Typical example of the selective memory, narrow-mindedness and anti-semitism of those that see the conflict in the Middle east as a simple issue of "israel is evil/the Palestinians are poor martyrs".
i won't even get into the issue of the hypocrisy of this vote.

Automatically labeling critics of Israel to be anti-semites is about as meaningful as calling someone doo-doo-head.

FYI: Here's an example of how the media gives Jews a free pass to hurl disgracefully stupid, racist, hateful rhetoric at Muslims and Arabs:

Web Link

Even if they were right about the issues, which they're not, this seems the worst type of response. How do people who espouse the value of information and education suggest that progress will be achieved by shutting down avenues of information and education?

Unless they've taken a similar stance against a whole line of dictatorships and theocracies and then run out of those and decided to start on the B-list, how can anyone look at this hypcocrisy as anything other than antisemitism?

Not just another rogue nation, Israel has been conducting the world's one and only illegal military occupation of foreign lands since 1967.

And it was Israel who started the 1967 War, too. Here are FAQs regarding the truth of Israel's 1967 attack and occupation:

Web Link

You are correct SkepticAl--they have called for a blanket boycott, which will be against all israeli academicians--both those that are right wing and those that are left wing. It will also effect the Prof. Arens mentioned in the linked article.
And this is not about labeling critics of Israel as anti-Semites (if you follow Israel politics, you will know that the biggest critics of Israel's policies are the Israelis themselves, the same can;t be said for their arab neighbors)--the people that voted for this resolution are clearly anti-semitic--they are hypocritically singling out Israel, because it is the jewish state, while ignoring many, many dictatorships in the world, including all the arab middle east countries.
As for the YouTube post of the interview with Netanyahu--he, as far as i can tell, is afforded the same right of free speech as you and I. What you heard is his opinion. What I will say in his favor is that given the continued calls by Hamas, Isalmic Jihad and Hezbollah for Israel's total destruction, his remarks should not be surprising.

Tally Ho Thanks for the link to the revisionist history as per IMEU.
Rogue nation??? Illegal military occupation!!!!
Israel started the 6 Day War!!!! Well, let's it put it this way, when 3 countries blockade an important waterway, drive out the UN and threaten to wipe you off the face of the earth while massing troops at your border, you do not wait for them to kill you--you teach them a lesson, which Israel did--completely and totally humiliating the so-called armies of Syria, Egypt and Jordan.
Unfortunately some of these people have still not learned their lesson and refuse to live in peace with Israel--until that happens the Palestinians will continue to be manipulated by their corrupt leaders and their fellow arab brethren who use them as pawns in their games with Israil

Tally - just to clarify, b/c your last post wasn't up when I started mine...

Criticizing Israel is not inherently antisemitic. Jews do it all the time, inside and outside of Israel. Non-Jews are also welcome to evaluate and criticize.

Let me ask you this: has the UK intelligentsia taken similar stances towards any number of theocracies or dictatorships? There are countries around the world that are starving or killing their own people. They rule by religious law and systematically subvert the self-determination of women. They ban opposition political parties and arrest, torture, and kill dissidents. They don't hold elections, or they hold sham elections. They control their media. They actively support terrorists and cooperate with organized crime. Where is the outrage? Where are the boycotts?

Israel is a pluralistic democracy, an open society with a free press, free elections, rule of law, and a willingness to deal fairly and openly with the rest of the world, with a few exceptions. And what are those exceptions? Israel is not willing to negotiate its own destruction with terrorists. Now personally, I don't like everything Israel has done, and I'd like to see the Palestinians live in peace in their own state. What has Israel ever gained from negotiaton and withdrawal? Pull out of Lebanon, and Hezbollah fills the void to lauch attacks on Israel. (And now see how they hide among non-combattants when the Lebanese state army comes for them?). Israel pulled out of Gaza, and Palestinians destroyed what was left behind rather than use it for their own gain. Then Gaza became a launching pad for daily rocket attacks on Israel. Years and years of multi-million dollar aid packages disappeared into arms deals and the private coffers of surprisingly rich Palestinian political leaders, and where is the outrage?

So, taken all together, no outrage about any other country, no boycott of any other country, and a boycott targetted at a nation that may be far from perfect, but conforms to our values more than ANY country in the Middle East, and what do you conclude? What makes Israel SO unique in the world that they deserve this treatment?

That's why it looks like antisemitism.

Boaz,

Unlike British, most Americans have been trained to accept Jews hurling purely hateful remarks at Arabs and Muslims, and Americans have been trained to believe it's okay for Israel to conduct the World's Only Illegal Military Occupation.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Just the facts, Boaz:

Web Link

1. How did the 1967 war begin?

The war began on the morning of June 5 with devastating Israeli air strikes on the Egyptian airforce, most of which was destroyed on the ground. Arab nations then came to Egypt's defense. Israel's first-day success brought air superiority which enabled it to decimate numerically superior ground forces.

2. Which countries were involved in the fighting?

Israel, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Other Arab countries, including Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Algeria, contributed arms and small contingents of troops to the fighting.

3. What was the outcome?

Israel quickly defeated the Arab armies, and seized the Syrian Golan Heights, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai Peninsula. Israel's rapid victory stunned the international public. But Israeli and U.S. intelligence had both predicted an easy Israeli victory, even in a battle waged on multiple fronts.

