digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at english.aljazeera.net —

Israel 'committing memorycide'

english.aljazeera.net — Part of any ethnic cleansing operation is not just wiping out the population and expelling it from the earth. A very typical part of ethnic cleansing is wiping people out of history.For ethnic cleansing to be an effective and successful operation you also have to wipe people out of memory and the Israelis are very good at it.See some of how it was

show profanity settings
expand all
  • 911ArtStudent, on 06/21/2008, -41/+62Canada Park is a great example: http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-isra ...
    • commernie, on 06/21/2008, -14/+19The video is very informative. Thanks for the link.
      • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -16/+8Nothing unites the far left and the far right better than hatred of Israel.
        • thePuck77, on 06/22/2008, -4/+8That's right, because if anyone points out anything you do bad it's because they hate you. Makes perfect sense.
        • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -3/+4As if there's any mistaking commernie and Rocket99 for anything else...
    • idisagree, on 06/21/2008, -28/+19911ArtStudent - More diversions huh? Thats all you got to support an indefensible position?
    • sanman, on 06/22/2008, -22/+18Seems to me that the Jews were once living happily in a land of their own, before the large unified bloc of Europeans (aka "Romans") came down to the Middle East to destroy the country the Jews had, and make them slaves.

      Thousands of years later, the Jews who had been scattered and redistributed across the European lands were once again trying to live happily there. But then the Europeans decided their existence there had to end too, and tried to exterminate them with genocide.

      So now the Jews have again fled, this time back to the Middle Eastern land where they lived. But the Europeans aren't satisfied with the Jews living there, either.

      This is the same Europe that basically tried to ***** the Jews up no matter where they lived. I don't really get the sense that they're the least bit sorry about any of these things. Because being European means never having to say you're sorry. Just ask their other former colonies what they think of this noble continent of enlightenment.
      • breadfred, on 06/22/2008, -7/+35You are right. Unfortunately you can say that for all the tribes that were living 2000 years ago. With the difference that none of the other tribes got their land back. Life changes with time, communities even more so. They split up, move, merge, change direction and what not. I do not see why the Jews should be singled out to get their land back. If I were a Druid, I want my Wiltshire back!
        • Tanktunker, on 06/22/2008, -21/+8The point that is being made is that the "We were here first" doesn't work because, we, the Israelites, were here before them.
          If any of the Philistines or Canaanites want to claim the land as ancestral right, let them come forward and provide proof the and is theirs, we have our documentation already.
        • commernie, on 06/22/2008, -11/+21Who used "we were here first"? Anybody serious about Palestine liberation would never use that argument. The argument is: when the Zionists started settling there in the 19th century, they forcefully displaced thousands of people already living there. They then invaded other countries and killed thousands of people. Is that OK just because the Jews have been persecuted?
        • monsieurginger, on 06/22/2008, -15/+15"Zionists started settling there in the 19th century, they forcefully displaced thousands of people already living there."

          when the jews first moved there in the late 19th century they were fleeing prosecution. they were few and weak so how could the forcefully displace thousands of arabs? they bought land legally. they were attacked by arabs many times and in 1948 they declared independence and defended themselves from arab aggression.
        • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -8/+9The only displacing the 19th century Zionists caused was of Arabs coming TO Palestine to work - but you never really bothered reading REAL historical works, did you?
        • TopherT, on 06/22/2008, -5/+4There was plenty of 20th century forcing, some quite violent. The idea of a Jewish state is one in which anyone not Jewish either has no rights as a citizen or is expelled. Its a fiercely unequal and divisive state, one which has abandoned the concept of equality in favor of an in group mentality. Is it racist? Is it immoral? Is it wrong? I don't have the answers to these questions, I can tell you that it is forceful and that any invoking of rights of residency stemming from two thousand years ago is at best egregiously hypocritical.
        • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -2/+3"The idea of a Jewish state is one in which anyone not Jewish either has no rights as a citizen or is expelled"
          Sources?
      • Silencer7, on 06/22/2008, -3/+9once again...
        http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html
        Who has controlled the Middle East over the course of history? Pretty much everyone. Egyptians, Turks, Jews, Romans, Arabs, Persians, Europeans...the list goes on. Who will control the Middle East today? That is a much bigger question.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 06/22/2008, -6/+2580% of the Jewish population of Israel are *not even descended from Semitic Jewish ancestors*. Most of them are descended from Ashkenazic stock, European Jews whose ancestors were Turkic tribespeople who converted en masse to Judaism in the 10th and 11th centuries.

        And from whom I am also descended.

        Looking to ancient history to justify the Jewish occupation of the holy lands is problematic, as following this logic, the Native Americans should be given North America from Yucatan to Canada, and the Welsh should be given the South of England from the Isle of Wight to the Solway Firth.

        The Old Testament is a religious document, not a land deed.
        • pintomp3, on 06/22/2008, -4/+15you mean god isn't a real estate agent? i was hoping he would help me find a new house. i'm willing to remove the current residents by force and make them recognize me as the rightful owner.
        • monsieurginger, on 06/22/2008, -10/+8"European Jews whose ancestors were Turkic tribespeople who converted en masse to Judaism in the 10th and 11th centuries. " ----- do you have any proof? just because one king of a small kingdom converted to judaism doesn't mean that every jew from europe is from there. after that king died i doubt they would follow judaism after that. the ashkenazi and sephardic have maintained in communication during the diaspora.

          half of israeli jews are sephardic. I'm half sephardic.
        • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -4/+7That is just one theory, that is contradicted by genetic studies. Ashkenazi Jews have a genetic link to Mizrahi Jews and Palestinians.
        • 911ArtStudent, on 06/22/2008, -3/+5He's not saying they don't have a link 'Noz. He's saying they have far stronger links to the Khazars of Eastern Europe. The Palsetinians on the other hand appear to be descended from the Hebrew tribes that lived there 1000's of years ago.
        • monsieurginger, on 06/22/2008, -4/+4"He's saying they have far stronger links to the Khazars of Eastern Europe." except they don't

          "The Palsetinians on the other hand appear to be descended from the Hebrew tribes that lived there 1000's of years ago."------ "appear", how the frak do they "appear: to be descended from the original hebrew tribes?

          the jews preserved a national identity the hebrew tribes. the only Palestinians that have done that are the jewish palestinians. the arab palestinians have no connection to the hebrew tribes by culture or religion.

          your logic is lacking. nice avatar, it really describes you.
        • sconnor, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1So glad to hear some acknowledgement for the INDIGENOUS NORTH AMERICANS!!But that is another story...I just had to thank you.
    • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -17/+8Interesting, coming from a holocaust denier.
    • trumpcard, on 06/22/2008, -15/+10Yea digg is filled with nazi sympathisers.
      • supermanred, on 06/22/2008, -4/+10...and Israeli sympathizers. I don't care if its a German or a Jew doing it, it's still wrong.
        • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -6/+6What's wrong with sympathizing with Israelis?
        • wpi97, on 06/22/2008, -10/+5"What's wrong with sympathizing with Israelis?" They are jooooooooooz, that's what's wrong!
      • mllawso, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Both sides have done disgusting things to the other.
    • JettaMan, on 06/22/2008, -7/+9I'd say Israelis in the United States have done a great job of wiping out the memory of our once great culture. We used to believe in freedom, individualism and non-interventionism in this country.
    • neko6, on 06/22/2008, -7/+8Nothing like revising history to make Jews look bad, eh?
      If you want to claim Israel committed ethnic cleansing, you need proof dated at the alleged time of the crime, not writings done after the year 2000.
      • neko6, on 06/22/2008, -3/+7Pappe doesn't believe in facts:
        "[V]ery pedantic and empiricist historians like to argue and to waste a lot of ink so to speak on figures, on numbers, as if the numbers are really important for the construction of myth, or if you have the accurate number you can destroy a myth or debunk it and I don't think it's very true."

        And he admits his bias:
        "We do [historiography] because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth seekers... ‘there is no such thing as truth, only a collection of narratives"

        source:
        http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/0000029 ...
    • baileyntx, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2I agree...quite interesting...expecially since most of the human rights violations are occurting IN Muslim nations these days.

      Persecution of the Copt Christians in Egypt...most are all gone.....can't build Christian churches there, and families have to worry about their daughters being kidnapped by Muslim men...and forced to convert.

      Persecution of Hindus and Christians in Pakistan...most are all gone. In fact 20 of them were just kidnapped a few days ago in Peshawar.

      Persecution of Christians in Turkey....most are all gone. In fact the police just busted a Muslim group that was kidnapping of old non-Muslim people...forcing them to sign over their property to them and then murdering them.

      Persecutions of 'others' all over the globe. Sudan, Afghanistan, Bangledesh, Somolian, Nigeria....it goes on and on and on....
      • yellowcakewalk, on 06/24/2008, -2/+3Our American tax dollars don't buy the weapons for the repressive regimes you mention. Our American tax dollars DO buy the weapons for the Israeli Occupation Forces. We are really, really, sick of paying for your repression and aggression.
        • sconnor, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2In addition,congress is pushing for Billions$$$ to go to Mexico rather than arm our own border & police forces.Same thing..diff. group.Let's focus on securing ourselves here at home--while there's still 2nd amendment rights left!!
  • commernie, on 06/21/2008, -64/+169FTA:
    "... you need a change in the Palestinian and Arab position towards the idea of a Jewish presence in Palestine as something legitimate and natural and not as an alien colonialist force."

