeli helicopters fired missiles at a car traveling in the Zaitoun neighborhood a densely populated area of Gaza City, targeting a senior Hamas activist identified as Tito Massoud. Six other Palestinians were killed in the Israeli raid according to Palestinian medical sources and around 20 were injured.

An hour earlier a Palestinian guerilla blew himself aboard an Israeli bus in downtown West (al-Qods) Jerusalem, killing and injuring dozens of Jewish settlers in an apparent retaliation to the failed assassination attempt yesterday of Dr. Rantisi.

The bus bombing "is a message to all the Zionist criminals that they are not safe and that the Palestinian fighters are capable of reaching them everywhere," Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas leader told reporters.
posted by sic at 3:55 PM on June 11, 2003

Yes, they are equally immoral, because they are both murder.

Really?

If I carelessly back my car over the neighbor it is ethically the same as walking up and shooting him? Most ethical systems recognize a difference between carelessness and malice, punishing the latter more severely.

It seems to me that the Israelis often kill innocents as a byproduct of attacks on military targets while Hamas specializes in attacks deliberately targeted at noncombatants. Shouldn't we judge the latter more harshly?
posted by ednopantz at 3:57 PM on June 11, 2003

And let's not forget that the bus bombing was in retaliation to an earlier assassination attempt on the leader of Hamas (another illegal act).


on preview:

it sickens me to hear somebody try to trivialize the decision to fire WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION into crowded streets and call the resulting bloodbath, "manslaughter".

Shame on you.
posted by sic at 3:59 PM on June 11, 2003

Well, for one thing, west Jerusalem is not by a long stretch a settlement (unless you consider all of Israel a settlement), and so to call the victims settlers is just wrong. In terms of terminology, many (including myself) would object to calling a suicide bomber a "guerilla" rather than a "terrorist," and the "Israeli Army" killed the palestinians, not "Zionists."
posted by kickingtheground at 4:02 PM on June 11, 2003

Many (including myself) would object to calling those in the Israeli army who order and take part in any number of atrocities against Palestinians "soldiers" and not "criminals".

The term Zionist is not an insult, at least not to Israelis. It has a history, look it up.
posted by sic at 4:05 PM on June 11, 2003

It seems to me that the Israelis often kill innocents as a byproduct of attacks on military targets while Hamas specializes in attacks deliberately targeted at noncombatants. Shouldn't we judge the latter more harshly?

Shouldn't a democratically elected government receiving billions of dollars in aid from us be held to a much higher standard than a terrorist organization?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 4:09 PM on June 11, 2003

If I carelessly back my car over the neighbor it is ethically the same as walking up and shooting him?

Yes, if you have cut off his legs the night before and chained him up in your driveway.

To put it another way, you can't condemn the actions of a dispossessed underclass of civilians, whom you oppress, starve, harass, and kill because they don't operate like an organized military, or a state.
posted by scarabic at 4:12 PM on June 11, 2003

It seems to me that the Israelis often kill innocents as a byproduct of attacks on military targets while Hamas specializes in attacks deliberately targeted at noncombatants. Shouldn't we judge the latter more harshly?

How do you define military targets?
posted by sic at 4:14 PM on June 11, 2003

Let's have more fun with examples:

Say, we have an Israeli helicopter pilot who is aiming his missile for a Hamas soldier riding in a car. He thinks he has a clear shot and fires, but hits four innocent bystanders plus his man. Is this guy a terrorist?

Say we have a Hamas man who is aiming his homemade rocket launcher at an Israeli soldier. He thinks he has a clear shot and fires, but hits four innocent bystanders plus his man. Is this guy a terrorist?

Now say we have an Israeli air force technician who programs a bomb, under orders from his commanders to blow up a market full of innocents. He deliberately punches in the coordinates of a marketplace where he knows civilians will be. When the weapon is released, it homes in on marketplace and blows 20 innocent people into little pieces. Is this guy a terrorist?

Now say we have another Hamas man, who, acting under orders from his superiors straps on his bomb and takes a taxi to an Israeli shopping mall, where he detonates it and blows himself and 20 innocent people into little pieces. Is this guy a terrorist?

It seems to me that the first two are can be considered soldiers who are aiming at legitimate military targets and who accidentally cause the deaths of innocents. The second two are clearly terrorists and war criminals. The fact that scenario 1 happens often, 2 only rarely, three almost never, and four very often should help one evaluate the relative barbarity of the two sets of actors.

So sic, who is the terrorist? 1 and 3 but not 2 and 4 I imagine? Why?
posted by ednopantz at 4:24 PM on June 11, 2003

was'nt there a way to avoid the killing of a 16 year old girl and scores of others in the hunt for the hamas leader?- im sure the paramedics that scraped her body parts off the street had rough day as well.

compassion people - don't all religions teach compassion for others regardless of religion?
posted by specialk420 at 4:30 PM on June 11, 2003

You completely miss the point, which is not surprising, considering the pathetic and disgusting arguments that you have made throughout this thread.

ALL of your "fun" examples are acts of terrorism. However, some of the acts are referred to by other "softer" terms for people who want to be convinced that the world is black and white and filled with the righteous and the evil. It all depends on who's doing the killing. For you, whatever horrible act perpetrated by the Israeli army is justifiable as "self-defense" while whatever act of resistence by palestinians is "terrorism". The truth is both sides are commiting atrocities against each other. But one side has many more weapons than the other and therefore is inflicting much more pain.
posted by sic at 4:35 PM on June 11, 2003

who is a terrorist?

that seems to be the question of the day.

terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon
posted by specialk420 at 4:37 PM on June 11, 2003

"in 1987 the united nations passed its major resolutions condemning terrorism in ALL its forms, and called on all countries in the world to do everything they could to stamp out this terrible plague. it did'nt pass unanimously. one country abstained - honduras and two voted against it, namely the united states and israel." - noam
posted by specialk420 at 4:50 PM on June 11, 2003

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Ahhh; I knew it would only be a matter of time until those words lost all sensible meaning. This is definitely one to start watching. I'm looking forward to the following uses of the term "weapons of mass destruction":

• Handguns, as described by gun control advocates.
• Illicit drugs, as described by the office of drug control policy.
• Violent media (TV, movies, video games), as described by cultural critics on either the far left or far right.
• Pornography; Dworkin has probably said something like this already.
• Peer to peer file sharing programs, as described by the RIAA/MPAA.