4. How did Israel justify its attack?

Israeli UN envoy Abba Eban initially claimed to the United Nations Security Council that Egyptian troops had attacked first and that Israel's air strikes were retaliatory. Within a month, however, Israel admitted that it had launched the first strike. It asserted that it had faced an impending attack by Egypt, evidenced by Egypt's bellicose rhetoric, removal of UN peacekeeping troops from the Sinai Peninsula, closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and concentration of troops along Israel's borders.

The Soviet Union introduced a resolution to the UN Security Council naming Israel the aggressor in the war. This resolution was blocked by the U.S. and Great Britain. Thereafter, the U.N. failed to rule definitively on the legality of Israel's actions, although it called for Israel's withdrawal from territories it seized in the fighting.

5. Is Israel's version of the facts universally accepted?

Israel's claim of an impending Egyptian attack has been widely accepted in the West. The Israeli public had been led to believe that it faced a threat of imminent attack, and perhaps even annihilation. However, the veracity of Israel's claim is increasingly questioned.

A number of senior Israeli military and political figures have subsequently admitted that Israel was not faced with a genuine threat of attack, and instead, deliberately chose war. Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli army chief of staff during the war, later stated: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (i) General Mattityahu Peled, a member of Israel's general staff in 1967, opined that "the thesis according to which the danger of genocide weighed on us in June 1967, and that Israel struggled for its physical existence is only a bluff born and developed after the war." (ii) Menachem Begin, not yet prime minister but a member of the Israeli cabinet, allowed that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (iii)

Tally Ho:

Regarding your comments about the World's Only Illegal Military Occupation--what do you consider, for example, China's occupation of Tibet?

True, some jews hurl hateful remarks against the arabs and muslims--just like some whites hurl hateful remarks against african-americans and other minorities. Your argument may hold some water if you would also condemn the constant stream of hateful remarks towards Israel and jewish people hurled by Palestinian and other arab leaders.
Another recent example is Hamas' use of a Mickey Mouse lookalike called Farfour to indoctrinate Palestinian children with venomous anti-semitic rantings.

The only thing wretched is the fact that the Palestinian people fail to recognize how they have been manipulated by their leaders and have them to thank for their current situation

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Thanks Tally Ho--No need for you to post the revisionist history contained on the IMEU site--I read it and it is clear that is a sad attempt to re-write history.

How many European democracies include the word Catholic/Christian in their constitutions? Many of them have official state religions. All of Israel's neighbors are muslim countries where the practice of any other religion, in manyof these countries, is forbidden under penalty of death.
Not sure what your definition of a democarcy is, but any country that has a free press, free speech, free elections in which all citizens, Jewish, Arab, Druze, christian etc are allowed to vote in a free manner and where Arabs are elected to serve in the countries Parliament and where citizens are allowed freedom to worship the religion they choose and where gays/lesbians are not discriminated agains sounds like a democracy to me

Tally HO:
If you read the entire de facto constitution You should have noted the two paragraphs below:

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

The Jews never intended to live peacefully with the Muslims.

And once again, the proof is in the pudding: Have a look at the 1947 UN Partition Plan devised by the Jews:

Web Link

This plan was a Jewish scheme to take all of Palestine by carving up Muslim lands to be stolen in increments.

And we haven't even broached the dungeons, The Wall, the house demolitions, the blocked ambulances, the kidnappings, the assassinations, and the expulsions. All Jewish perpetrations to keep the conflict alive.

How many Jews are allowed to live in and practice their religion in "Palestine"?

At this point who cares?

Seriously.

Tally Ho:
The 1947 UN partition plan was devised by the Jews??? Did you actually read the link you posted?
Aprotion of it below:

The United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations, attempted to solve the dispute between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine. On May 15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented. After spending three months conducting hearings and general survey of the situation in Palestine, UNSCOP officially released its report on August 31. A majority of nations (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration. A minority (India, Iran, Yugoslavia) supported the creation of a single federal state containing both Jewish and Arab constituent states. Australia abstained.

A normal, peace-loving, life-loving person would never dream of carving up a little nation like this:

Web Link

And if the Partition Plan wasn't a Jewish scheme, then the Jews wouldn't have pushed for it to be passed.

And if the Jews were democrats, then they wouldn't have partitioned Muslim lands in the first place.

Boaz and Skeptical Al: You are right, you know you are right, you know most people understand the reality...you recognize who this is, or at the very least it is someone using the "same old talking points", nothing you can say or point to or source is going to change this person's belief in "reality"...Is it worth it?

By the way: I despise supposed "academics" who virtually "censor" any speech at all. They lose the right to respect as academics at that point. These "professors" are disgusting, and are showing that they completely lack in the basic precept of freedom.

"Automatically labeling critics of Israel to be anti-semites is about as meaningful as calling someone doo-doo-head.

FYI: Here's an example of how the media gives Jews a free pass to hurl disgracefully stupid, racist, hateful rhetoric at Muslims and Arabs:

Web Link "

Tally Ho, thank you for providing that clip of the interview of Binyamin Netanyahu by Bill Mahr. It is rare to see the the purity of argument, distilled by the crucible of history, articulately expressed. Even the smart ass Mahr was at a loss for words. I recommend this clip to everybody. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] Let everyone else form their own opinion. Thanks for providing the example.

