Tim, they may be aiming at defenseless civilians but they are not aiming at children.
"On Rosh Hashanah eve, at around 9:00 PM on September 26th, a very heroic Palestinian "freedom fighter" knocked on the door of a trailer home in Negahot, where thirty religious families live quietly on two barren hilltops, and jubilantly murdered a seven-month-old girl. Planned precisely for the start of the Jewish New Year, this deliberate attack on a Jewish infant with an M-16 assault rifle was subsequently described by both Hamas and Islamic Jihad as a "successful military operation against the criminal Zionist occupation.""
tzemach.org
"...The terrorist then burst into one of the kibbutz houses, where a 34 year-old mother was reading a bedtime story to her two sons, aged four and five. The woman leapt to interpose herself between the terrorist and her children, but was shot dead. The children were shot at point-blank range as they hid beneath the blankets..."
ict.org.il
But your right that there isn't any kind of frequent special effort to target children above all others. Any dead Israeli will do as far as the Palestinian terrorists are concerned.
What are you talking about?
I'm talking about reality. At times the Israelis are extraordinary careful to avoid civilian casualties, at other times they are not. Pretty much all the time some effort is made even if at times it is inadequate.
The proof is in the pudding.........three times as many Palestinians have been killed as Israelis.
That doesn't prove anything about who is being targeted it only shows that Israel has more power. More then three times as many Iraqis have died then Americans in the conflict there.
Do you really think it matters to the dead? Do you really think it matters to God if the dead are civilian or military?
Unless they care in some form of afterlife nothing matters to the dead anymore. But there is a very important moral difference between killing belligerents and killing civilians.
the Indians had some ownership of trinkets and artifacts but not property or land. Much like Bedouins they moved around a lot so private ownership of property did not make a lot of sense
There where many tribes, clans, and confederations with different ideas. Many but not all of the Indian tribes where nomadic. For the most part they didn't have the idea of personal ownership of land but they did have areas where the tribe controlled and some tribes had land they considered to be sacred land or sacred burial grounds. Nomads like the Bedouins and many of the north American Indian tribes have places where they go at certain times of the year, or areas within which they wander to find food or water. They might not care a lot about every particular spot of land in their area (unless they where considered sacred or where unusually good spots to find important resources) but they often have a certain sense of ownership about their entire range. It is in no way inaccurate to say that the Indian tribes in the US where forced off their land.
Deeds, mortgages, private homes etc are a European/ME innovation.
That goes to the fact that the sense of ownership that existed among the Indians was more a sense that their tribe controlled the area then it was a sense of individual ownership. The Palestinians did have a sense of individual ownership but more often then not the individual owner was not Palestinian. In many other cases the individual owner was very unclear. They had a system of deeds but some land had more then one deeded owner and other land was not covered by any deeds whether or not someone claimed ownership.
The World Zionist Org.[WZO] did not denounce Zionist terrorism......it was their official policy. And David Ben Gurion was not fringe; he was mainstream.
You brought up the hotel bombing. Ben Gurion had nothing to do with that bombing. The Jewish National Council (the body that proclaimed Israel's independence after the British left and who formed the initial government of Israel, and which was the closest thing Israel had to a government (other then the British colonial authority) in 1946 when the hotel was bombed) condemned the bombing.
Do you have anything to link Ben Gurion to any serious terrorist incident?
First that is not what is happening. The Israelis are shooting at the Palestinians to keep them in their place.
The Israelis are shooting at Palestinians because Palestinians are killing Israelis. There was no great outbreak of anti-Palestinian violence before the "Intifada" started, the Palestinian leadership made the decision to start killing.
Secondly, if I use your reference point, then a bomber who decides to commit suicide can not be called a murderer when people around him 'accidentally' die from his suicide.
Not if he is trying to kill people around him by blowing up the bomb, that's murder whether or not it is also suicide. And if the bomber truly has no intention of killing other people (something which is not the case with the Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers) but is careless then he would be guilty of "reckless endangerment" or "negligent homicide" or "involuntary manslaughter" even if he isn't guilty of murder, just I said in my analogy that if the shooter was reckless "it would then be a crime short of murder".
Please......you are trying to excuse the Zionist terrorists.
No, I'm not trying to excuse the Irgun and the Stern Gang and their ilk. I am rather pointing out the fact that such groups where the most extreme radicals in the Zionist movement, while acts as bad as anything they ever did are routinely committed by the closest thing you can find to any organization that could be considered to represent the Palestinian "center". The PLO/PA has a long history of terrorism and continues to support it today, its worse then the Irgun was and its bigger. The other groups with any influence among the Palestinians are as bad or worse. There is no influential moderate group among the Palestinians let alone a dovish stop the war group.
If they were fringe, why were they in the gov't once Israel became independent? The fringe was the Stern Gang. Haganah and Irgun were more mainstream...Some more recent Zionist terrorist groups:
The Stern Gang was the extreme fringe. The Irgun wasn't as radical but still could properly be called a terrorist group even if its campaign of terror was nothing like that from the PLO and Hammas. The Haganah basically was Israel's pre-state army. They where not a terrorist organization. The Jewish Defense League isn't really relevant, it isn't an Israeli group or a group that received wide spread support from Israelis. It also hasn't led a campaign of terror remotely close to the scale of that organized the PLO or Hammas. The "Jewish terrorist groups use toy-bombs to kill, maim Palestinian children" story is apparently a Palestinian fabrication and if it was true the people involved where caught they would be prosecuted by the Israeli government, while similar action by Palestinians would result in cheering and perhaps a place of honor among the Palestinians.
""Native Americans"/"Indians" and American blacks where screwed but for the most part they didn't get violent about it. Black Americans now have dozens or times the per capita wealth that their distant relatives in Africa had."
Huh? There have been some Indian riots and there were major black riots in the 60s.
I said "for the most part". I didn't say they had always been peaceful. There have been riots but not planned campaigns of terrorism supported by groups with any serious level of support from black Americans. Groups like the Black Panthers did commit terrorism on a small scale but they where minor relatively isolated groups that never enjoyed wide spread support and never where a terrorist threat that remotely approached that of the Palestinian terrorists.
They have been reparated as were the Lithunians, Latvians and Estonians after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, family members went back and claimed their dead relative's property. It was a big brouhaha in the mid 90s.
And in the half century where they could not be repatriated did they lead terrorist campaigns? Did they bomb or otherwise murder innocent Russians or Poles?
The Israelis got reparations for the confiscation of their bank accts during WW II. Why shouldn't the Palestinians get reparations for their property?
Not a totally unreasonable demand but not one that justifies the continuing violence. In fact they are more likely to get reparations if the violence stops. But the compensation should be to those who were forced out of their homes, if it goes to anyone. If a man who was forced out of Israel died since then maybe his family/decedents could claim his share and divide it among them but they shouldn't get their own share each. And they should not get compensation for more then the value of their property adjusted for inflation, not the current value of the land apon which many improvements have been built or compensation for "pain and suffering" from the Israeli Palestinian conflict or compensation for living in refugee camps for decades.
You also talk about returning to the pre 47 borders but even the Arabs (those who push for any sort of settlement rather then just saying we should push Israel to the sea) aren't asking for that much. When the Palestinians where negotiating with Israel before the Intifada they didn't demand that, and neither did the Saudi peace plan.
truth-and-justice.info
Tim |