Examples, anyone?
posted by mr_roboto at 4:50 PM on June 11, 2003

Sic, let's try another example then, ok?

Hamas leader says ""I swear we will not leave one Jew in Palestine," he said. "We will fight them with all our might." Hamas has carried out dozens of suicide bomb attacks in Israel, killing more than 300."

Hamas has proven itself quite capable of killing Jews almost at whim.

I ask you, as someone who believes that everybody in this conflict is a terrorist, and that a standard issue missile is a "weapon of mass destruction," what you propose an adequate response to that is? Take into account that many countries treat Hamas as a political entity, an alternative to the PA.

Hamas then detonates a bus in Jerusalem killing 16 and wounding scores more. Question: what do you propose Israel do instead?
posted by swerdloff at 4:51 PM on June 11, 2003

Specialk420 - do you have the working definition of "terrorism" they were using in that session? Was it anything like declaring "Zionism" is "Racism?" Or was it any less inflamatory? (for the uninformed, at the Durban conference not too long ago, the UN tried to declare Zionism per se racism)
posted by swerdloff at 4:54 PM on June 11, 2003

sic is right, of course. Blood flows just as freely from traumatic wounds resulting from a homemade bomb blast as they do from the best American made "precision" missile money can buy. It makes no difference to the dead, nor to the living who must endure such terror in Israel, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, or New York City.

Terms like "terrorist" and "collateral damage" and "noncombatants" and "the enemy" and "infidel" drip endlessly from the lips of self-righteous prigs who insist mindlessly (and usually comfortably, far from the reality that they distort) that God is on their side in whatever stinking bloodbath they support next. These phrases are marketing terms. They are part of the continuous, banal rationalization of simple murder.

Hamas then detonates a bus in Jerusalem killing 16 and wounding scores more. Question: what do you propose Israel do instead?

Oh, by all means, let's hunt down more "terrorists" and kill them along with a few "noncombatants". I mean, that's worked so very well for generations everywhere. Violence cures violence, dontcha know.

How about a nice retaliatory missile strike on Palestinian urban areas or refugee camps. Then, VOILA! We can move directly and speedily to your doppleganger's next idiot question, which we can predict with startling accuracy, to wit:

Israel then detonates a missile in a street in Jerusalem killing 16 and wounding scores more. Question: what do you propose Hamas do instead?

Endless insanity.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 5:06 PM on June 11, 2003

I love it when people polarize what I say in an effort to build a straw man. I don't think ALL of the actors in this conflict are terrorists, just the ones that murder and terrorize. The victims on the bus were not terrorists (as long as none of them were israeli "soldiers" who commit atrocities) and neither are the six non-hamas people who were blown to bits by the "weapon of minor destruction".

The point that I have been trying to make is that there is an escalating cycle of violence that has seen innocent people ON BOTH SIDES victimized and has seen criminals on only ONE SIDE recognized. This thread, which in my opinion was a troll that I can't help but feed, was based on a totally one-sided inflammatory article about Israeli paramedics in Jerusalem. It could have been just as easily an article about Palestinian paramedics, since they have to do essentially the same sad job, just much more often. But it wasn't and it hardly ever will be, because in certain countries the debate is totally lopsided to the point of almost being exclusionary.

Israel, as the vastly more powerful military force (I mean they have nuclear weapons for christ's sake, is that WMD enough for you? What WMD does Palestine have?), should be the first side to extend its hand. If they had the courage to do so they would have a slim hope of taking the steam out of the violent guerrilla movements in Palestine. But instead Sharon is reviled by his party for even agreeing to the flimsy, if not completely bogus, US "roadmap". This thing is bad, very bad.
posted by sic at 5:06 PM on June 11, 2003

I knew this would happen. I knew that as soon as another bombing took place, someone would post something about those poor innocent Israelis, minding their own business, blown to bits.

I refrained over the past 6 days from posting any number of news items about the ongoing, nay, incessant Israeli attacks that have left as many as 20 civilians dead. And this during a time that most news sources identify as one of quiet and calm.

Once again, when innocent Palestinians are killed, it is not news; when Israelis are, it is splattered across the front page...pun definitely intended.
posted by mapalm at 5:11 PM on June 11, 2003

When Abu Mazen (Mr. Abbas) says that he will not crack down on Hamas, and Hamas says they will kill "Every Jew" what exactly do you propose Israel do to "extend its hand?" (Sic)

Indeed, the Roadmap is consigned to failure, as step one requires cessation of hostilities and incitement by the Palestinians by last week. Now, obviously, the dates have slipped, but Abu Mazen said (paraphrased) "The Palestinian prime minister said Monday he will not use force against militant groups under any circumstances, despite their stated determination to derail a U.S.-backed peace plan with attacks on Israelis, including two weekend shootings that killed five soldiers."

Israeli soldiers are legitimate targets, if this is a war (which I'm pretty sure it is) but then, so are Hamas members, no? And members of the Al Aqsa brigades? If it's a war, then both sides can do what they like.

Yes, Sic, you're absolutely right. Israel has nuclear bombs (or so we're told, and I bet that's right) and vastly superior firepower. So much so that they could level the Palestinians if they wanted to. And they don't. The Palestinians have vastly inferior firepower, so that they can't do all that much damage, but they do as much as they can. Equivalent?

Just because someone is the underdog doesn't make them per se right, no?

And Sic, go ahead, post the article about the Palestinian paramedics for fair balance. In particular, post the one about the Palestinian paramedics who help injured Jews. But then do look at the one about the Israeli doctors who take in Palestinian victims despite their cheering in the waiting room when there's news of a suicide bombing.
posted by swerdloff at 5:25 PM on June 11, 2003

I recognize that this is both a cliche and a generalization, but it's what I believe:

If Palestine lay down its arms, there would be no more violence.

If Israel lay down its arms, there would be no more Israel.
posted by swerve at 5:34 PM on June 11, 2003

This is typical of what I'm railing against. First you cite one dangerous radical racist palestinian. (But you don't cite radical racist israelis, of which there are many, including rabbis who says things like "They [the Palestinians] are a disease and going to overpopulate us and we need to get rid of them -- surgically remove them -- once and for all".)

Then talk about the attacks on isrealis without mentioning the attacks on palestinians, link to articles about kindly Israelis without linking to articles about kindly Palestinians (do they not exist, in your opinion?). As far as leveling the Palestinians, as you so blithely put it, Sharon would do it in a hearbeat if he thought he could get away with it. But he can't, so he contents himself with slowly killing them all with "weapons of minor destruction", which include Apache helicopters and tanks.