BTW, I am not a Jew. I also respect the fact that many Jews are no longer willing to play the victim. Netanyahu discusses this subject in the clip.

In response to the British boycott of Israeli academia and Israeli universities, Alan Dershowitz insists "I now consider myself an Israeli professor, and I will act as if I am an Israeli professor,” Dershowitz said. “If they boycott Israel,” he added, “they’re boycotting me.”

Well lookie here, if it isn't the same Alan Dershowitz who is waging an aggressive (and discredited) campaign to deny tenure to Prof. Norman Finkelstein.

Web Link

Can you say "hypocrite"?

And get a load of Daniel Pipes, the founder of Campus Watch, an organization that is accused of attacking academic freedom by publishing a list of academics critical of Israel.

Do the Israelis criticize Pipes for endangering discourse and academic freedom?

Heck no!

In 2006 Israelis name Daniel Pipes the "Guardian of Zion" winner.

Web Link

"The Guardian of Zion Award is an annual award given since 1997 to Jews who have been supportive of the State of Israel."

Tally Ho--
So are you saying that the British professors have the right to vote on a blanket boycott of all Israeli academician, regardless of their politics and/or views on the palestinian situation, but certain american academicians do not have a right to oppose INDIVIDUALS whose views they find disturbing?
So if Daniel Pipes is publishing a list of academics critical of Israel, in his opinion, how is that endangering discourse and academic freedom? Isn't that a free speech issue?
And if Dershowitz is waging a campaign to deny tenure to Finkelstein, isn;t that his perogative to do that?
I think you are comparing apples and oranges or trying to paint any and all jews with the same anti-semitic brush

Using your logic, the Brits are entitled to boycott INDIVIDUAL NATIONS whose human rights record is unacceptable.

Boycotting Israel is no more anti-semitic than boycotting South Africa was anti-white.

Israelis and her supporters need to wake up and realize it is impossible for Israel to survive if Jews persist in terrorizing and murdering their neighbors.

Actually, Tally Ho, you are not using my logic.
But based on your argument then the Brits should be boycotting the vast majority of arab nations in the middle east, as well as china and many of the african nations.

Hey, if Dershowitz can single out Finkelstein for being critical of Israel, then surely Brits can single out Israel for obscene human rights violations.

If Israelis refuse to make peace with her neighbors, then Israel was a really stupid idea and is doomed to failure.

Israel has made peace with some of it's neighbors (Egypt and Jordan) with the return of lands taken in 1967 (to Egypt--Egypt, btw, did not want Gaza Strip back). Israel has always been willing to discuss peace and the return of territories with it's neighbors. Unfortunately, the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist and publicly say that they intend to wipe Israel off the map---not exactly an invitation to sit down and talk.
But we shall see who is standing in the end--Israel, a high tech democracy whose citizens have some of the leading scientific, medical and agricultural advances in the last 60 years or the Palestinians, whose citizens wallow in their own filth, living in 19th century conditions, while their leaders live fat and happy on the money they have stolen from the people.

"the Palestinians, whose citizens wallow in their own filth"

More proof we should be far more concerned with Zionist anti-gentilism than alleged British anti-semitism.

If boycotting Israel is anti-semitic, what should we call the never-ending War on Muslims?

My statement, "the Palestinians, whose citizens wallow in their own filth", is a statement of fact--the conditions in Gaza have deteriorated to such a state that my statement is true. BTW, this is exactly the situation that Hamas wants--it's citizens living in abject poverty so that they can scapegoat Israel. If there was peace and the palestinians had jobs etc. they would be instead demanding democracy from their hamas and fatah leaders and also demanding to know why their leaders have stolen hundreds of millions of dollars in aid money sent to help the people, but instead ending up in swiss bank accounts.
many of their arab neighbors are also interested in keeping the palestinians in this situation, that is why for example, palestinian refugees in Lebanon are denied citizenship or denied employment in certain professions.

It is certainly illuminating to watch the thinking, or lack thereof, that these threads pull out of people. Gives me hope.

Boaz, you are right. It is the same manipulation of living conditions of the Shias of South Iraq, the "marsh Shias", that Saddam did. He pushed them to abject poverty, starvation, horrific medical care, so that there were "photo ops" for gullible CNN "reporters" to use when they performed their obligatory anti-sanctions/oil-for-food "reports".

I wonder how long before the Palestinians rise up against their true oppressors.

By the way, don't tell anyone that about 95% of the aid that (what would be called)the Palestine State receives comes from the US and Israel. We are the only govts who actually HELP the Palestinians.
Where are all their other neighbors?

So the British are anti-semites for boycotting Israel for her dismal human rights record, but it was fine to murder 600,000 Iraqi children by imposing 12 years of sanctions on Iraq.

Once again, it's clear anti-gentilism is the bigger problem here than any alleged anti-semitism.

Again...The Kurds, who got LESS money per capita and all the same sanctions as the rest of Iraq, managed to improve their infrastructure, education, food intake and medical care, where Saddam did NOT use it on his people, preferring instead to build up castles and military, stash it away, and buy off favors.