    Then they need to stop being a colonialist force.
    • idisagree, on 06/21/2008, -27/+13Stop acting like a Colonial force and then you'll (the Zionists), be percieved as not being one.
      • solistus, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Buried for repeating almost verbatim the point made by the post you're responding to.
    • DrDreyfus, on 06/22/2008, -36/+52Taken from an essay by Michael Anbar Ph.D.

      Now where is the analogy with colonialism? The Jews who immigrated to the Land of Israel over the millennia never represented an alien colonizing power. French Jews who immigrated to the Land of Israel did not do this for the sake of France, Russian Jews did not represent the colonial ambitions of Russia, German Jews did not have the economic welfare of Germany in mind, and so on. The only remote analogy of the establishment of peaceful settlements in another country by a persecuted minority is that of the Pilgrims in 1620; but even they had no historical claims to the land they made their new home.

      Moreover, Jewish immigrants throughout the centuries did not grab land by force; they purchased it. Only the brutal War of Survival of 1948, which was initiated by the Arabs, changed this trend forcing the Israelis to confiscate Arab land to maintain their survival in a hostile region. Jews obviously did not plunder their own land for the benefit of any foreign colonial power. They did not impose Judaism on the local Arab population. The current practice of the Hebrew language by many Arabs is a matter of convenience for those who wish to maintain ties with the technologically advanced Israeli economy. Even in terms of globalization, the State of Israel is not a domineering force, definitely not when it comes to the local Arabs.
      • commernie, on 06/22/2008, -25/+50Right. The standard "we bought the land and the racist Arabs attacked us and we were forced to defend ourselves" story.

        Since the beginning, the aim of the Jewish National Fund was to 'to redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people.' That sounds like colonialism to me.

        As Theodore Herzl (father of Zionism) put it in his book 'The Jewish State': "We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."
        • DrDreyfus, on 06/22/2008, -14/+15Taken from Wikipedia:

          Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory beyond its borders by the establishment of either settler colonies or administrative dependencies in which indigenous populations are directly ruled or displaced.

          From what nation are the Jew's extending sovereignty?
        • commernie, on 06/22/2008, -10/+22I would argue that from Israel and England. Although Israel didn't exist yet, the Zionist movement *explicitly* stated that they wanted to form it in Palestine. England was involved in making it happen, of course (remember the "British Mandate"?).

          Not that it matters. If you want to argue that it's not really colonialism, that's fine with me. Call it whatever you like. Tens of thousands of Palestinians were still killed, tortured and removed from their homes by force.
        • sovereign3, on 06/22/2008, -3/+8It should be noted that the Jewish people can be considered a state based on the ideology of a religion. I don't wish to take sides in the "colonialism argument," but it should definitely be noted that there is indeed a "Jewish" state.
        • stanleyford, on 06/22/2008, -5/+21"The standard 'we bought the land and the racist Arabs attacked us and we were forced to defend ourselves' story." -- That the Arab nations attacked Israel in 1948 is not a "story," but a matter of historical record, as is the fact that they rejected an agreement which would have created a Palestinian state.
        • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -11/+7"Israel didn't exist yet". Ergo, no colonialism.
          Thanks for playing!
        • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -5/+12BTW, your quote of Herzl is misleading - he was referring to the European Jewry, not the Arabs.
        • solistus, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2The early phases of Israeli colonialism were at the hands of the British. At this point in history, Britain controlled much of the Middle East and was trying to cement its control with friendly colonies.

          Nowadays, Israel herself has colonies - the infamous settlements in Palestine. You know all those stories about armed Israeli settlements stealing from or massacring local Palestinian civilians? Oh, right, you probably don't read those stories, you just jump to the comments like with this one.
      • brettlutchman, on 06/22/2008, -9/+5Wow...very impressive.
      • skyscape, on 06/22/2008, -8/+5Look at the palestinian land and israel land. Israel is vegitated, built, expolited, while palestine is a desolate desert. We know who the real rebels are. There is not reason to have pity on paletinians. Jewish problems go back to Abraham days.
        • MoClippa, on 06/22/2008, -2/+6That is such a pitiful argument... I remember my mother using that once when I was younger and it is both a meaningless and intentional misreading of history and current events. Israel has consistently diverted water sources from the occupied territories for some time now, damning and diverting rivers to irrigate their own land and settlements, at the cost of Palestinians further down the river. The problem with this whole situation is that the legal territory around that, from my understanding, is still hazy. While it is generally agreed upon by the international community that water distribution rights need to be more firmly ingrained, countries that are higher up rivers have, and continue to, practice diverting larger then a fair share of water, and in the process, starving people, crops and animals down the river. Israel is clearly guilty of this, but so are countries like Egypt. This problem will be all the more acute in the near future, when water becomes an important commodity to people outside the deserts of drought prone countries, the UN recognizes this, and are currently setting guidelines for how this needs to be handled in the future.

          Furthermore, bare in mind, that the Palestinian economy has been sanctioned in various parts, and utterly decimated in others through a long history of bombings, and rerouting Palestinian taxes to Israel, the IDF and IAF leveling peoples livelihoods, and transport restrictions (The core of any modern economy being free, safe, reliable and quick transportation). Settlement expansion is also generally accompanied with uprooting Palestinian land crops and bulldozing houses, a process intended to motivate Palestinians to leave or sell their land, by making it economically unfeasible to live on it... creating facts on the ground. Initial facts on the ground, if Palestinians do not, or are unable to work their land, is a legal impetus for the Israeli judiciary (which already has a poor record of protecting Palestinian land rights, or even human rights) to give the IDF and settlements green lights on expansion, by stating that the Palestinians that own or live on the land have no right to be there... once settlements are expanded into those lands, that creates long term facts on the ground, which are set to redefine the borders of Israel beyond the currently legally recognized 1967.

          No one is asking anyone to have pity on peoples, Palestinian or otherwise. They are asking for their legal rights, both land and human, to be recognized and protected. That is not a matter of pity, it is a legal matter that must be discussed in legal terms.
        • hadees, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1You do know that Israel has an agreement with the Palestinians about water don't you? Your statement makes it appear you have no idea that agreement exists. When you make statements like "Israel is clearly guilty of this" you need to back it up with proof that Israel is violating the water agreements. The fact is you have no proof and are only repeating propaganda you heard some where else.
    • Dr00pieS, on 06/22/2008, -4/+3They need to stop being such big colons.
  • cashman57, on 06/21/2008, -68/+38"palestinian right of return"?
    How many of the "palestinians" who were alive in 1948 want to return?
    • idisagree, on 06/21/2008, -29/+51How many Jews who were alive during the Roman expulsions want to return to PALESTINE? Why don't you use your Yeshiva logic to discover the truth instead of obscuring it?
      • n0gnuz, on 06/21/2008, -15/+11idsagree FTW!
      • cashman57, on 06/22/2008, -21/+15what the hell is a yeshiva?
        Where is the Roman map that shows palestine as a country.
        I did discover the truth and not from some left wing terrorist sympathizer.
        No matter what you believe the fact is the Palestinians are Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians mostly
        So, tell me, how does the governments of those three countries treat palestinian" refugees"?
        If the Palestinians want to move forward the ball is in their court but I doubt that they will stop being aggressive terrorists who bomb cities inside Israel with their suicide idiots or lobbing rockets.
        Israel is not perfect, the Liberty incident comes to mind but they have done nothing that compared with the Palestinians and their terrorist attacks.
        Quite frankly I would have turned those cities into rubble so they could not hide their rocket launchers or keep from being seen when they move if I were in charge of Israel.
        Israel is actually being too generous IMHO
        • Sup3rSh3ep, on 06/22/2008, -5/+6you scare me
        • Silencer7, on 06/22/2008, -6/+7Television News Coverage of Israeli and Palestinian Deaths:
          http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/net-report.ht ...
          "In the first year of the current uprising, ABC, CBS, and NBC reported Israeli children’s deaths at 13.8, 6.4, and 12.4 times the rate of Palestinian children’s deaths. In 2004 these large differentials were also present, although they decreased in two cases, with deaths of Israeli children covered at rates 9.0, 12.8, and 9.9 times greater than the deaths of Palestinian children by ABC, CBS, and NBC, respectively. Given that in 2004 22 times more Palestinian children were killed than Israeli children, this category holds particular importance. We could find no basis on which to justify this inequality in coverage."
        • wpi97, on 06/22/2008, -3/+8A yeshiva is a Jewish religious school, similar to a Catholic school. Saying that somebody is using a "yeshiva logic" is an obvious Jew-hating slur.
        • dubdope, on 06/22/2008, -5/+3"left wing terrorist sympathizer"

          lols

          why do you have to be "that guy"?