I do not see this issue as one-sided but you do. That's why you will never have a sincere debate about this problem.

And on preview: Swerve your ridiculous and self-serving assumption is just the kind of apologist mentality that allows the Israeli role in this bloody insanity to continue unchecked.
posted by sic at 5:45 PM on June 11, 2003

I've been reverse-engineering the definition of "terrorist" from the usage it's enjoyed in the last two years, and this is what I've come up with (barring cynical interpretations like: 'anyone who Bush doesn't like').

It certainly no longer equates with one who employs fear as a weapon of oppressing. By this definition, dozens of US-led operations in Central America and the domestic policy of dozens of "friendly" nations qualify.

Here's what I have come up with:

By today's rhetoric, a "terrorist"
1) selects civilian targets
2) represents no recognized nation-state
3) does not use conventional military methods

#2 and #3 are no-brainers in the Palestinian case. There is neither money nor unity nor freedom to organize on the part of Palestinians. Creation of a Palestinian state would make them subject to a higher standard, which is why peace advocates from both sides support the idea.

#1 is obviously the most morally contentious issue. Nobody here wants to see flaming babies (of any color) rain from the sky.

However:

When the arms imbalance is extreme, such that there is no true military on one side, the ethical distinction between military/civilian becomes slippery.

The ethical wall crumbles further when you consider that every Israeli serves in the military, doffing the mantle of "civilian" for 3 years. Military service is a part of life in a place where the very existence of the state depends on the use of force.

If Israel lay down its arms, there would be no more Israel
swerve, I'm glad you understand my point.

Further compromising Israeli civilians' is their dependence on the military to defend continuously expanding civilian settlements. If annexing land isn't aggression, I don't know what is.

Popular election of hawks like Sharon also does nothing to put the Israeli civilian public above the fray.

So as much as a rain of flaming babies sucks, I mean really, really sucks... it doesn't happen in a vacuum. Frankly, I think Israeli citizens have a more realistic sense of who is fighting who. It's personal and they know it.
posted by scarabic at 5:53 PM on June 11, 2003

I have the utmost respect for the paramedics and doctors in the Middle East- especially, as many noted, the ones that don't judge Palestinian and Israeli but merely see people wounded and try to heal them.

I think there's a majestic irony when two governments who see no problem with using wanton and massive violence as their cheif diplomatic tools contain people who do the exact opposite: indiscriminately try to help as many people as possible.

It seems to me that the first two are can be considered soldiers who are aiming at legitimate military targets and who accidentally cause the deaths of innocents. The second two are clearly terrorists and war criminals. The fact that scenario 1 happens often, 2 only rarely, three almost never, and four very often should help one evaluate the relative barbarity of the two sets of actors.

edno, the fact that virtually every single one of hundreds of Israeli missile strikes has killed innocent bystanders should sorta tip the Israelis off that launching a missile strike will kill innocent people. Whether or not you want to call it "terrorism," you can't claim "lesser barbarity" under the impression Israel won't know what's going on. Hams wouldn't be "better" if they tried only to kill soldiers instead of civilians. Both sides are well aware that they are going to kill innocent people... I don't see a moral argument in claiming that at least Israel might be aiming for a few Hamas leaders while they're doing it.

If Israel lay down its arms, there would be no more Israel

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but one could say if Palestine laid down its arms there would be no more Palestine. Would peaceful and loving Arabs have prevented illegal settlement building? In fact, if you're going to use rhetoric like this, would you also agree with this one: "If Palestine lay down its arms there would be no more violence; If Israel kept its arms to the 1967 borders, there would be no more... hey, there'd be no more violence either."

scarabic: with your reverse-engineered model of terrorism, the United States in 1946 would have met 2 out of 3 of those criteria. Just saying.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:10 PM on June 11, 2003

Well, bombing a city was pretty conventional, just not on that scale. But you're right. Absolutely.

It just goes to show how the word has been co-opted to mean something incredibly specific right now, when it serves an agenda.

Boston Tea Party meets all 3.
posted by scarabic at 6:16 PM on June 11, 2003

Then talk about the attacks on isrealis without mentioning the attacks on palestinians, link to articles about kindly Israelis without linking to articles about kindly Palestinians (do they not exist, in your opinion?). As far as leveling the Palestinians, as you so blithely put it, Sharon would do it in a hearbeat if he thought he could get away with it. But he can't, so he contents himself with slowly killing them all with "weapons of minor destruction", which include Apache helicopters and tanks.

Sic, my point was that it's your position that those articles exist. Fine. Post them and we can discuss them. I was unable to find any.

You know what's in the heart of Sharon? Really? You're a very impressive mind reader.

The fact that you can't see the difference between attacking military targets and civillians is a little worrisome. Have you noticed that nobody is bringing up the attacks that left five soldiers dead the other day? Why? They're soldiers. If other Israelis were killed in the attack on those soldiers, it would be tragic, but it would be collateral damage. An attempt to assassinate the mastermind behind bombings of civillians is just as legitimate a military target. Just like Sharon is likely a legitimate military target. Assuming this is a war. If it's a war, then the fact that the Israelis aren't using all of their might against the Palestinians is sort of stupid, isn't it? They should just act as the heartless killers most people claim they are.

And then you go on to ask me to post fair balance? My position is that there is no way to post a fair balance article with the Israeli doctors article because there aren't any. Prove me wrong if you can. Show me an article about Palestinians helping Jews since the start of the Intefadah. About Palestinian fire fighters helping Israeli crews or Palestinian ambulances used to help Israeli wounded. Show me. You show me the fair balance, and I'll evaluate it and maybe believe it. Until I see it, and I've been looking and I can't find it, I'm not going to believe it.

And then this?
First you cite one dangerous radical racist alestinian.
What are you talking about Sic? Rantisi is the political head of Hamas, and Abu Mazen is the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. Which of those are "Radicals?" I quoted Rantisi, and then said that Abu Mazen wouldn't do anything to stop Rantisi or any other group. Where's the radical? You're misconstruing my point.
posted by swerdloff at 6:42 PM on June 11, 2003

XQU...

If Palestine laid down its arms there would be no more Palestine.

Well seeing as that is the one thing that hasn't been tried, and Palestine has been steadily shrinking, one would think it worth a shot.