WHO is responsible for the 5,000 deaths per month of the under 5 year old crowd that he claimed? ( Assuming it is true, HE was then responsible for their murders, not the sanctions)

By the way, I can't find my source for the total aid funding to Palestine, so dump that idea until I do.

In response to your query about "who cares?" to Walter's comment about religious freedom under the dictatorships...I do.

Only democracies thus far give any freedom of religion to their people. The rest either forbid religion at all, or kill/imprison/torture those who don't have the "right" one.

Israel is the world's only nation that has legalized house demolitions.

Can you imagine if USA had bulldozed Tim McVeigh's family's home after he was identified as the Oklahoma City bomber?

It's unthinkably barbaric.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Tally Ho--
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

As I stated in a post above, Israel is a democracy--the facts speak for themselves--the same cannot be said about it's arab neighbors.

As to ethnic cleansing and expulsions, I assume that you are referring to the actions of the arab countries in the Middle east who systematically drove out all of their jewish populations while stealing all of their possesions.
As far as murder goes, I assume you are using the examples of Saddam Hussein gassing the kurds or the muslims killing non-muslims in Darfur or the Syrian government wiping out a whole village (killing about 10,000 people) because they opposed the government.

Apartheid, blocked ambulances, assassinations, house demolitions, and dungeons are not democracy.

Learn it.

Know it.

Live it.

Why is it acceptable for the US to have an almost 50 years embargo on Cuba, but it's not acceptable to have British academics boycutt Israeli academia, where Arabs students and teachers are treated as second and third class citizens and are daily discriminated against in a perfectly apartheid-like manner.

"How many Jews are allowed to live in and practice their religion in "Palestine"?
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, 6 hours ago
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point who cares?
Seriously.
Posted by Tally Ho, a resident of the Palo Alto Hills neighborhood, 5 hours ago "

So it does not matter that Israel grants far more righs to Arabs in Israel than Arabs grant Jews in their territories? I think that is the whole problem. One standard for Jews, another standard, or lack of standard, for Islam. And tell us why Israel bulldozes houses.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Sorry, in my response to Ho, the link to the interview of Netanyaho and Mahr was active. Here it is, again.

Web Link

This one is GREAT!

Ho, you made my day, although quite unintentionally.

Would you consider returning the favor?

How about we remove the Jews from the Cross and nail dear old Jesus Christ back up there?

Seriously.

Tally--You should go back and watch the Netanyahu interview again--he perfectly states why Israel is past victimhood--they will not sit silently again while nations plot to destroy them. This should be the lesson to the Palestinians--Israel is willing to live in peace with you. A majority of Israel citizens favor a two-state solution, with the return of much o fthe territories captured in 1967. they will not, however, roll over and play dead for some bloodthirsty hamas terrorists and their ilk.
Using terms like "genocide", "ethnic cleansing", apartheied", "Nazis" to describe Israel may be fashionable with the "Israel is evil" crowd,as is presenting reviosionist history, however they do little to further the efforts to reach a just peace. I think the majority of people in the world see through these deceptions and realize that the stumbling block is the goal of groups like hamas and hezbollah to destroy Israel.
unfortunately, if the palestinians are depending on advise from some of the posters above to guide them in these decisions, then they are doomed and their future is bleak.
Will their ever be a palestinian leader who is willing to really have peace with Israel??

Netanyahu's words are more criminally psychotic than those of Harris and Klebold.

Same goes for Norman "I hope and pray President Bush will do it" Podhoretz.

"Netanyahu's words are more criminally psychotic than those of Harris and Klebold"

Ho,

Hmmm...would you care to be specific (from the interview)?

Netanyahu's rant is too long for me to do it justice, so I'll simply urge people to listen to his wild threats, wild accusations, and nutter generalizations against Muslims.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Tally, answer my question. Tell me why Jews should treat Arabs any better than Arabs treat Jews. I will tell you this - If I were an Israli I would be demanding an end to restraint and massive retaliation against those who attack and against those who shelter the attackers.

Kevin,

Most teachers and school administrators are obliged to intervene if they witness a child conveying Netanyahu's brand of hateful and violent rhetoric.

Same goes for Norman Podhoretz's rhetoric.

Palestinians didn't invade, occupy, ethnically cleanse, practice apartheid, demolish houses, destroy 400 villages, etc.

And 10,000 Jews are not held in Palestinian dungeons.

The Palestinians are merely defending what is theirs.

The Israelis are the aggressors.

The Israelis are the problem.

And have you any idea how many American Jews are applauding the War on Muslims?

Clearly Kevin and I must have watched a different version of the Netanyahu interview than Tally Ho did. maybe they had an impersonator (kind of like the Mickey mouse lookalike Farfour that Hamas uses to pass along their "destroy Israel" rhetoric) ranting and raving and Tally Ho could not tell the difference.

Tally Ho also states "Palestinians didn't invade, occupy, ethnically cleanse, practice apartheid, demolish houses, destroy 400 villages, etc."--yes, probably because Israel has not given them the opportunity to. Based on the words of their leaders, these are exactly their plans regarding Israel. they also have good teachers since many of the arab nations in the region carry out these practices.

