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.""
I can come up with tons of stories alleging that the Israelis perpetrated similar atrocities. Would you like me to provide links?
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.
"only shows that Israel has more power."
Well that says it all.
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.
Ben Gurion denounced the hotel bombing. He was part of the Haganah, a more moderate terrorist org. As you noted, it was the Irgun who committed the hotel bombing. They were a right wing faction in Haganah who were more extremist. Eventually, they split from Haganah and went on their own.
members.fortunecity.com
Do you have anything to link Ben Gurion to any serious terrorist incident?
He was old by the 1930s but he was a Zionist leader. He would have planned and directed the attacks but he would not have participated.
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.
There has been Israeli violence against Palestinians since 1917 when the Balfour Declaration was issued. And there has been Palestinian violence against the Israelis since then as well.
The latest intifada stems from the Israeli reneging of the Oslo Accord and Sharon's visit to Dome of the Rock, a very sacred place for the Muslims.
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".
I see your point but then why can't you see mine? You claim that the Israelis don't mean to kill anyone but a Hamas leader when they fire a missile into his 50 unit apt. building. You seem to want to claim that its 'an accident' that 10-15 others get killed and still more get wounded. Well when you use a missile, what do you expect to happen? The Israelis used to do individual assassinations using the Mosada, killing only the intended target.....not anymore, not under Sharon. Why not?
I'll tell you why not.......the killing of innocent Palestinian bystanders is no more accidental with the Israelis than it is with the Palestinians. They intend that the Palestinians will feel the pain. However, its easier for us to accept the lie than face the truth.
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.
First, Zionist terrorism did not stop until the 70s. By that time, Israel had enough military power and legitimacy that she did not need to use terrorism as a weapon any more.
Secondly, what can the Palestinians do. They are in the same place the Zionists were in the 1930s........terrorism is all they have to fight for their independence. The Zionists were as helpless against the Brits as the Palestinians are against the Israelis. When you can't fight face to face, you go underground. That's what the Zionists did and that's what the Palestinians are doing now.
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 were not a terrorist organization.
Bull...........it was the Haganah that originally was committing terrorist attacks against the Brits. The Stern Gang, Irgun and the others felt the Haganah played it too safe and wanted to take more extremist measures. However, they were all Zionist terrorists.
""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.
The blacks rioted because they could. The Arabs can not riot and still get away with it. The Israeli reprisals would be significant.
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 terrorists are 5 per cent of the Palestinian population. What about the other 95%?
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.
No they are not.........the Israelis are very much against reparations. Why do you think they are against the concept of "Right of Return"......reparations would become an issue then.
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;
I know......however, that doesn't change the fact that I think they should give back all the land as determined by the 1947 UN partition.
ted |