Had they had the good sense to settle for 70% of the country in 1937 or 50% in 1948, 25% in 2000.... (See where the numbers keep going?) Instead, the response has always been to fight, and to lose, against a vastly more competent and better armed foe.

Q: "Why should I take X% of what I am owed?"
A: "Because it is the best deal you or your children or your children's children will ever get."

The delays have played right into the hands of Israeli rejectionists. When there was a chance for movement under Perez, Hamas attacked, Arafat stood by, and Bibi came to power. When there was a chance for a deal under Barak, Hamas and the PA forces attacked and Sharon is the result.
posted by ednopantz at 6:54 PM on June 11, 2003

sic: "Swerve your ridiculous and self-serving assumption is just the kind of apologist mentality that allows the Israeli role in this bloody insanity to continue unchecked."

Just so we're clear, I'm not apologizing for anything. I believe that Israel has the right to continue to exist and to retaliate against attacks. I also believe that if Israel built no more settlements, withdrew completely from the occupied territories, and stopped responding in kind to Palestinian terrorist attacks, it would continue to be under seige from people who would not share the region. It makes me sad, it makes you mad, but there it is.
posted by swerve at 7:04 PM on June 11, 2003

Ednopantz, considering that all but about four or five nations recognize Israel's expansion past the 1967 borders to be completely illegal, I think it's not irrational for Palestinian leaders to believe they can get all of the West Bank back.

I suppose it would be ridiculous to suggest that maybe they can just agree that Israel gives up the settlements and Palestine gives up the right of return and call it a day but it really is, give or take some nitpicks here and there, the only real feasable peace plan.

Like every other nation on earth, I have no objections to Israel maintaining a military defense to protect its borders. But like the U.S., I think Israel is crippling itself creating a necessity for such an overbearing unneeded military. The West Bank are basically borders that overlap for each side, and one of them's going to have to fall back. Pulling back the settlements seems much more feasable as the other option (a la the deceptive "95% argument") means a border made of Swiss-cheesed security roads and security points all for an insignificant fraction of the Israeli population.

As swerve noted, maybe this will still cause attacks in Israel Proper, but I find it hard to believe a secure, rounded, solid-line border for Israel with stationed guards and the removal of a major excuse for terrorist recruiting won't be more secure, and more economical.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:08 PM on June 11, 2003

As swerve noted, maybe this will still cause attacks in Israel Proper, but I find it hard to believe a secure, rounded, solid-line border for Israel with stationed guards and the removal of a major excuse for terrorist recruiting won't be more secure, and more economical.

I agree, but must pick a knit with "removal of a major excuse for terrorist recruiting" which is, if you take Rantisi at his word, to kill all Jews in "Palestine."

I take Rantisi at his word. But your point about recruiting is well taken.
posted by swerdloff at 7:38 PM on June 11, 2003

Well, I actually meant that one of the "demands" of groups like Hamas are to, at a minimum, get Israeli out of the pre-1967 land. Understandably, they might also want to get rid of Israel completely, but bin Laden wants America to dissolve into the ocean and I want to win the lottery. No matter how bad you want it, some things just ain't gonna happen. Adhering to UN demands that Israel dismantle the settlements and allow the Palestinians a country could very likely, however, satiate many Arabs not as insane as Hamas leaders to a degree that may make them still hate Israel, but not, so to speak, be as inclined to keep buying lottery tickets.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:00 PM on June 11, 2003

Sic, I agree with almost everything you've been saying on this thread. Unfortunately, people continue to try to argue in a vacuum, because they have no idea they're in that vacuum.

How easily we forget that Sharon created Hamas, and that true Zionists are Atheists, not Jewish. Zionism is not a religion, it is a political movement. Perhaps one should read Jack Bernstein's "The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel," if one cares to hear a unique perspective.
posted by GrooveJedi at 8:26 PM on June 11, 2003

I agree, but must pick a knit

Not to pick a nit, but it's "pick a nit".
posted by laz-e-boy at 8:49 PM on June 11, 2003

Maybe he's referring to his Afghan. This sounds like an Abbot & Costello routine waiting to happen.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:19 PM on June 11, 2003

true Zionists are Atheists, not Jewish

Speaking as an atheist jew who was once (pre- high school) a zionist, I have no idea what you're talking about. Zionism has many different definitions, as previously discussed.

The term Zionist is not an insult, at least not to Israelis. It has a history, look it up.

That misses the point: not all members of the Israeli army are zionists; substituting one label for the other doesn't make sense.

First you cite one dangerous radical racist palestinian. (But you don't cite radical racist israelis, of which there are many, including rabbis who says things like "They [the Palestinians] are a disease and going to overpopulate us and we need to get rid of them -- surgically remove them -- once and for all".)

Considering the wide support for overtly racist movements like Hamas, racism is more common in Palestine. That's not surprising, considering that Israel's a prosperous, modern democracy and Palestine's been completely wrecked, and it certainly doens't excuse Israel's actions, but there isn't parity in this particular statistic.

I also believe that if Israel built no more settlements, withdrew completely from the occupied territories, and stopped responding in kind to Palestinian terrorist attacks, it would continue to be under seige from people who would not share the region.

Support for suicide bombings isn't constant; it's increased hugely in the past few years. There's no reason to think it wouldn't decrease if the reasonable greviences were addressed.
posted by Tlogmer at 1:13 AM on June 12, 2003

Groovejedi -- Have any evidence that Sharon created Hamas other than a link that also alleges the american government orchestrated 9/11?
posted by Tlogmer at 1:18 AM on June 12, 2003

From his other link: The ultimate goal of the Zionists is one ONE-WORLD GOVERMENT UNDER THE CONTROLL OF
THE ZIONISTS AND THE ZIONISTS ORIENTED JEWISH INTERNATIONAL BANKERS. Communism/socialism are merely tools to help them accomplish their goal.

"Unique perspective" indeed.
posted by Tlogmer at 1:21 AM on June 12, 2003

Prior to 1967, most of the work on the Kibbutz was done by Jews. But, since the 1967 War, the work has been done by Arabs who are paid a very low wage, and by volunteers from overseas.