"Most teachers and school administrators are obliged to intervene if they witness a child conveying Netanyahu's brand of hateful and violent rhetoric."

Ho, what hateful and violent rhetoric? I didn't hear any. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] Could you be specific?

Only a madman like Netanyahu justifies the Israel's wanton slaughter of thousands of innocent Lebanese civilians last summer by drawing a parallel to British/American wanton slaughter of thousands of Germans civilians in Dresden.

What a nutter.

And what a truly sickening racist comment against Lebanese and Germans.

So transparent: As if Lebanese lives and German lives mean nothing!

Truly disgusting.

And that's only a small part of Netanyahu's racist rant.

And yet Tally can not tell us of anywhere that Jews are given the freedom under Arab rule that Arabs are given under Jewish rule.

Boaz et. al.,

I applaud your patience. We've all tried to point out the illogical villification of Israel, but Tally Ho is not willing to answer the simple question of why Israel is held to a standard and threatened with a boycott that applies to no other nation. If Israel is demonized for measures taken against its enemies while no other nation is demonized even for taking measures against its own citizens, we're clearly dealing with antisemitism. And since the one person bothering to support the UK boycott position avoids the most obvious line of criticism, revises history, ignores Israel's track record of making peace with those who offer the same, I'd suggest we leave Tally shouting at the wind and just count this poor soul as a lost cause. Good night.

Which is more cruel and racist: Boycott of Israel professors or eternal War on Muslims?

Since you answer questions with a question, may I do the same?

1. Do you really want me to compare fact with fiction?
2. Who's killing the most Muslims in the world right now?
3. Why no boycotts of other countries from the UK? Why no suggestion of the same from you? (been waiting all day on the answer to that one - If the Jewish state is the only villain in your world view, well, that speaks for itself)

I think it speaks volumes that Zionists are insisting a boycott imposed on Israel is far more cruel, racist, and destructive than invading, occupying, and flattening numerous Muslim countries.

Remember, it's okay for Israel to legalize torture because China, Burma, Jordan, and Syria torture, too:

Web Link

Israeli High Court allows Shin Bet to torture Palestinians, Public Committee Against Torture in Israel says:

Date: 30 / 05 / 2007 Time: 15:07

Bethlehem - Ma'an - The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) has issued a report documenting a number of Palestinian cases of torture endured during interrogation at the hands of the Israeli domestic intelligence service, Shin Bet.

In the report, which is entitled "Ticking Bombs", PCATI harshly criticises the Israeli High Court's approval of the use of controversial methods to interrogate Palestinians, saying that, in Israel, there is "no effective barrier – not legal and certainly not ethical – that stands in the way of using torture." The ruling, PCATI says, has been interpreted by the Shin Bet as a green light to torture almost every Palestinian detainee.

The report includes detailed accounts of nine Palestinian detainees who underwent torture, physical, sexual and psychological, at the hands of their Israeli interrogators.

..."

Israel's academic institutions have been cooperating willingly on many levels with the Israeli military, which is also the occupation force in the palestinian territories. The IDF has acted not only a an occupation force, violating the Geneva Convention numerous times and on a daily basis. The IDF has acted as an enabler for the illegal settlers, shielding them while terrorizing the local population and preventing the locals from defending themselves.Israeli universities, by becoming a de-facto ingerdient of the occupation, are a legitimate target for boycott and should indeed be boycotted.

Where are the reports of abuse by Palestinians of Israeli soldiers? Nowhere, because they are all dead.
Another example of double standards, or better yet standards only for one side.

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

- Excerpt taken from the Declaration of the State of Israel

--------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like some Zionists have little regard for the Israeli constitution:

Web Link

Top Israeli rabbis advocate genocide:

"Yesterday I wrote a piece entitled "Israel's House of Horrors" about the openly murderous statements of Israeli cabinet ministers. Just when I thought it couldn't get worse, I read a news article on the website of The Jerusalem Post that Israel's former Sephardic Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu -- one of the most senior theocrats in the Jewish State "ruled that there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings" ("Eliyahu advocates carpet bombing Gaza," The Jerusalem Post, 30 May, 2007).

The Jerusalem Post reported that Mordechai made this ruling in a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert citing biblical authority. The letter was published in a weekly journal distributed in synagogues throughout Israel. The report states that "According to Jewish war ethics, wrote Eliyahu, an entire city holds collective responsibility for the immoral behavior of individuals. In Gaza, the entire populace is responsible because they do nothing to stop the firing of Kassam rockets."

Eliayahu's son, Shmuel Eliayhu, himself chief rabbi of Safad, amplified his father's comments, stating: "If they don't stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand." He added, "And if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don't stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop."

... "

I have a good idea, Tally Ho, why don;t you go to Israel and poll the citizens on what they think about the comments made by this right-wing, out of the mainstream rabbi.
I bet you that you will find that the majority of people in Israel will disagree vehemently with his statements.
The point that you are missing is that since Israel is a democracy, he has the freedom to make these statements--do you know any arab democracies in the region where people are free to criticize and disagree with the government?
Your post would have made some points if you had also decried the similiar utterings made on a daily basis by members of Hamas and Hezbollah, who have no problem doing to the jews what this rabbi advocates doing to the Palestinians (though I will have to see this from an unbiased source before I take his quotations as fact, given the nature of the website that it is posted on).