        • idisagree, on 07/13/2008, -0/+0cashman57 The map is in your local library - providing that you don't live in 'Israel'. Or you could read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire"; or you could look at any map designed before 1948. But you won't do any of these will you? I am happy that you recognize that those "three governments" do have many Palestinian refugees. Of course you did not say "Palestinian" so are we to infer that you were implying 'Israeli' refugees or refugees from an "unnamed country" where 'Israel' exists today?
          "If the Palestinians want to move forward the ball is in their court but I doubt that they will stop being aggressive terrorists who bomb cities inside Israel with their suicide idiots or lobbing rockets." Which is worse: Zionist Terrorists who use US built and supplied shiny jets to burn civilians alive or horribly maim them for life or a resistance fighter who only has a 'suicide'-belt or unguided missiles available to protect his loved ones? You obviously can't see the forest for the trees. They are both horribly wrong, However you and most other advocates of Zionist terrorists think that they ('Israeli's') should have anything that they want and on their own terms, and that will never happen.
          Your last paragraph reveals your fascist tendencies: reduce them all to rubble is not very nice, is it? That's not a very kosher comment, is it? And for iconoclastStill to think that you are, "on point and correct" just shows how myoptic you guys really are.
      • idisagree, on 07/13/2008, -0/+0wpi97 - "Saying that somebody is using a "yeshiva logic" is an obvious Jew-hating slur." ACCORDING TO YOU but not according to the facts. Many Zionist terrorists CLAIM to be religious Jews and they do misuse their "Yiddisher Kopf aka Yeshiva logic" in order to obscure the truth. Obviously I would not use "Catholic School" in this context because it's not relevant to the subject at hand. Continue falsely equating anti-Zionism with "anti-Semitism" if you choose, but it won't legitimize a morally indefensible position called Zionism.
      • idisagree, on 07/13/2008, -0/+0n0gnuz - I'm new to this - what exactly does FTW mean?
    • stfucupcake, on 06/22/2008, -19/+19My childhood friend who was Palestinian felt betrayed that she no longer had a country.
      I don't think it's up to us to speculate -- they should be given the choice.
      • Zedoriah, on 06/22/2008, -3/+13"No longer had a country"? You mean "never had a country", right?

        And if that's what she was upset about then she should be mad at her parents and grandparents generations. The ones who declined a two state solution. They were given a choice. Multiple times. Every time they declined.
        • s2ao, on 06/22/2008, -3/+4Some random guy comes to your house and says, 'hey, this used to belong to my grandparents 500 years ago'

          He then asks for half of it, even though there are for people in your family, and he's just one person. poor guy, he's homeless. You would just give him half your house, won't you? even though you've been living there for 5 generations?

          That's the situation the Palestinians where in, Jewish immigrants where about 30% of the population in 1948 (nearly all recent immigrants) and they owned about 5% of the property, yet the UN gave them half the country in the partition plan. The Jews where going up from 0 to half a country, the Palestinians where going from 1 country to 1/2 a country. I'd say it's very logical that they rejected the partition plan and offered one state where the Jews are a big minority with minority rights (just like they were under the British mandate).
        • idisagree, on 08/09/2008, -0/+0S2ao thanks for clearing up honing down the thrust of Zedoriah's false argument which was based upon not taking stfucupcake's statement at face value in the first place. Thanks for putting the initial two-state offers into an accurate perspective.
    • 911ArtStudent, on 06/22/2008, -17/+14Zionist FAQ's:
      http://www.palestineremembered.com/ZionistFAQ.html
    • martalli, on 06/22/2008, -12/+10I have read plenty of accounts of Jewish families seeking to reacquire the lands and properties they lost dyring WWII. They asserted claims over the property even after the original owner had died. I don't see this as any different, except that Israelis assert that an Ottoman era law on abandonment applies, even though the land was abandoned because of military action by the Israelis.
      • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -4/+5Anecdotal evidence + Jumping to conclusions without supporting evidence = Ilan Pappe revisionism
        • s2ao, on 06/22/2008, -2/+5What anecdotal evidence are you talking about? Are you trying to deny that holocaust survivors have and continue to claim the restitution of their property or compensations?
          Because of you are, then I think you are a terminal case of denial...
        • yonoz, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1Here's another piece of anecdotal evidence: my grandparents came from Germany and Austria. They never claimed any restitution. They refused compensation.
          Capiche?
        • idisagree, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0yonaz, not even from the Claims Conference? That's another question: Why does 'Israel' not want to distribute the BILLIONS OF MARKS to the needy survivors of the Shoah? Why do they have to be shamed publicly into doling out a measly $300 per month?
    • iamondigghaha, on 06/22/2008, -12/+14Look, just cause Palestine doesn't exist anymore doesn't mean you put ***** quotes around "Palestinians".

      They were Palestinians, they were tricked into leaving because they thought their armies would wipe out the Israeli forces and that they just needed to stay out of the crossfire. They didn't. They got screwed, and then their country was pulled out from under them. It's a complex issue, and just taking a de facto partisan stance either way doesn't ***** make sense. Both sides did petty things and are still doing petty things now. I think this has a lot more to do with how much everyone should respect international law and how involved in interstate affairs the U.N. is allowed to be than historical rights to the state. Because both sides have pretty equally compelling claims to it, that issue really becomes a wash.
      • cashman57, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Trust the u.n. to solve the problem?
        LMAO!
      • idisagree, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0iamondigghaha, Norman Finkelstein has documented that there was never a radio broadcast from the Egyptians (or any Arab army) telling the Palestinians to leave Palestine in order to clear the way for Arab forces. This is just another Zionist fairy tale, except The "tooth fairy" stole the tooth and gave nothing to compensate it. See Israel - Image and Reality by Finkelstein.
      • idisagree, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0iamondigghaha, there is One solution: One state for Palestinians and Jews with equal rights for all with a right of return extended for both. You could even call it "Israel" (if it were a true democracy), and most people would not object.
    • theorem4, on 06/22/2008, -5/+3Many do.

      If anyone is interested, look up the book called Blood Brothers.
    • zombies187, on 06/22/2008, -6/+12I know people who have come to America from the west bank in the last couple of years. Their home was gradually surrounded by fenced roads untill they could look in all directions and see Israel. Yeah, he wants his home back.
      • cashman57, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1Gee I wonder why Isreal found it necessary to fence off roads to begin with.
        Probably a response to nothing, right?
        Tell your friend I could find someone to live in his house.
  • monsieurginger, on 06/21/2008, -45/+125Oh, this is from Ilan Pappe, who's book has been ridiculed for making up stuff and making false assumptions and conclusions, even by Benny Morris, one of these "new revisionist historians".
    • lazerus9, on 06/21/2008, -30/+10Where is your proof?
      • DrDreyfus, on 06/22/2008, -10/+35Katz controversy

        Pappé publicly supported an M.A. thesis by a Haifa University student that claimed Israel had committed a massacre in the Palestinian village of Tantura during the war in 1948.[13] Neither Israeli nor Palestinian historians had previously recorded any such incident. Meyrav Wurmser describes it as a "made-up massacre."[14] In December 2000, Katz was sued for libel by members of the Alexandroni Brigade and retracted his allegations about the massacre. [15][16] However Pappé continues to defend both Katz and his thesis.[17][18] Tom Segev, Me'ir Pa'il and others[17] have also argued that there is merit or some truth in what Katz described.[19]

        Taken from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Pappe
        • lazerus9, on 06/22/2008, -22/+2Oh! Like I should except Wiki as fact! Wheres the real proof?
        • Tanktunker, on 06/22/2008, -4/+19There are 7 source citations on that wiki page.
      • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -5/+15http://www.israel-palestina.info/modules.php?name= ... (article from New Republic):
        "Unfortunately, much of what Pappe tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication."
      • dexter411, on 06/22/2008, -2/+14Pwned.
    • danthepiercer, on 06/22/2008, -16/+10yeah, and zionist 'historians' are a model of truth.
      • monsieurginger, on 06/22/2008, -5/+9do you have any proof that anything that sir gilbert in birth of a nation(youtube it) made anything up?
      • topace3000, on 06/22/2008, -1/+12Compared to him, yes absolutely.
    • RedReplicant, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5Anyone who thinks
      "The Israeli army became a bit tired toward the end of the operation and the Palestinian villages became more aware of what was awaiting them and therefore in the Upper Galilee the Israeli army did not succeed in expelling all of the villages"
      is an adequate explanation for ANYTHING is already buying what this guy's selling. The entire article reads like it was made up off the top of somebody's head. Honestly, if Pappe wants to be taken seriously, he needs an editor.
    • yellowcakewalk, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1@red replicant: Ilan Pappe's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine". I have a copy in my hand. Do you want to refute a passage or chapter? He's taken seriously around the globe. People whose comforting myths are threatened by Ilan Pappe hate him, but that's not the same as refuting him.
      • yellowcakewalk, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1Dugg down, but not refuted. Typical.
  • lazerus9, on 06/21/2008, -18/+169 Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
    George Orwell
    • Tanktunker, on 06/22/2008, -28/+6Yeah, that's not the type of thing he was referring to in his book, tr reading it again, or once.
      • lazerus9, on 06/22/2008, -5/+17I have read Orwell many times over the years. I know that you believe he was speaking strictly of communism, but I'm sure he would not mind that I would apply his quote to fascism as well. You are a Zionist, so you are too biased to reason with- so I will make no effort in that regard! Fascism accepts all faiths!
        Have a nice day.
        • Tanktunker, on 06/22/2008, -16/+5I never said anything about communism, he was talking about totalitarianism, which is what the quote refers to.
          Apart from the government news and education channels and radio stations, there is no government controlled media, most people here watch the news from privately owned stations, I don't see how the government is throttling information or making any attempt to control it.
        • sodade, on 06/22/2008, -2/+15@Tanktunker - welcome to the 21st century where the government doesn't need to own the media to control it.
      • Joe11Blue, on 06/22/2008, -2/+5Actually it's exactly what he was referring to. The situation's are different, yes. The circumstance's, and the application of said tactics is the same no matter the situation.