My [jewish] mom washed dishes on a Kibbutz in the 1970s, just to let you know. Sorry about the quadruple-post, but this stuff needs to be countered; it gets into general distribution precisely because people with concrete evidence against it consider it too ludicrous to rebut. I haven't read much past the beginning of the link, but it's already obvious it's a forgery (for example, the supposedly jewish author uses the word "jewess"); I'll do a bit more research before posting again, but I thought I'd get this out there.
posted by Tlogmer at 1:28 AM on June 12, 2003

Once out of the service, a number of the ex-service people join the Shin Bet, the equivalent of Hitler's GESTAPO. Like the Gestapo, they engage in repressing anyone who acts or speaks out against the Marxist/Fascist government of Zionist dominated Israel.

There's plenty of Isreali opposition to the Israeli government, including a large and vocal peace movement. I don't see it (or its countless editorials) being brutally stamped out.

I know, I know; I said I'd stop. And normally I wouldn't even bother with this crap, but the fact that it wasn't immediately obvious as bullshit to GrooveJedi, who has a cool name and is a DJ and by all accounts seems not to be a raving fundamentalist lunatic disturbs me a lot. (The book the link exists to support seems to have been taken seriously as well.
posted by Tlogmer at 1:57 AM on June 12, 2003

Considering the wide support for overtly racist movements like Hamas, racism is more common in Palestine. That's not surprising, considering that Israel's a prosperous, modern democracy ...

I would argue that the overwhelming support for Likud, a racist political party no less violent than Hamas, clearly shows that racism exists on both sides. Although, as you point out, not all Israelis are Likud nazis, just as not all Palestinians are Hamas supporters.

As far as what the term Zionistmeans , it is a semantic argument (and an intersting one in a different context), which I don't think overly affected the veracity of the short article I linked to about the Israeli attack that followed the bus bombing. It was the type of maneuver meant to divert not to illuminate (not you Tlogmer, but the person who brought it up earlier).

Swerdloff: The leader of Hamas is not a dangerous radical? Strange. As far as not posting links that argue the Palestinian point of view instead of only the Israeli point of view: you are half-right, they do exist, but are very hard to find because there are probably 100 times the number of pro-israeli links out there. THAT IS MY POINT! Therefore, when somebody propogates this propagandastic imbalance as Darrin did, I call bullshit on the post, because this is NOT A ONE-SIDED ISSUE as you are hellbent on trying to prove and never will, because there are enough Mefi readers who have seen through the media gloss and understand that this a complex conflict with TWO SIDES.

By the way, I don't need to reed Sharon's mind to understand who he is, I only need to consider what he does and what he has been capable of in the past.

Swerve: unfortunately, you are apologizing: whenever you make an argument that justifies an action, even regretfully, it is an apology for that action. I would further argue that your conclusion on this issue is heavily influenced by the skewed debate on this issue. If you had access to or paid attention to a more balanced point of view, perhaps you would consider the fact that Israel is the prime antagonist here, not the Palestinians. Obviously, the latter add gasoline to the fire by violently defending their point of view and basic rights, but it is really hard for a rational person who is paying attention to see that much more violence is being perpetrated by the powerful military juggernaut that is Israel. This is why I think that the only hope for an eventual peaceful solution would have to start with Israel laying down its arms (this of course means to stop killing Palestinians, not full disarmament, which I realize would never happen in a million years) and accepting a FAIR peace settlement.
posted by sic at 2:28 AM on June 12, 2003

Quite right; the definition of "zionist" is a red herring. (It's easy to lose the thread of a discussion when your sleep schedule is as messed up as mine...)

As for Likud -- racist they may be, but I'm not aware of their being vocally, undisguisedly racist in the same way Hamas is. It's an important distinction.
posted by Tlogmer at 3:24 AM on June 12, 2003

Here's a thought, why the hell does anyone care? I say let these warring fanatical tribes kill eachother, then we can turn the whole area into a fucking club med.

Oh, wait it's yet another opportunity for the usual suspects to show off what bright little boys they are and fling the usualy simpleminded binary, my-extremist-is-better-than-your-extremist bullshit.

Screw it says I.
posted by jonmc at 4:54 AM on June 12, 2003

Tlogmer: I agree that it is an important distinction, but a negative one. The fact that Likud and its supporters in the US government use double-speak to make their racism palatable to (mainly) US public opinion is far more sophisticated, cynical and far more dangerous. This thread has touched upon this issue , trying to define terrorist, but anybody who understands the subjectivity of language must recognize that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, one man's soldier is another man's criminal. The only goal I have ever had in this thread is to point out that there are two sides to this issue and it is high time that the US start accepting that when they support Likud, they support violence, hatred and near-genocidal policy (also called terrorism by those who suffer from it).

.
posted by sic at 6:06 AM on June 12, 2003

jonmc- Israel already wants to turn the area into a Club Med. One of the biggest setbacks to the Israeli economy is the decline in the tourist industry... one Israeli tourism minister was quoted a month or two as saying "we'd give them the West Bank if we can just get Bruce Springsteen to play here."
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:37 AM on June 12, 2003

Here's a thought, why the hell does anyone care? I say let these warring fanatical tribes kill eachother, then we can turn the whole area into a fucking club med.

Screw it says I.

Ditto says I. This whole thing is beyond reason and logic. Believing there can ever be "peace" between these two sides is about as reasonable as believing Santa Claus will bring you a pony. Both sides make me sick.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:47 AM on June 12, 2003

sic, when did you anoint yourself thread king, making sure that all threads (or is it just threads about your hobbyhorse) are "balanced" not only internally, but in reaction to every single other post ever made? By my count, there are actually 4 posts having anything to do with the actual topic, namely, what it is like to be a civilian paramedic in what is ostensibly a war zone. It wasn't about politics, there aren't "two sides" on how EMTs try to save lives.

This could've been an interesting post, but you had to piss all over it with your bullshit straw men and agenda waving.

On preview: What jonmc and pardonyou? said. And it goes double for all the lunatics on the outside, because at least those who live there see it every day and have to live with it, as opposed to all the "bright little boys" insisting on showing how oh-so-smart and enlighten they are.
posted by Snyder at 7:05 AM on June 12, 2003

This whole thing is beyond reason and logic.

Correction: this whole thing is muddled beyond reason and logic, on purpose.

Snyder Thanks for correcting sic and letting the rest know what the thread is about ... according to you, that is. I personally thought the thread was about babies victims of *certain* terror attacks (but not others - I could now go ahead and link to pictures showing the results on the civilian population of the recent American bombings on Iraq and we'd be still talking about intentional bombing civilians in the name of politics), which get a lot more space in the FPP.