The other unfortunate observance is that while there are many peace groups active in Israel who advocate the fair treatment of Palestinians, a two-state solution and the return of much of the pre-1967 territory, there is no such groups active on the palestinian side, a sure sign of the true intentions of the palestinian government.

Real democracies never reference the world's worst dictatorships to justify despicable conduct.

And whining over boycotts while endorsing the War on Muslims isn't helping your case, either.

Tally

I think you are getting confused over your own postings vs the postings of others. It was you who stated:
"Remember, it's okay for Israel to legalize torture because China, Burma, Jordan, and Syria torture, too:"

Myself and others have written to decry the double standard, whereby you threaten boycotts against Israel but say nothing about misconduct by other countries.

What War on Muslims are you referring to? israel is not engaged in any "war on muslims"--they have peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt. And even Saudi Arabia and other moderate countries in the region , as well as Syria, are open to peace with Israel, while recognizing their right to exist.

Are you suggesting I endorse Israel's genocidal record?

If so, you might want to crack a dictionary and look for the word "irony".

Ho, what war on Muslims are you talking about? Do you mean Al Qaeda and its slaughter of many Muslims?

Why be coy?

Embarrassed about something?

Ashamed of Zionist support for the War on Muslims, are you?

By repeatedly calling this a war on Muslims, our neighbor suggests it's a religious conflict. That's clever, because he's pretty careful to criticize Israelis (appropriate term) rather than Jews (inappropriate). But he can imply it in the "war on Muslims" repetitions. Now if he'd only refrain from casting the victims as Muslims (inappropriate), and refer to them more properly as Palestinians. And which religious group is responsible for most of the violence against Muslims in the world today? Muslims. Who's responsible for bombings in Egypt, Jordan, Bali? So Tally, please tell us which Arab countries you think are such models of virtue that the UK boycott would obviously never affect.

Meanwhile, Arab citizens of Israel have rights and governmental representation so far in excess of what Jews could expect in any Arab country. Perfect? No. But Israel's treatment of dissidents and minorities is SO much better than in ANY other Middle Eastern nation.

As Boaz pointed out, Israel has shown itself to be a reliable partner for peace in its dealings with Jordan and Egypt. Those countries have taken steps to ease hostilities and recognize Israel's rights. What has Israel ever gained from compromise or withdrawal in its dealings with Palestinians? Only more violence. When Fatah and Hamas won't honor deals with each other and instead resort to murder, why is Israel expected to deal with them? What kind of faith should we put in these so-called leaders?

I'd also echo Boaz in condemning the violent rantings of fanatical right-wing ideological Jews. Tally - what is your opinion of Hamas?

Tally

If you are going to speak of a "war on Muslims", why don;t you answer Kevin and my questions and tell us exactly what "war on Muslims" you are referring to, then we can all be on the same page.

You are aware that Hamas is a JEWISH creation, and that the JEWS bankrolled Hamas for many years.

Tally

I have to admit your last post is a corker. I got a good laugh from it.

Here are some links for the history of Hamas

Web Link
Web Link
Web Link

BTW, I am not sure what any of the members of hamas would say about them being a jewish creation and being funded by the jews, according to you. You may want to keep your identity a secret from them since we know what they do to those they consider traitors (hint--it does not involve any kind of judge or jury--they go right to the third step)

Are you certain you have no knowledge of the Zionist support for the War on Muslims?

Here's word of two Zionists, Kristol and Kagan, pushing for USA to bomb Iran:

Web Link

Kristol and Kagan: ‘Put Everything’ Behind Escalation So We Can Bomb Iran and Syria

Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and fellow neoconservative Frederick Kagan have consistently been wrong in their predictions about Iraq. Last year, Kristol claimed an escalation would “improve our chances of winning.” Kagan proclaimed at the end of April, “We are turning a corner in Iraq.” But May was the deadliest month this year for U.S. soldiers.

This week, Kristol and Kagan renewed their calls for a defense of the status quo in Iraq. Writing an op-ed in the Weekly Standard, Kristol and Kagan call for unbridled support of the failing escalation:

This is no time to hedge or hesitate. Now is the time to put everything behind making the president’s strategy–which looks to be a winning strategy–succeed.

Recycling the talking point that debate over the war “undermines the efforts of our commanders in the field,” they respond to reports suggesting increased conservative dissatisfaction by calling on Bush to authoritatively squash all dissenting opinion on Iraq:

Congressional battles calling into doubt our commitment to winning in Iraq have been the major threat to progress since the president began pursuing the right strategy in January. The president, supported by congressional Republicans, has beaten back that threat. Now he needs to deal with his own administration, which has not made up its collective mind to support the president’s strategy wholeheartedly. Mixed messages from Bush’s advisers and cabinet undermine the efforts of our commanders in the field.

Calling the State Department’s recent talks with Iran and Syria “fantasy diplomatic solutions,” Kristol and Kagan instead advocate that “[d]iplomatic engagement by itself is a trap,” suggesting, as they both have before, that America should only deal militarily with Iraq’s neighbors. Such a policy would likely accelerate nuclear development in Iran and has been swiftly rejected by top U.S. military commanders.