        I guess you missed the class on deductive reasoning, or rather the course on basic critical thinking.
    • kidneyproblem, on 06/22/2008, -11/+3It's funny you write this quote in support of a news organization that consistently manipulates and distorts the truth in order to advance a theological FASCIST agenda. Remember the Jewish people flocking to Israel were mostly victims of the Holocaust. A horrible event in which babies were shot for target practice, men mutilated for medical experiments, and whole communities exterminated. An event in which aljazeera producers and workers sympathize with the NAZI perpetrators. The Irony your using an Orwell quote to bash Israel is twofold because the Jewish community was also the number one abused minority in Stalinist Russia. The Jews settling in Palestine in the late 40s might have caused ethnic frictions between Arabs and Jews, but they were fleeing FAMILIES and VICTIMS from very horrible Fascist and Communist States of the middle 20th century. These settlers were not evil and were not murderers. Many times the native Palestinians would exterminate Jewish settlements in order to capture the Israel retaliations on camera for their numerous propaganda campaigns. The Israeli and Palestinian conflict is a complicated issue and digging such an un-reputable source is a disgrace and shameful act.
      • writie, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2"An event in which aljazeera producers and workers sympathize with the NAZI perpetrators."

        Eh? Where did you get that from?

        Besides, the fact that the settlers were fleeing persecution does not change the fact that they chased many Palestinians from their villages. However, the "memorycide" claim is not entirely true, as Israel recently started marking the sites of former Palestinian villages.
        • stfucupcake, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Yeah, I bet those markers provide great comfort for those who lost their homes and worldly possessions.
      • dylio, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Al Jazeerha happens to be one of the most unbiased news sources in the world, from what I've gathered listening to the reporters on Real Time and from internet articles.
    • zackintosh, on 06/22/2008, -1/+12I thought you busted into some Rage Against The Machine.
    • RussellDovey, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5All Hell can't stop us now...
    • v00doo, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3I thought that was something Kane said in C&C....
      • leerayIG88, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3I thought so too.

        Maybe.....C&C is our future?!?! Tiberium Mutations everywhere!?
      • boobsbr, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1i'm joining NOD right now. ***** GDI!
  • fadeout, on 06/21/2008, -112/+286Nothing says "fair reporting on Israel" like Al Jazeera, right?
    • SharonItai, on 06/22/2008, -32/+20The picture shows such a moment of chaos as well. Those evil joo soldiers holding people up and forcing them out. lol
    • kufu91, on 06/22/2008, -5/+33"I think that there should be no reason in the world that two people - the Palestinians and the Jews - despite everything that happened in the past should not be able live together effective and in one state."

      that seems a bit positive.
      • sovereign3, on 06/22/2008, -4/+9You didn't notice the "one state" part. THAT's the problem. At this point, neither the Jews nor the Palestinians are keen to a one-state solution. They are hardly supportive of a two-state solution.
        • wpi97, on 06/22/2008, -6/+11The Jews agreed to a two-state solution in 1937, in 1948, and in 2000. When did the Palestinians agree to a two-state solution?
        • nyponet, on 06/22/2008, -4/+0Who did they agree with then?
      • danthepiercer, on 06/22/2008, -12/+8it just cant happen.
        according to jews, this land is promised to them by god.
        this conflict, like nearly every other conflict, is based on who god likes most.

        personally, i am looking forward to seeing jerusalem in flames. then maybe all the christianoids in the US will get over the whole rapture thing and perhaps stop basing US foreign policy on absurd fairy tales!

        oh *****, did i just say that? better call the ADL!
        • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -3/+8Obviously, you know very few Jews, and even fewer Israelis, if any.
        • neko6, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3According to Floridians, Disneyland's demise was foretold by the flying Spaghetti monster, and therefore must be nuked.

          Prove it ain't so...
        • jaynemother, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5Actually the founders of the state of Israel were largely atheist.
        • tullyr, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3look up Labour Zionism. it had nothing to do with religion
      • chillypacman, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1hahaha, that's not good enough, that is biased against the jews, the US Media, which is decidedly unbiased is more 'gee well... if only the palestinians could behave then maybe the IDF could let them have a small plot of land'.

        Interestingly European Media has more in common with Al Jazeera in its reporting of the situation than US media..
    • LemonDefragger, on 06/22/2008, -25/+106Yes because only Western media outlets can provide commentary on world affairs right? Drop the nonsense about "objective" and realize that everybody has a point of view, and its up to us, not CNN, to provide our own interpretations. Know that its from Al Jazeera, but don't discredit it only because of that fact.
      • monsieurginger, on 06/22/2008, -16/+14al jazeera is owned by qatar. It is a state owned news agency. Would you trust a news agency owned by your government?
        • niczar, on 06/22/2008, -12/+23I trust the BBC 100x more than CNN, or Faux News, needless to say.
          BTW Al Jazeera employs former BBC employees, and is modelled after it (charter etc).
        • ganeshsugunan, on 06/22/2008, -9/+18the BBC is one of the most neutral news agencies out there today; PBS (which isn't really supported by the government anymore, but used to be) is also incredibly neutral. state owned news agencies are some of the most neutral and fair agencies in the business, because their base doesn't pay their checks, and they don't have GE somewhere in their corporate ladder.
        • monsieurginger, on 06/22/2008, -11/+10You guys are retarded.
        • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -4/+13BBC report damns its ‘culture of bias’
          The report points to the danger of BBC programmes being undermined by the liberal culture of its staff, who need to challenge their own assumptions more. “There is a tendency to ‘group think’ with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone,” says the report.

          It goes on to highlight a “Roneo mentality” where staff ape each other’s common liberal values.
          http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/art ...
        • hadees, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2The BBC is only tolerable because they have correspondents all over the globe unlike any of the American news agencies. Their bias however comes mainly in the form of selective reporting. When you report that Israel killed a militant but fail to report it was after he fired a rocket into Israel that isn't giving people the whole story. The saving grace of the BBC is that some of the higher ups are starting to take the accusations seriously and are attempting to fix the problem. We will see if anything really comes of it though. These news agencies are like Colleges or the Government. It becomes an old fashion good old boy's club and they tend to protect each other, no matter how bad, from getting fired. Just look how long it took some other News Agencies to catch and fire people who were just making up stories.
      • neko6, on 06/22/2008, -2/+7The only reason to get objectivity, is to listen to both sides and verify the facts.

        A shorter way is to follow those who've done it, and make sure they've done it well. Pappe is an example of someone who is known to fabricate history, or extrapolate freely - for example, if he can prove ~100 Palestinians were moved in 1948 by Jews, he declares that there was an organized plan by the Israeli military to ethnically cleanse a million Palestinians. It doesn't bother him that the creators of Israel called the Arabs to stay, and that no such ethnic cleansing plan was ever recorded, and that such a plan makes no sense (why dispose if you can just as easily kill and remove evidence?) and that not a single person, even Palestinian, claimed ethnic cleansing occurred in the 20 years following the alleged events.
    • pintomp3, on 06/22/2008, -16/+46aljazeera.net is part of the al jazeera tv network, one of the most trusted news sources
      In April 2004, Webby Awards nominated Al Jazeera as one of the five best news Web sites, along with BBC News, National Geographic, RocketNews and The Smoking Gun
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera.net#Awards

      aljazeera.com is part of Aljazeera magazine, unrelated to the tv network. it is a biased media organization.

      perhaps you are confusing the two.
      • stfucupcake, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6I think his point is that it is Arab based, therefore must be discredited.

        And you wonder why we are having world problems...
    • iamondigghaha, on 06/22/2008, -10/+5I agree with you, but that's knowing that they are spot on for most world issues. It's the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular that they are very vocal and seemingly biased about.
      • Joe11Blue, on 06/22/2008, -9/+1Everyone will seem biased if they are on the side that is not the one you are rooting for. That's the issue here, nothing matter's in the conflict other than who's side you're on. This is one conflict no one is neutral about.