Lastly, if you think the lunatics are outside and the sane inside, then you've really got a big problem going.
posted by magullo at 7:24 AM on June 12, 2003

Just to add a clinical note: The Palestinian vs. Israeli death toll in this most current Intifadah is running at about 2:1

The vast bulk of deaths on both sides are civilians.

I've heard this said before, and I'll say it again: build a wall, and simply keep 'em apart.

Send UN troops into the West Bank and Gaza to keep the peace and supervize the reconstruction of a Palestinian Authority and, equipped with a lot of money for economic reconstruction, the rebuilding of the devastated Palestinian economy. This UN force would be charged with, until such time as the new Palestinian Authority could effectively take over the job, preventing terrorist attacks against Israel. ( /bright idea unlikely to ever be attempted )
posted by troutfishing at 7:39 AM on June 12, 2003

Correction: this whole thing is muddled beyond reason and logic, on purpose.

OK, magullo, I'll call: Explain the reason and logic that will stop the bloodshed. Please do not forget to factor in Hamas' stated claim that they will not accept anything short of the elimination of Israel, and Isreal's clear position that that ain't gonna happen. And please do not tell me that "Isreal has to stop killing Palestinians" (or even "Palestinians have to stop suicide bombing"), because if you really think that will lead to peace, I have an Arkansas land development to sell you.

James Lileks has a little bit on this today. While I don't really agree with his allocation of blame, I have no doubt the following is right on the money:

They [Hamas] don’t have helicopters, we're told, so they use suicide bombers. If they had helicopters, they would have strafed the bus and everyone waiting at the corner. Give them a nation where Hamas runs unchecked, and they’ll have helicopters. They won't be Apaches. The bill of sale will be calculated in Euros and the manual written in French. By then the excuse for the terror won't be oppression; it'll be "the legacy of oppression."

And that, my friends, is the problem. I'm sure the majority of people on both sides could eventually reach a rational solution. The problem is that there are influential people on both sides who are committed to never letting that happen at any cost.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:45 AM on June 12, 2003

Pardonyou, your last sentence answered your own call (and I agree). BTW, nice bit about believing how Hamas would potentially behave pretty much like Israel does if they had the chance. Which, I think, goes to proof that if one side gets a smaller cut than the other, they are branded terrorists. Lastly, any and all American-bred criticism of France and Europe simply does not stick until the Iraq WMD question is solved (which was the cause of clearly justified disagreement on one side and barbaric lying and smearing on the other).
posted by magullo at 8:03 AM on June 12, 2003

Actually, magullo, I completely agree that the France/Europe bit was unnecessary for the point Lileks was trying to make. I considered removing it with ellipses, but didn't want someone to accuse me of trying to whitewash Lileks' post.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:19 AM on June 12, 2003

pardonyou - the problem with Lileck's formulation is that he sets up a rhetorical equation where any peae deals leading to a Palestinian State equate with Hamas - it's goals unchanged - running amok. "Give them a nation where Hamas runs unchecked, and they’ll have helicopters"

Lileck's rhetoric, in turn, lends creedence to the arguments of those on the Israeli far right who assert that the only solution for Israel to the problem of Palestinian terrorism will be a "Final Solution" which entails driving the Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza altogether.

And this, in turn, reinforces the arguments of the Hamas hard-liners who argue for the destruction of Israel.
posted by troutfishing at 8:26 AM on June 12, 2003

Exactly, hence the dilemma. Although I don't think Lileks' rhetoric is problematic (it's not unreasonable to hypothesize that Hamas will attempt to sabotage any "peace settlement" when they've been very clear on that point), your point that this cycle only serves to reinforce the arguments of intransigents on both sides is well taken.

Around and around in a circle -- if only there was a drain.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:43 AM on June 12, 2003

sic, when did you anoint yourself thread king, making sure that all threads (or is it just threads about your hobbyhorse) are "balanced" not only internally, but in reaction to every single other post ever made?

ha. it's good to have comic relief now and then. This could be the example they give in the handbook for building a strawman argument.

Troutfishing: I think you are exactly right, Lileck's rhetoric like so much more out there, only bolsters the support of racist and violent agendas on both sides. This causes disheartened people like Pardon you? to not even consider letting reason and logic (or humanity, it appears) into the equation because they are convinced a priori that the violent actors are unstoppable or unchangeable, even when he acknowledges they are in the minority(The problem is that there are influential people on both sides who are committed to never letting that happen at any cost.). And articles like the one Darrin linked to which highlight "meetings with inhumanity", subliminaly but effectively dehumanize the Palestinians, thus making it easier to reject "reason and logic".
posted by sic at 8:51 AM on June 12, 2003

sic - I could rephrase that bluntly as: "If you're not explicitly in favour of reason, dialogue, and negotation, you're really promoting "Final Solutions" - such as the destruction of Israel or the forced expulsion of Palestinians- and I don't think I'd be too far off the mark. ( I'm not directing this at you, Pardonyou, and I liked your "drain" comment )
posted by troutfishing at 9:06 AM on June 12, 2003

One of the main reasons Hamas wants to sabotage a peace settlement is that if there is a fair, just, and equitable peace settlement, their funding, their powerbase, their reason for being essentially goes away.

Their maximalist claims serve an emotional and also political purpose-- if a fair and just settlement is achieved, their choice will be to become a mainstream Islamic party concerned with domestic issues (unlikely, given the secular nature of pre-intifada Palestine) or an underground group that attempts to 'liberate' all of pre-1948 Palestine. Neither function will give them 1/100th of the support they enjoy now, but if their stated mission was to secure a state within the 1967 borders, and that is achieved, they will have very little to do next.

So while it's scary on the one hand not to take Hamas at their word to kill every Jew in Palestine, it's also a mistake not to recognize the essential political nature of their existance. Their suicide bombings are designed more for domestic consumption than for actually doing any 'liberating', their way of building a core base of supporters who want to stand behind someone who can inflict pain back on the other side.
posted by cell divide at 10:18 AM on June 12, 2003

Send UN troops into the West Bank and Gaza to keep the peace and supervize the reconstruction of a Palestinian Authority and, equipped with a lot of money for economic reconstruction, the rebuilding of the devastated Palestinian economy. This UN force would be charged with, until such time as the new Palestinian Authority could effectively take over the job, preventing terrorist attacks against Israel. ( /bright idea unlikely to ever be attempted )

I can't find a link, but I do believe that US Senator John Warner suggested just that very recently.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:23 AM on June 12, 2003

Ignatius - A blatant theft of my ideas. Obviously Warner, a sly bastard, exploited his DARPA connections and used their beta-version time travel device to reach into the future and preview my Metafilter comments. I should sue his ass. It IS a good idea though, if I don't say so myself. So at least Sen. Warner has discriminating intellectual tastes.

cell divide - I like your point and, furthermore, how many Hamas people would leave the organization and get honest jobs if such were available? This underscores the necessity of economic support by the U.S. and Europe for the rebuilding of the Palestinian economy.