Kristol and Kagan aim for a single objective: more war. As Glenn Greenwald noted, “What they [Kristol and Kagan] seek — by their own acknowledgment — is a conflict with Iran and Syria, and they want to stay in Iraq because that is how that goal can be achieved.”

Are you assuming that Kristol and Kagan are Zionists? Do you know that for a fact? More importantly, as americans living in a democracy don't they have the right to express their own opinions? I am not sure how the opinion of two jewish-americans can be extrapolated into a "zionist war on muslims"
I am sure we could find, on the internet, opinions from many jews opposing the war in Iraq and any attack on Syria.
I think you need to separate the opinions of individual jews from your mistaken belief that there is some kind of zionist organized "war on muslims".

Zionists vs. Muslims - you're a one-note Johnny, and you keep ignoring Israel's peaceful relations with the MAJORITY of Muslims in the region and world. How about telling us which Arab/Muslim country you think is boycott-proof because of its stellar democratic credentials?

If you dislike Zionist leaders (like Kristol, Kagan, Netanyahu, Perle, Olmert, Wurmser, Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, Novak, Judy Miller, etc.) for waging eternal war on Muslims, then maybe you should take it up with them.

Unlike Israel and to their credit, Israel's neighbors DO NOT pretend to embrace democracy and other Hellenistic values.

Tally - I lived in Israel. I walked among Jews and Arabs living side by side in peace. Arabs sit in Israel's parliament. That's not mythology, it's not pretend. And you want to "credit" Israel's neighbors for not even pretending to value democracy while Israel lives it?!?!

If you have any friends who share your perspective, invite them to enter the debate. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Here's a story from April 2007 that demonstrates how Arab Knesset members are treated by Jewish Israelis:

Web Link

Police probe Arab Knesset member

Israeli police have launched an investigation over unspecified criminal allegations against an Arab legislator who has long courted controversy by making solidarity visits to countries Israel designates as its enemies.

Azmi Bishara has denied any wrongdoing and says Israel has "changed the rules of the game" in dealing with Israeli Arabs.

In an interview with Al Jazeera on Sunday, he said: "I was surprised at the calibre of the injustice that they are preparing. I have denied all accusations."

An Israeli court on Sunday partially lifted a gag order on the case against Bishara, allowing police to announce that its international crimes unit is investigating him.

The statement did not elaborate on why the probe was ordered.

... "

Two parts of this story that are of interest:

"Israeli police have launched an investigation over unspecified criminal allegations against an Arab legislator who has long courted controversy by making solidarity visits to countries Israel designates as its enemies."

Note that the police an launching an investigation, which will then be turned over to the proper authorities for further action. I am surein many countries in the region, he would have been taken out and shot ant sunrise without a trial.

"Bishara, who heads the anti-Zionist party Balad,..."

Note that Israel has such a democracy that there is an anti-zionist party that elects members to the parliament. Need I say mor about Israel and democracy???

Did you know it's impossible for a Palestinian from the Occupied Territories to move to Israel, even if he or she is married to an Israeli?

Web Link

Does that sound like democracy to you?

Yes, sounds like a democracy to me. the US, european countries and other countries in the world have standards for immigration to that country--just marrying a citizen is not one of them in many countries.
If that is such an issue why are the palestinians not willing to have jews live in palestine? or why for that matter are jews not allowed to live in many of the arab countries in the middle east?

Unlike Israel, Arab countries don't pretend to be democratic.

Here are some of the components of the Israel's special marriage law:

• Palestinians will be excluded from obtaining citizenship or residency. Anyone else who marries an Israeli will be entitled to Israeli citizenship.

• Israeli Arabs who marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip will either have to move to the occupied territories, or live apart from their husband or wife.

• Children of these unions will also be affected: from the age of 12 they will be denied citizenship or residency and forced to move out of Israel. The statute is a direct reversal of one of the provisions of the ten-year old Oslo Agreement, which allowed family reunions for Arabs inside Israel. In fact, many marriages of Palestinian Arabs with Israeli Arabs did occur. In practice, the Palestinian spouse was automatically eligible for Israeli citizenship and it was understood that Israeli citizenship would be denied in only very extreme cases.

And one of these days all this will change, when the palestinians recognize israel's right to exist, cease to call for israel's destruction and agree to the proposed 2-state solution.
One can spend days (which you apparently have) nitpicking Israel's democracy. I will be the first to say, that like all democracies, israel's is not perfect. However it is a better option than the oppressive dictatorships, which you agree exist, in the neighboring arab countries.
i think your energies would be better spent working towards a peaceful solution between Israel and the palestinians rather than trying to show how "evil" Israel is. It seems fairly obvious to me that you have no interest in peace with Israel, nor do you have any desire to see Israel exist as a free nation in the Middle East. Unfortunately your attitude is mirrored many others who revert to revisionist history and anti-Israel articles cherry-picked from the internet.

Everything you describe as being bad in Israel would be worse in every Arab country. Why don't you just admit you think Israel can do nothing right and Arabs can do no wrong? There's no reason, rationality, sense of nuance, shades of gray, concession of anything in any of your posts. How can you admit Israel is more democratic than any other nation in the Middle East and then suggest that it is the only one deserving a boycott???? How can you ignore the relentless tide of sectarian murders of Muslims by Muslims and rail against Israel for its "eternal war on Muslims"?