        Personally I'm not a fan of Zionism, reminds me too much of another religiously fanatical group from the 1930's German political ring. As for Palestinian's. I think given the chance they would be a great contributor to the world. They just need to drop that whole terrorist in the grass thing. Probably would be easier with out bulldozer's running over their house's though.
        • hadees, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1Zionism is a secular movement so I don't see how you could compare it to a religious group.
    • TunaFishGangsta, on 06/22/2008, -24/+5Al-Jazeera and Fox News have a lot in common.
    • yosserhughes, on 06/22/2008, -11/+15Well now, ain't that just what Fox does. Don't like the message, go after the messenger.
    • Janizzary, on 06/22/2008, -11/+24The author of the article is Israeli.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Pappe
      • wpi97, on 06/22/2008, -3/+17From your link: "Unfortunately much of what Pappé tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication..."
      • drakethegreat, on 06/22/2008, -3/+2Kind of figures because only someone who is Israeli would have the balls to understand and complain about what their country did yet still expect the Palestinians (Christian, Muslim, and other) to just say oh well they said sorry for massacring our population. I think you will find that most Palestinians won't be happy until they leave because they feel that the state was created over night without authorization but at the very least they probably want to see top Israeli officials tried for war crimes.

        I really can't blame them either way because if you had Europe and Asia setting a policy that all native Americans are in control the of US and somehow were able to arm them and have they decided to massacre everyone else (not really possibly but lets say in theory). How would you feel as a citizen of the United States? Well that is exactly what happened to Palestinians more or less. Although not every Jewish person partook just the Zionists so lets not make this a race or religion thing, its really about a group of jews like the Neocons in terms of Christianity.
    • zombies187, on 06/22/2008, -19/+19Al Jazzera is the news source in Israel. They have both sides of Israel Palestine. Thats more than I can say for ANY American news.
    • uncouthyouth, on 06/22/2008, -7/+20I especially love the line about when the Israeli soldiers "got tired" and that explains why there are Palestinians now. LOL @ this crap.
      • RussellDovey, on 06/22/2008, -5/+3No, it explains why there are Arab Israelis. Palestinians are the ones who don't have citizenship rights or voting rights in any country.
    • tkhan456, on 06/22/2008, -11/+6Al Jazzera is probably one of the most prominent new outlets in the world. Go to any other country and they pretty much have it playing. Just because we don't get it in the US does not mean it's not good. Our new outlets are probably some of the worst (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, all included).
      • dkol97, on 06/22/2008, -3/+3Um, just because it is prominent in the world does NOT mean it is credible
    • synaesthete, on 06/22/2008, -5/+19"Al Jazzera is the news source in Israel."

      No, they're not.
      • zombies187, on 06/23/2008, -2/+3http://snipurl.com/2mysv Israels largest cable provider drops CNN for Al Jazeera
      • hadees, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2A news source is not the same as THE news source. Plus claiming that Al Jazzera has some sort of legitimatize as an unbiased news source because they show it in Israel is like claiming Fox News is fair and balanced because it is shown on basic cable in the United States.
    • KaivenTor, on 06/22/2008, -3/+6@fadeout: Would you rather have an AIPAC controlled outlet do the reporting and tell you that everything is hunky dory over there and that the Palestinians are terrorists and trouble makers? This article was written independently of al Jezeera, they only published it. So because an Arab affiliated news network publishes it, it must be false?
    • DarkReign16, on 06/23/2008, -2/+6Wow, you have no idea what you are talking about. Al Jazeera MUST be unfair, considering their name is all arabic soundin 'n stuff, just like that there obama hussein fella.
      • hadees, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1It doesn't HAVE to be unfair but that doesn't change the fact IT IS.
  • hnsez, on 06/21/2008, -44/+3McCain didn't love America... until he was tortured into it. There are no atheists in foxholes either.
    • Zarokima, on 06/22/2008, -2/+20WTF does any of that have to do with anything here?
    • scot333, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4ive seen this reply elsewhere
    • Jexie, on 06/22/2008, -3/+11"There are no atheists in foxholes either."

      There are also no atheists flying planes into buildings.
    • pintomp3, on 06/22/2008, -2/+4but there are plenty of priests in boy holes.
    • pitlord, on 06/22/2008, -3/+1Except the Vietnamese were torturing him to make him HATE America. Guess it didn't work to well.
      >.>
  • DrDreyfus, on 06/22/2008, -92/+137Are you serious? Al Jazeera reporting on Israel?
    Thats like the Pre-Civil War newspapers reporting on how "harmful" African-Americans were to southern society.
    • RedPhalanx, on 06/22/2008, -19/+78???

      If you want an unbiased view of an issue, do you just watch Bill O and take his word as law and fact? Or Keith Olbermann? Or any one individual or source?

      Listen to both sides and make an opinion based on the facts- don't be afraid of something out of fear it might change how you look at a situation.
      • DrDreyfus, on 06/22/2008, -15/+9I don't even watch Bill O' Reilly nor Olbermann.

        O' Reilly is stupid and biased beyond words and Olbermann seems too one-sided.

        This is an actual page from aljazeera.com:
        http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory ...

        This taken from Wikipedia:

        Examples of Conspiracy theories posted by the site include the notion that the September 11th attacks were carried out by Mossad [1], that recent taped statements from Osama Bin Laden are fake [6], and that US dollar bills contain hidden images of the September 11th attacks [7]. User comments on these conspiracy theories are not permitted, but users are encouraged to vote on a poll with the options: 'I believe it', 'These are lies' and 'I don't know'.
        • RedPhalanx, on 06/22/2008, -4/+14Isn't that a fallacy of composition?

          A website could post "We support Barack Obama for President, and we believe the Holocaust never happened". Does that make Obama a Holocaust denier? Does that all of Obama's supporters Holocaust deniers?

          I'm not asking you (and noone should ever ask you) to agree with something without thinking about it. But if you just look at one side of an argument, how can you fully understand an issue?
        • bepart, on 06/22/2008, -1/+15Sir, from your posts you seem to be informed on these issues, but you apparently confused Al Jazeera TV station with Aljazeera.com, both being completely unrelated

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera.com
          http://www.aljazeera.com/util/pages.php?pageid=1
        • DrDreyfus, on 06/22/2008, -8/+7Thanks bepart.
          Didn't know that.

          RedPhalanx,

          It is not a merely a fallacy of composition. When something like that is posted (with the knowledge and stamp of approval by the editors) to a website claiming to be factual and unbiased it destroys its credibility. So when I look to that source to understand the other side, there's high probability that I'll get skewed information.
          I, of course, am going to read the article! But should I take it with a huge grain of salt? Yes.

          Anyway, this specific example is negated now that I understand aljazeera.net is unrelated to aljazeera.com
      • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -5/+13There are very few facts in this article.
        Ilan Pape has been discredited and rejected even by revisionists such as Benny Morris.
      • dexter411, on 06/22/2008, -3/+8Won't stop Digg pundits from eating it up.
    • DangerCollie, on 06/22/2008, -16/+53Overall, I'd rank Al Jazeera closer in accuracy and balance to the BBC than any news organization in the states. You make your assessment on...what exactly? Actual experience? Or did you just pull your vast knowledge of news sources out of your butt?

      Why not try watching a few reports before claiming bias. My opinion of what I've seen is that they're not entirely unbiased but they are fair. I'd believe them ahead of Faux News.
      • Hello1024, on 06/22/2008, -3/+2Lately I haven't been impressed by the usually very good BBC - in the last few weeks they seem to have even been collecting stories from digg, particularly for the last news item.

        Sometimes on the BBC tv news, and frequently on the "extra news" quiz programs we see pictures that were linked to from the digg homepage just a day or two before.

        The BBC also does seem to tend towards a British political bias on hot topics like terrorism, burma, tibet, palestine etc. It doesn't seem to happen so much with local political news. Luckily usually they still present the "other side" of the argument, which is more than other news sources do.
        • Hello1024, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1I suspect the bias is because it would undermine the countries international political stance if the politicians were all saying one thing, but the main news source had dug up evidence to the contrary.

          It does damage the BBC's reputation as being independent from the government though.

          I will go as far as applauding the BBC's news coverage of other things you might expect them to taint, like for example scandals or messsups within their own organization.
    • farTart, on 06/22/2008, -18/+64Al Jazeera is mainly ex-BBC reporters. They are a lot less biased than CNN/MSNBC/Fox.

      Seriously. Al Jazeera has a pretty damn good reputation for the quality of their reporting.
      • supermanred, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5Yes they do. Probably one of the best "major" news outlets out there. Not as controlled as FOX, thats for sure.
      • georgemason01, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1Some people will simply never trust a news network with an Arabic name. Nothing you say will change that.
    • Gimpyfuzznut, on 06/22/2008, -16/+41Al Jazeera is probably one of the better news sources out there. I would say it is much more credible than any American organization. Of course, the second you hear the Arabic name, you automatically think "omg terrorists!". That's what years of propaganda from Fox News gets you.
    • tkhan456, on 06/22/2008, -6/+8None of you should comment on Al Jazzera if you don't know what the hell it is. It is probably one of the most respected new groups in the WORLD. CNN, Fox, etc are all crap compared to it. It tends to be extremely neutral. I bet all of you think Al Jazzera is a 'terrorist' news network. All you know about them is that they release videos of Osama Bin Laden. How about learn about something before you criticize it.
      • monsieurginger, on 06/22/2008, -6/+4They are owned by Qatar, a state. States shouldn't own news agencies.
        • rowjimmy, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1fer cereal. giant multinationals should own news agencies. and states. and pretty much everything else. that way we get a consistent agenda.
          /jackass
        • supermanred, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2In Canada, we have the CBC and in Britain they have the BBC... both of which kick the ***** out of Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC when it comes to being impartial and actually getting to the core of a story.