One real life experiment I've heard of, carried (as I recall, no time to research now) out by the PLO as a rare attempt to integrate those trained in terrorism and extreme ideological doctrines advocating violence back into society, provided young PLO men with jobs and encouraged them to take wives, with the "proviso" that they should be ready (should the organization call on them sometime in the future). So they settled down, had families, and led comfortable, happy lives. Not suprisingly, very few were interested in terrorist activities ten years later.

Surprise, surprise - terrorist inclinations go away when people are happy.

In fact, a recent academic survey I heard mentioned yesterday has shown that virutally all historical examples of suicide bombing involve attempts by a people to drive a foreign occupying force from their land. ( a great post, hinty hint hint )

Go figure.
posted by troutfishing at 11:25 AM on June 12, 2003

troutfishing, it was Black September (allegedly). Apparently, at some point after Munich, whoever was in charge of such things, (Arafat, as I heard,) felt that such radicals who were willing to do such dangerous and difficult international work were no longer an asset to the cause, and so various women were offered the chance to marry a hero, and the various operatives for Black September were given jobs and so forth, as talked about in your comment.
posted by Snyder at 2:11 PM on June 12, 2003

Snyder - And am I right in my recollection that they then settled down to become peacefull civilians? And isn't this a problem, more often than not, of the weakness of youth in terms of it's tendency to succumb to ideological extremism?
posted by troutfishing at 9:26 PM on June 12, 2003

Groovejedi -- Have any evidence that Sharon created Hamas other than a link that also alleges the american government orchestrated 9/11?

Attack the messenger, ignore his claims, right? Here's one for you. Here's another. In fact, here's a whole list of them.

Speaking as an atheist jew who was once (pre- high school) a zionist, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Pardon my ignorance on this matter, but what is an Atheist Jew? Isn't that a paradox, like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence? What I'm talking about is that Zionism, is a political movement, not a religion. Zionism has, for lack of better words, hijacked the religion of Judaism which is why you will find many Jews against Zionism. An analogy might be to compare how the Taliban has hijacked Islam, but then again, the Taliban does not have nearly as much power or money as the ruling Zionists.

My [jewish] mom washed dishes on a Kibbutz in the 1970s, just to let you know.

Does that make Bernstein's (who is also a Jew) claims false? Did Jack lie when he wrote that book? Have you considered the possibility that one of the reasons why this book has been taken so seriously is because even if only some of the claims might be true? What about the book Farewell Israel by Ephraim Sevilla, a Russian Jew...is that bullshit too? In all seriousness, if I'm reading bullshit, I'd like to know, so please point out the bullshit I'm missing? (Note: This would require you to read the entire thing)

Sorry about the quadruple-post, but this stuff needs to be countered; it gets into general distribution precisely because people with concrete evidence against it consider it too ludicrous to rebut. I haven't read much past the beginning of the link, but it's already obvious it's a forgery (for example, the supposedly jewish author uses the word "jewess"); I'll do a bit more research before posting again, but I thought I'd get this out there.

So where's the counter? You posted 4 times in a row and didn't counter anything regarding Bernstein's story. You even admit that you didn't bother reading past the beginning of the link. Rather than focus on the claims he makes in his book, you choose to accuse him of forgery because of his poor semantics. I'll agree, the author isn't the most eloquent of writers, but can we please focus on the actual claims he made? If not, perhaps you'd prefer to read another testimony of a former Zionist? Perhaps the reason why people with concrete evidence against these claims don't rebut them, is not because they consider said claims to be ludicrous, but because they don't actually have said concrete evidence?

Another 2 pennies.
posted by GrooveJedi at 11:22 PM on June 12, 2003

trout-According to what I heard, yes. An about youth succumbing to extremism, well, it could be, if I didn't see not-so-young people consumed by extremism as well. That's just my opinion, of course.
posted by Snyder at 7:10 AM on June 13, 2003

Groovejedi -- I've read the whole link; it gets more ludicrous as it goes on. It is not merely extreme; it is clearly obviously false in every respect, and could not possibly be the story of an actual experience (specifics in a couple paragraphs). I'm baffled that you could even consider taking it at face value.

Attack the messenger, ignore his claims, right? Here's one for you.

Claims that come from a site that alleges the american government was behind 9/11 are not credible. I asked you if you had other sources; apparently you do. Alright, then.

what is an Atheist Jew?

Someone who considers themself jewish and finds meaning in jewish culture, but does not believe in god. You can read more about secular humanistic judaism here.

What I'm talking about is that Zionism, is a political movement, not a religion. Zionism has, for lack of better words, hijacked the religion of Judaism which is why you will find many Jews against Zionism.

I'm among them -- and I agree that zionism is a political movement, but there is not question that the beliefs of many zionist are rooted in religion; whether it's true religion is for practical purposes irellevant (I consider all religion untrue, for example). But zionism has not "hijacked" judaism; it is a relatively small part of the belief systems of even the most religious jews I know, and the vast majority of jews are not in favor of zionism as you seem to define it (again, see the previous discussion).

you choose to accuse him of forgery because of his poor semantics

It's not poor semantics.

So where's the counter? You posted 4 times in a row and didn't counter anything regarding Bernstein's story.

I countered something in each post. As mentioned, pretty much every sentance is false, but I'll highlight some of the claims he makes several times. (Again, this only scratches the surface; I didn't feel like spending my entire saturday night pushing ctrl-v.)

The ultimate goal of the Zionists is one ONE-WORLD GOVERMENT UNDER THE CONTROLL OF
THE ZIONISTS AND THE ZIONISTS ORIENTED JEWISH INTERNATIONAL BANKERS.

...

These Jews are part of that bunch of Jews know as the BOLSHEVIKS. Before 1917, they were the force that laid the foundation for the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia and the start of Communism.