          Sorry to tell you, but when a news agency is owned by a State, therefore owned by the people it is usually a pretty damn good news organization. I of course speak only of news organizations owned by Democracies, not those dictated to by some Tyrant.
        • monsieurginger, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1At least those are of democratic countries, Qatar is a dictatorship.
    • psyflyer, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1well, jews control every other media outlet. Ashkenazi jews and the likes are despicable murderers.
    • psyflyer, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1well, the jews own every other media outlet. Ashkenazi Jews and the likes aredespicable murderers.
  • stutimandal, on 06/22/2008, -40/+85{{{I think that there should be no reason in the world that two people - the Palestinians and the Jews - despite everything that happened in the past should not be able live together effective and in one state. }}}

    There is one great reason why this cannot happen. It is because Palestinians fire rockets into Israel's urban areas. Pappe should also focus on what is wrong about Palestine. He paints Israel black and Palestine white. It isn't like that at all.
    • stfucupcake, on 06/22/2008, -23/+25Sounds like you are the one with bias.
      • psychokila, on 06/22/2008, -4/+9How in the world is he the one with the bias? He's the one saying we should take both sides into account, and not only consider Israel's faults but also Palestine's faults. Are you going to deny the terrorism, bus bombings that are committed by Palestinians in Israel which truely limit progress towards peace? Come on now, it's completely outrageous to think for a moment that either Palestine or Israel are innocent. You go tell a Palestinian terrorist organization that they're going to live side by side with the Jews. Maybe you'll see the reason why peace cannot be achieved in a single Israeli state.
    • RedPhalanx, on 06/22/2008, -12/+19There is no black and white, just shades of gray.

      Palestinians (individuals, not a government) attack Israel. Israel responds by continuing its active resistance to a Palestinian state.
      • martalli, on 06/22/2008, -6/+8Were the Palestinians the first to attack? Was Israel there first? You assertion is highly misleading.
        • UncleTimmy, on 06/22/2008, -9/+6They just want what is theirs. Yes, they fire rockets into Israel but who is the occupying force? Not to mention with politics, 10 people can make 10 million look bad.
        • bwdigg, on 06/22/2008, -2/+10How many settlements are the Palestinians building on lawfully owned land of the Israelis? You don't consider that kind of a thing to be a teeny-tiny bit provocative?
        • rowjimmy, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2many palestianians don't consider that land lawfully owned.
        • RussellDovey, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1IT DOESN'T ***** MATTER WHO WAS FIRST TO ATTACK ANYMORE.
      • tkhan456, on 06/22/2008, -5/+2I love how it's a Palestinian attack but an Israeli resistance.
      • supermanred, on 06/22/2008, -5/+2No, there is black and white. Isreal was formed on land already occupied, farmed, owned, with buildings present. They needed tanks and airplanes to take the land. It wasn't abandoned land where all you need is to bring building materials and farming equipment. They had to kick people out of their own homes by force and the shedding of much blood.
        • neko6, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4That is the picture Pappe paints. Sadly enough, there's no proof this ever happened. Get some real sources (i.e. ones based on history, not fiction that Pappe sells) before you make up your mind on a subject.
        • kerrle, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3That's not how it happened, and it saddens me that so many people seem just accept that this is how the state of Israel came into existence.
      • turtle984, on 06/22/2008, -1/+0You sound like a unionist from the north of Ireland. Sick, bigoted, twisted view of history. I cant understand how anyone, anywhere can idly take all what they hear in the news to heart. The fact is that the Palestinians rightfully own that land, the Israeli's took it. Down with israel, Free palestine, just like how Tibet should be freed from the Chinese, Northern Cyprus should be freed from the Turks, and the north of Ireland should be freed from the British. Modern society should not morally accept the occupation of anyone's land.
    • ghostoftomjoad, on 06/22/2008, -12/+23It will never happen because Isreal is a nationalistic state that is hell bent on maintaining an ethnic majority at the expense of the native people in the area. One or the other will die out before the fighting is all done
      • DrDreyfus, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1An ethnic majority is the entire point to Israel...

        If Non-Jews made up the majority or even a large minority they would be able to take Israel's government. Israeli government is set up that different parties vie for seats of authority. There is a dominant party but they don't hold all the seats usually.
    • zombies187, on 06/22/2008, -9/+10As an American, I would be satisfied if we made it illegal for Americans to spend money to Israel meant to build new settlements. That's why the rockets are firing and that's why they blame America. We don't fund the PA, so why fund settlers?
      • neko6, on 06/22/2008, -2/+7Actually, you do fund PA - in tax money as well as in American Muslims who support terrorist groups.
      • zombies187, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Our taxes are not being spent on rockets for Hamas. Its being spent on guns for settlers.
      • MoClippa, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2American money is being spent primarily in arming Israel and as a consequence, arming and promoting the expansion of settlements. On the other hand, American money has recently also been siphoned off to the PA in small amounts, also the US has asked, and Israel agreed, that the PA be allowed to purchase more advanced weaponry from Russia... namely mobile units like APC's and jeeps, though I don't believe tanks were included.

        The reason for the funding for the PA (and by PA I mean the "PA", being Fatah) is because it is in the middle of a civil war with Hamas (the legitimate PA majority). The goal of the funding on the other hand, is disputable. Some would argue that the funding, and training of Fatah members in torture techniques used against Hamas members, is part of a process of decimating or severely isolating Hamas further then the Gaza strip. Another more sinister explanation, is that the fact that the funding is so highly limited, means that its intended goal is not to do away with Hamas, but to make Fatah simply capable enough to wage a bloody civil war with Hamas, but not capable enough to win it. The later argument being that it is preferable for the current major Palestinian political parties to remain broken and conflicted, rather then have the government itself become a stable force. In keeping the government in chaos, it provides a false sense of legitimacy towards expanding settlements, regardless of illegality, and makes the Palestinians even less capable of defending their land rights.
    • tkhan456, on 06/22/2008, -8/+9Also don't forget how Israelis bulldoze houses of Palestinians, fire rockets at them, kill children, mow down people with machine guns, bomb, rob, and torment Palestinians.
  • stutimandal, on 06/22/2008, -40/+44http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44655000/jpg ...

    Palestinian children hold toy rifles during a demonstration in the Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp in Lebanon marking the 60th anniversary of al-Nakba, or "the Catastrophe" – when Israel declared independence.

    Palestinians are really peaceful. It is really Israel's fault all the way. See the above picture and this caption from BBC (# 4) : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7400459.stm
    • Waiting2awake, on 06/22/2008, -7/+20error in thinking: No one is really saying it is solely one sides fault. Both sides have been absolutely horrible to each other.

      • TunaFishGangsta, on 06/22/2008, -1/+6I'm pretty sure a lot of people are saying it's the other sides' fault.
      • Joe11Blue, on 06/22/2008, -2/+3It's Britain's fault.
    • Mushroomhero, on 06/22/2008, -7/+9Toy guns and kids dressed in dressed in camo, well that just sounds really healthy. Those kids will be future terrorists.
      • stfucupcake, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1omg Santa gave my kid brother a toy gun one Christmas....
    • DefenceMinister, on 06/22/2008, -6/+10If you want pictures of Israeli children holding actual guns, I can give you some.
    • ClipSet, on 06/22/2008, -10/+15I'd be very militant too when I'm treated like a animal.
      • monsieurginger, on 06/22/2008, -6/+6You are militant against your doctor?
      • sodade, on 06/22/2008, -10/+6Whoever diggs this down is a ***** hypocrite.
      • monsieurginger, on 06/22/2008, -5/+4You are militant against the bureaucrats?
    • yosserhughes, on 06/22/2008, -7/+9Well I guess that's a good a reason as any for the Jews to kill 'em, can't have Palestinian kids running around with sticks now, can we?.
      • DrDreyfus, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1It's hard to discern a real gun from a fake one when its more than 20 feet away from you... Also, Hamas isn't against using children as weapons or shields.

        It happens in American as well. Here on Digg, cases of cops shooting children who brandish fake weapons... Stop applying a double standard.
    • spongya77, on 06/22/2008, -4/+13It's funny, I guess the Jewish girls writing messages with Sharpies on artillery shells were only expressing their thirst to peace and prosperity for all.
      I guess you just didn't see the photos, right? Or chose not to see them.
      • neko6, on 06/22/2008, -5/+3Shells to be used in a war started by an aggressive entity that declared these little girls' death as their objective? An entity that shot rockets at their house? An entity that strives to free Samir Kuntar who busted the skull of a two year old girl in her sleep?!

        I'd write messages on those shells as well, probably much harsher than those written by the little girls. Self declared child murderers deserve no pity.
        • spongya77, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1You are a fool... or worse. When did Lebanon attack Israel? You think the death and destruction that Israel wreaked on a sovereign country for the kidnapping of two soldiers is justified? Little girls indoctrinated with hate so that they write messages to other little kids on ***** artillery shells is OK? Please put a gun to your head, and blow your brains out. You don't seem to be using it anyway.
  • fuzzybeard, on 06/22/2008, -8/+81The stretch of land that Israel occupies has been fought over, invaded, colonized, bent, folded, spindled, & mutilated since time immemorial. It hasn't changed then, it (probably) won't change now.
    • pakakapa, on 06/22/2008, -16/+12just ***** kick everyone out of that place and turn it to a nuclear waste storage site
    • Betrayer, on 06/22/2008, -12/+6The most rational thing to do would be to move the people and NUKE the teritory.

      just like little children fighting over a toy.. now NO-ONE gets to play on the land....
      • Joe11Blue, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3Nah, ***** the people. They will just fight somewhere else over religion or something equally dull. Nuke the whole kit of them, and then worry about the fallout after it passes over Iran.
      • keithmcbride, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5Yes, because nobody in the world would be upset when you destroy Jerusalem.
      • neko6, on 06/22/2008, -4/+4So, Betrayer, if I say I want your house, and you disagree, it should be destroyed?
        Israel exists. Palestine will be created if their people even agree to let Israel exist. There's not much more to it. Luckily Israel is stronger so there aren't many casualties - I fear the bloodshed there would be if ever the tables turn and the ruthless become the stronger.
    • fx666, on 06/22/2008, -5/+16Palestinians sold their land to Jews and they have no one to blame but themselves -- this is how Israel was founded. Then they lost a war and now they complain of being treated unfairly. Apparently, their ***** brain is malfunctioning, so they blame their own mistakes on the Jew.
      • danjwray, on 06/22/2008, -5/+6Sure, some sold up. Others were raped, terrorised and forced from their homes, which were then bulldozed to ensure they couldn't return.
        • ceraphin, on 06/22/2008, -2/+3gotta start with someone
        • DrDreyfus, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1Hey I can do that too!

          "You owe me $30. Give it NOW!"


          Cite your damn sources. All the time people scream "THE JEWS MASSACRE PALESTINIANS!!"
          But no one actually provides any evidence of this genocide.
        • fx666, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1The is a price for starting a war. We, the Americans, took Texas from the Mexicans because they started the war. For the same reason the Israelis captured Palestinian territories and should not return it under any conditions. As it is said -- one who lives by the sword dies by the sword.
        • Frostek, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1fx666 - So, you're saying America will die by the sword? Hmm...
  • monsieurginger, on 06/22/2008, -17/+21When will it end?
    • whiterice0, on 06/22/2008, -27/+25When Arabs stop attacking Israel.
      • martalli, on 06/22/2008, -11/+18Israel never attacks anyone? Sometimes their actions are just perfectly reasonable, such as when they were bombing police stations because the police hadn't arrested someone quick enough. That sort of action will really expedite things...
        • Tanktunker, on 06/22/2008, -10/+8Yeah, that happens, for that reason, sure.
      • tkhan456, on 06/22/2008, -7/+5When Jews stop attack Arabs.
        • monsieurginger, on 06/22/2008, -2/+8Did the Jews attack the Arab's in 1921, 1929, 1930's?
        • eliazu, on 06/22/2008, -2/+4when the jews will stop attack arabs - there will be no jews.
    • Cherubwing, on 06/22/2008, -6/+14When Jesus returns!
      • sodade, on 06/22/2008, -5/+12The sad thing is that idiot america actually believes that.
      • monsieurginger, on 06/22/2008, -6/+6Who is this jesus everybody keeps talking about?
        • slave1, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2A half-naked, handsome white blond guy riding on a donkey
        • zombies187, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Hes the guy that Christian Zionist are planning on having kill all the jews and other non christians in Israel. These guys are NOT on your side.
    • zombies187, on 06/22/2008, -9/+6When there is only one state and they vote to rename it Palestine. I'm not for that, but thats the road Israel is on. Separate now. Give them a contiguous state. You sow the seed of your own destruction, by not having two states.
    • Infidelcastr0, on 06/22/2008, -6/+4When idiots stop believing in invisible men in the sky.
      • supermanred, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4No, sadly that is what is holding us all at bay. Without faith in the major REligions and their promise of a good afterlife in return for good deeds and actions on Earth this place would be a nightmare.

        Im an Atheist, but I dont think most of the world's population is ready to be nice for being nice's sake yet.
      • DrDreyfus, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1You have no clue about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict do you?
    • Psi57, on 06/22/2008, -11/+2When the last kike is shot.
    • nycmac247, on 06/22/2008, -6/+4when the oil runs out - then no one will give a ***** about that part of the world unless they are ***** crazy / stupid
    • bennypowers, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2There are two solutions to the Israeli/Arab war, the natural solution and the supernatural solution. The natural solution is that Mashiach comes.
    • RetardsGalore, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1When we all die.
    • randomstupid, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2When either of these 2 start listening instead of yelling
    • skcoder, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1Kill them all and let god sort them out
  • whiterice0, on 06/22/2008, -43/+77A report by Al Jazeera on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Israeli state: Wonder if it will be objective?

    From Wikipedia: Ilan Pappé is considered one of the "New Historians" who take a critical view of Zionist narratives and Israel's history. Among these, he defends the Palestinian narrative and analysis of the events of the 1948 War. In particular he subscribes to the thesis that Palestinians were intentionally expelled by Yishuv and later Israeli forces in terms of a plan drawn up even before the war. Pappé publicly supported an M.A. thesis by a Haifa University student that claimed Israel had committed a massacre in the Palestinian village of Tantura during the war in 1948. Neither Israeli nor Palestinian historians had previously recorded any such incident.

    From Wikipedia: In the first few months of the civil war [beginning in December 1947] the climate in the Mandate of Palestine became volatile, although throughout this period both Arab and Jewish leaders tried to limit hostilities between Jews and Arabs. According to historian Benny Morris, the period was marked by Palestinian Arab initiatives and Jewish reprisals.

    Typically the Jewish reprisals were directed against villages and neighborhoods from which attacks against Jews had allegedly originated, were more damaging than the provoking attack and included killing of armed and unarmed men, destruction of houses and sometimes expulsion of inhabitants.

    So, just as today, you have Arabs attacking Israel, and Israel retaliating in order to protect itself.
    • ghostoftomjoad, on 06/22/2008, -18/+18Your an idiot. Do you really think that Palestinians were attacking for no reason at all? How is that not a crazy conspiracy theory? or is reality just not that important to you?

      What would you do if an alien ethnic group told you you had to leave your home and move west?
      • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -7/+16Your knowledge of geography is as poor as your knowledge of history.
      • leubstop, on 06/22/2008, -5/+10good question.. wonder how the byzantines felt

        1. 6th century Bablyon occupies Israel from judeans
        2. Irans (persia) then occupies the land
        3. Romans Occupy Israel
        4. Byzantines occupy israel
        5. Arab Islamic Empire under Caliph Omar occupy Israel.
        6. Turks Occupy Israel
        7. Ottomans Occupy Israel
        8. Britian Occupys Israel
        9. Israel is restored to Israel

        • ghostoftomjoad, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1so i'll agree the jews belong there if you agree to turn ur property over to native americans
      • urik88, on 06/22/2008, -3/+12You forget something ghostoftomjoad.
        They weren't told to leave by the Jews. They were told to leave by their very own religion leader (Haj Amin El Husseini) and their neighbor nations, to leave the land clean for the Arab armies to massacre the Jews.
        • ghostoftomjoad, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1ur right in a sense. the surrounding region has not helped at all in my opinion. But there is no question that zionism's goal was to create a Jew Nationality in its own country, and they accomplished this by slowly taking territory from people that lived there. If bad men sold the land unfairly (wealthy arabs), then bad men also bought it unfairly (the zionists)
      • Swarms, on 06/22/2008, -2/+4For ***** sake...you're not allowed to say "your an idiot".
        • ghostoftomjoad, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2Thank you grammar police, making the internet unbearable for all of us.
      • majestichazard, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2I for one WELCOME our new alien overlords.
    • sodade, on 06/22/2008, -11/+16"So, just as today, you have Arabs attacking Israel, and Israel retaliating in order to protect itself."

      And right there, you lay out the perfect argument against Israel. Their retaliations do NOT promote self protection - in fact, they only make them more unsafe by promoting extremism in a population that feel so ***** over (right or wrong) that they have nothing to lose. Thus the suicide bombers.

      Americans are following Israel right down their path of insanity.

      I am not saying that I have a solution, but the Israeli "solution" is so clearly backwards that it is not worth considering.

      When will people stop cutting off their noses to spite their face?
      • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -4/+7Either you're incorrectly assuming that if Israel doesn't "retaliate", Israeli suffering will remain the same, or you believe the IDF should do nothing to protect Israeli civilians.
        • sodade, on 06/22/2008, -3/+7False dichotomy. There are many many different approaches to coming up with a solution - unfortunately, people like you can only think in terms of "get bigger gun - kill enemy"
          When you are a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
        • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -5/+6So, how about presenting one of these approaches?
          Oh, you're too busy trying to sound clever.
        • sodade, on 06/22/2008, -3/+6Like I said - it isn't easy to solve a problem exacerbated by ***** IDIOTS on both sides killing each other for 60 years.