I know many zionists; they do not desire world domination (if any ever did, they've been carrying out their plans with spectacular stupidity). Where's "Bernstein" getting his evidence, The International Jew? The fucking Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

EACH OF THESE KIBBUTZ ARE AFILIATED WITH ONE OF ISRAEL'S MARXIST PARTIES ranging from SOCIALIST TO HARD-CORE COMMUNIST.

(Fascinatingly, for having spent months on one, "Bernsein" doesn't seem to know the plural of Kibbutz (Kibbutzim).)

There are two distinct groups of Jews in the world and they come from two different areas of the world - the Sephardic Jews from the Middle East and North Africa and the Ashkenazi Jews come from Eastern Europe.

(That's an oversimplification)

Housing is allotted as follows:

* Ashkenazi Jews who have lived in Israel for many years are given first choice.

* Second in line are Ashkenazi Jews from Europe - especially if they are married or marry an Israeli born Ashkenazi Jew.

* The next favoured are Ashkenazi Jews from the U.S. - especially if they marry an Israeli born Ashkenazi.

* Sephardic Jews have the next choice of whatever housing is left.

* At the bottom of the list are Moslems, Druze and Christians.

...

Anti-Sephardic treatment by Ashkenazi Jews is even official government policy...Besides being denied decent housing and decent employment because I was married a Sephardic Jewess, I was the target of racial slurs. Several times I was even attacked by Ashkenazi Jews because I had married a Sephardic Jewess. Other American Ashkenazi who had gone to Israel and married Sephardic Jewesses received the same treatment as I.

This is false. Putting aside relations with palestinians, Israel has had problems with racism, but not to the extent of (for example) the U.S.; discrimination was never enshrined in law (and, in fact, the consitution specifically provides for equal rights). A quarter of Israeli marriages are ethnically mixed (which is to say, Ashkenazi/Sephardic).

The Ashkenazi Jews who migrated to Israel from Germany, while sympathetic to communism and support it, tend to favour the practices of Nazi-style fascism.

That makes no sense on any level. Naziism has some similarities with communism in practice, but you will never find a nazi (or a communist) who admits that; in theory, communism and naziism are diametrically opposed (Hitler's ultimate aim, remember, was to destroy the U.S.S.R.)
More to the point, the jews who came out of Germany were fleeing the "final solution"; to argue that they supported it is insane.

During World War II, in Germany these elite Zionist Ashkenazi Jews worked closely with Hitler's Gestapo in persecuting the lower class German Jews and delivering them to concentration camps...Regarding the tie between the elite Ashkenazi Jew and the Nazis, take a look at the word 'Ashkenazi' - look again - 'Ashke-NAZI'.
Interesting isn't it?

Again, one wonders where the information comes from; none of these claims are taken seriously by historians. (They must all be COMMIENAZI ZIONSISTS!@!!!!111111111)

Now living in Israel, these elite Zionist Jews, who were well trained in Nazi-style fascism and favour it, have imposed many facets of fascism on Israel. To give the impression that Israel is a democracy, members of the Knesset (Israel Congress) are elected - an odd type of election.
This is where Israel's so-called democracy stops. It doesn’t make any difference which party wins an election, the LIKUD or LABOR, the elite Zionist Jews rule in a dictatorial manner - giving favours to the elite clique and brutally suppressing any dissent.

Likud and Labor are ideologically farther apart than the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S., and Israel's policy has clearly reflected whoever's in charge at a given time (and not just in foreign policy, though obviously Peres and Sharon are worlds apart). To claim otherwise is verging into tinfoil-hat terretory.

Once out of the service, a number of the ex-service people join the Shin Bet, the equivalent of Hitler's GESTAPO. Like the Gestapo, they engage in repressing anyone who acts or speaks out against the Marxist/Fascist government of Zionist dominated Israel.

Lunacy. I addressed this point already -- do you want me to link to any of the hundreds of diverse Israeli political organizations, to economic reports on Israel's decidedly non-marxist system?

Economically, Israel is bankrupt. Of course, this could have been predicted because Israel's economic structure is based on socialism.

Israel is not bankrupt. (And democratic socialism has worked fine in places like scandinavia.)

Regarding the destructive tendencies of socialism, there are circumstances that allow a country to successfully provide social programs to help its people. It is possible in a country that has sufficient financial resource and where its citizens are deeply religious and considerate their fellowmen. NONE of this exists in Israel.

This is more than false; it's backwards: painting with a very broad brush, more secular countries (Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands) are more likely to provide broad social programs.

While America's farmers, small businessmen and labourers are struggling to survive, the U.S. Government, dominated by Zionist Jews, are draining the pockets and purses of American taxpayers to support Israel's socialist economy and war machine.

The U.S. spends a tenth of one percent of its GDP on all foreign aid.

But, since the Zionists took over the area and set up the state of Israel, it is one of the most sinful nations in the world where only 5% of the Jews are religious...95% of the Jewish population are atheists or secular humanists and are not held back by the 10 commandments or other restraints on sinful human behavior.

Utterly false. Only 1 in 5 israeli jews are secular.

But, isn't it odd that it is not the religious Jews who claim to be "God's Chosen People". It is the atheistic non-believing Jews who claim that honour.
Leading the cry, "We are God's Chosen People" are the Zionist/Marxist (Ashkenazi) Jews who for political purposes chose Judaism and who don't have a drop of biblical Jewish blood in them.

I'm an ashkenazi Jew; I am neither zionist nor marxist, (nor did I choose to be jewish (it has little to do with genetics)). I'm secular; like all other secular jews, I disavow the "god's chosen people" argument for obvious reasons.

There is evidence to prove that Jews, or one of their many fronts, have started many of the Christian denominations and thus dominate doctrine.

...

More American boys will die because of these clever murderous Zionists, WHO, incidentally, have been responsible for pushing America into WORLD WAR I, WORLD WAR II, the KOREAN WAR and the VETNAM WAR.

Come on, do I really need to rebut these? I'll do it if you want, but if you believe them you're probably beyond any sort of argument.

In 1920 Henry Ford, Sr. wrote, "If the American people ever become aware of the truth about this coterie of Jews, it would be the solution".

Mr. Bernstein cites the guy hitler had on the wall behind his desk. Nope, no evidence of forgery here.
posted by Tlogmer at 2:20 AM on June 14, 2003