          But, what the hell, I'll give it a shot.
          The bottom line is that people who are ***** desperate because they feel like they have nothing to lose are dangerous ("a heart that beats with failure can only buy you danger"). So, give them something to lose - what do the Palestinian people want (besides revenge)? I don't know enough of the specifics to speak super intelligently about it, but I'll bet it has something to do with specific pieces of dirt that they feel are theirs - give it to them. Trade with them. Invest in them while clearly denouncing the past actions of BOTH sides. (yes, that means manning up and admitting you were ***** wrong). Basically, Israel needs to ***** take the high road - they are the ones with the big guns. If they do this honestly and promote the Palestinian state to the point where the average family is actually benefiting from the existence of Israel, eventually (yep - it is going to take time) the extremists will be marginalized and will fade out.

          Sure, this is much more complex than I have laid out, but complex problems require complex solutions. Killing people is simple and it won't solve a problem like this - ever.

          There - that wasn't so hard. Where's my Nobel Peace Prize bitch?
        • urik88, on 06/22/2008, -3/+5"There are many many different approaches to coming up with a solution - unfortunately, people like you can only think in terms of "get bigger gun - kill enemy" "

          Sodade, in the 2005 Israel kicked its very own citizens from Gaza, and left it.
          What was the response? Missiles falling over Ashkelon from the new left territory.

        • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -3/+6Way to solve a problem - call people idiots, and repeat the "solutions" that have been tried:
          1) The rhetoric, the violence, the animosity of Palestinians towards Jews was worse before Israel captured the Occupied Territories, and more so before Israel even existed. Claiming that it will be any different if we return these territories is naive at best.
          2) The Gaza Strip has been returned to the Palestinians. During the Oslo Accords, parts of the West Bank were given to the PA. We saw how well that went.
          3) Israelis heavily traded with Palestinians. During the Oslo Accords, the West Bank was filled with Israeli shoppers every weekend. There were 40'000 Gazans working in Israel every day. The Erez Industrial Park that was home to jointly owned businesses and employed 5000 Gazans - but they kept attacking these places, just as they attacked the fuel and supply terminals in the Gaza Strip.

          Your prize is currently being digested, it'll be out shortly.
        • sodade, on 06/22/2008, -5/+560 years of killing will not be erased by one gesture. Like I said - it is going to take time and an honest approach. Even if my brilliant nobel peace prize winning plan isn't going to solve it, I can guarantee you that killing won't either.

          I wonder if there are Israelis that understand this truism? I bet they are marginalized by the kill em all contingent. I sure do feel sorry for them.
        • wpi97, on 06/22/2008, -6/+7"60 years of killing will not be erased by one gesture."
          You are right. Arabs have been killing Jews since long before Israel became a state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre 80 years of killing will not be erased by... more killing?
        • sodade, on 06/22/2008, -4/+5yonoz - I'm sorry, but killing for peace is like ***** for chastity. It is ***** dumb and it just won't work (unless you are willing to make glass sparking lots).

          Again, I am not honestly saying I have the perfect solution, but I know that 60 years of killing on both sides has only made the situation worse.

          Anyone who supports the position that killing will solve anything is a ***** IDIOT.

          Check this out: http://digg.com/world_news/Cisco_to_invest_in_the_ ...
          It seems that I am not alone in the idea that economics are part of the solution.
        • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -4/+7So why should Israelis make all the gestures? Is it too much to expect the Palestinians not to attack Israeli civilians?
        • urik88, on 06/22/2008, -4/+6"60 years of killing will not be erased by one gesture. Like I said - it is going to take time and an honest approach. "

          60 years of war. It's a two sides conflict.
          Your approach is basically "Let them hit you as much as they want, and don't retaliate. They will soon realize that they are wrong and stop attacking you".
          The real world doesn't work like that.
          Their children are being indoctrinated in their TV shows that killing Jews is the best way to go to heaven, and that the Jihad is the highest aspiration that you can have.
          Do you really think that after a generation of being indoctrinated like that, they will stop attacking? Don't be naive.
          It also isn't a single gesture. Israel provided health, food, water, fuel, and electricity to Gaza for years. Israel agrees to treat some of their very own wounded militants.

          "Even if my brilliant nobel peace prize winning plan isn't going to solve it, I can guarantee you that killing won't either."

          Maybe you're right. But I prefer to defend my family instead of freely letting the Palestinians launch missiles at my house.

          "I wonder if there are Israelis that understand this truism? I bet they are marginalized by the kill em all contingent. I sure do feel sorry for them."

          Kill em all attitude? You're very wrong. Israel targets the militants. That's some "kill em all".
        • sodade, on 06/22/2008, -4/+4Because they are the big dog on the block. They have tanks, nukes and their dumbass bulldog USA at their back. Killing kids wielding slingshots only makes more martyrs and promotes the extremists.
          Walk a mile in their shoes buddy. If I were a Palestinian kid whose family was murdered by Israel, I would want devote my life to getting revenge. If I was supported in this desire by my peers (who have the same motivations), I would likely go down that road and you would too. Erasing or marginalizing that support is going to take a long long time. It took 60 years of killing to get to this ***** up point.

        • sodade, on 06/22/2008, -5/+4@WPI97 - you seem to have missed the part where I said that BOTH sides are ***** IDIOTS.

          The difference is that it would actually be much easier for Israel to make the change away from killing than the Palestinians. 60 years of Israel fostering a culture of martyrdom, revenge and economic disparity has made it highly unlikely that they will be able to take the mature road out of being total ***** IDIOTS. Israel on the other hand, could have easily taken the high road and the world would have stood behind them. Instead, they look like thugs.
        • urik88, on 06/22/2008, -6/+6"Because they are the big dog on the block. They have tanks, nukes and their dumbass bulldog USA at their back."
          So? Being strong makes you wrong?

          "Killing kids wielding slingshots only makes more martyrs and promotes the extremists. "
          Israel now deliberately kills kids wielding slingshots? That's something new to me. I'd like to see the sources.

          "Walk a mile in their shoes buddy"

          Oooh we did. Well not me, but some of my friend's grandfathers. In a WAY worse situation.

          "If I were a Palestinian kid whose family was murdered by Israel, I would want devote my life to getting revenge."

          No if you knew the consequences. No if you knew that they were killed because a terrorist was firing missiles from their rooftop, and they were hit by the missile explosion aimed at the terrorist.

          "I would likely go down that road and you would too."

          How many Jews attacked civilians during the Holocaust? We're talking about a WAY worse situation.

          "Erasing or marginalizing that support is going to take a long long time. It took 60 years of war to get to this ***** up point."

          Fixed. Israelis have died too. The only difference is that Israel has better shelters and facilities, so the damage is less. And that Israel doesn't deliberately target civilians.


          Would you seriously say that you shouldn't retaliate if the mortars and Qassams were falling at YOUR city?
        • sodade, on 06/22/2008, -3/+4@urik88
          "Maybe you're right. But I prefer to defend my family instead of freely letting the Palestinians launch missiles at my house."

          You live in Israel? Honestly man, my heart goes out to you for being in such a ***** up place. I mean that will all sincerity and I hope you see that I am dishing out the blame equally and not "apologizing" for Palestinian conduct

          If I were in your situation - trying to keep my family safe in the midst of a 60 year war - I would ***** leave. Period. There are other lives you can choose for you and your family (I know it isn't as easy as I am making it sound).

          Either way, you have to see that killing them is only making it worse and putting your family at a greater risk. If you truly want peace, you have to make a stand against killing. If you want revenge, I honestly understand that, but you are just ***** over future generations. Imagine being born into this conflict (and maybe you were) - 60 years that could have been spent working towards peace that instead were spent creating extremists.
        • yonoz, on 06/22/2008, -5/+5How about YOU walk a mile in OUR shoes, sodade?
          Go live in one of the kibbutzim around Gaza, where they live under constant mortar fire. Take a good view of the civilian heart of Israel from the hilltops of the West Bank. Then you can tell us whether you think blind hope would be good enough for you.
        • sodade, on 06/22/2008, -4/+5@yonoz - I extend the same empathy to you that I did to urik88 considering that you actually live there. I hope that I have showed here that I totally understand the desire for revenge and retaliation. Honestly, I do not know if I would be man enough to stand up for peace were I in your shoes - I hope that I would, but I just don't know.

          Like I said before, I don't (seriously) pretend to have the answers or even understand all the details of the situation. It is obvious, however, that 60 years of fighting haven't brought anyone peace. I imagine that the person who comes up with the solution will probably be an Israeli who is fed up with the insanity. I wonder how many of your countrymen tried to do just this? I worry that they were marginalized as "blind hope peaceniks."

          While I have your Israeli ear, can you please stop trying to pull my government into war with Iran? This will bring no good to Isreal or the US.
        • urik88, on 06/22/2008, -3/+6I'm currently in Argentina, but lived in Israel for 6.5 years, from March 200