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

You should look carefully at this on-line book by Israel Shahak:

Web Link

Chapter 1 : A closed Utopia?

This book, although written in English and addressed to people living outside the State of Israel, is, in a way, a continuation of my political activities as an Israeli Jew. Those activities began in 1965-6 with a protest which caused a considerable scandal at the time: I had personally witnessed an ultra-religious Jew refuse to allow his phone to be used on the Sabbath in order to call an ambulance for a non-Jew who happened to have collapsed in his Jerusalem neighborhood. Instead of simply publishing the incident in the press, I asked for a meeting which is composed of rabbis nominated by the State of Israel. I asked them whether such behavior was consistent with their interpretation of the Jewish religion. They answered that the Jew in question had behaved correctly, indeed piously, and backed their statement by referring me to a passage in an authoritative compendium of Talmudic laws, written in this century. I reported the incident to the main Hebrew daily, Ha'aretz, whose publication of the story caused a media scandal.

The results of the scandal were, for me, rather negative. Neither the Israeli, nor the diaspora, rabbinical authorities ever reversed their ruling that a Jew should not violate the Sabbath in order to save the life of a Gentile. They added much sanctimonious twaddle to the effect that if the consequence of such an act puts Jews in danger, the violation of the Sabbath is permitted, for their sake. It became apparent to me, as drawing on Talmudic laws governing the relations between Jews and non-Jews, that neither Zionism, including its seemingly secular part, nor Israeli politics since the inception of the State of Israel, nor particularly the policies of the Jewish supporters of Israel in the diaspora, could be understood unless the deeper influence of those laws, and the worldview which they both create and express is taken into account. The actual policies Israel pursued after the Six Day War, and in particular the apartheid character of the Israeli regime in the Occupied Territories and the attitude of the majority of Jews to the issue of the rights of the Palestinians, even in the abstract, have merely strengthened this conviction.

By making this statement I am not trying to ignore the political or strategic considerations which may have also influenced the rulers of Israel. I am merely saying that actual politics is an interaction between realistic considerations (whether valid or mistaken, moral or immoral in my view) and ideological influences. The latter tend to be more influential the less they are discussed and 'dragged into the light'. Any form of racism, discrimination and xenophobia becomes more potent and politically influential if it is taken for granted by the society which indulges in it. This is especially so if its discussion is prohibited, either formally or by tacit agreement. When racism, discrimination and xenophobia is prevalent among Jews, and directed against non-Jews, being fueled by religious motivations, it is like its opposite case, that of antisemitism and its religious motivations. Today, however, while the second is being discussed, the very existence of the first is generally ignored, more outside Israel than within it.

Without a discussion of the prevalent Jewish attitudes to non-Jews, even the concept of Israel as 'a Jewish state', as Israel formally defines itself, cannot be understood. The widespread misconception that Israel, even without considering its regime in the Occupied Territories, is a true democracy arises from the refusal to confront the significance of the term 'a Jewish state' for non-Jews. In my view, Israel as a Jewish state constitutes a danger not only to itself and its inhabitants, but to all Jews and to all other peoples and states in the Middle East and beyond. I also consider that other Middle Eastern states or entities which define themselves as 'Arab' or 'Muslim', like the Israeli self-definition as being 'Jewish', likewise constitute a danger. However, while this danger is widely discussed, the danger inherent in the Jewish character of the State of Israel is not.

The principle of Israel as 'a Jewish state' was supremely important to Israeli politicians from the inception of the state and was inculcated into the Jewish population by all conceivable ways. When, in the early 1980s, a tiny minority of Israeli Jews emerged which opposed this concept, a Constitutional Law (that is, a law overriding provisions of other laws, which cannot be revoked except by a special procedure) was passed in 1985 by an enormous majority of the Knesset.

By this law no party whose program openly opposes the principle of 'a Jewish state' or proposes to change it by democratic means, is allowed to participate in the elections to the Knesset. I myself strongly oppose this constitutional principle. The legal consequence for me is that I cannot belong, in the state of which I am a citizen, to a party having principles with which I would agree and which is allowed to participate in Knesset elections. Even this example shows that the State of Israel is not a democracy due to the application of a Jewish ideology directed against all non-Jews and those Jews who oppose this ideology. But the danger which this dominant ideology represents is not limited to domestic affairs. It also influences Israeli foreign policies. This danger will continue to grow, as long as two currently operating developments are being strengthened: the increase in the Jewish character of Israel and the increase in its power, particularly in nuclear power. Another ominous factor is that Israeli influence in the USA political establishment is also increasing. Hence accurate information about Judaism, and especially about the treatment of non-Jews by Israel, is now not only important, but politically vital as well.

Let me begin with the official Israeli definition of the term 'Jewish', illustrating the crucial difference between Israel as 'a Jewish state' and the majority of other states. By this official definition, Israel 'belongs' to persons who are defined by the Israeli authorities as 'Jewish', irrespective of where they live, and to them alone. On the other hand, Israel doesn't officially 'belong' to its non-Jewish citizens, whose status is considered even officially as inferior. This means in practice that if members of a Peruvian tribe are converted to Judaism, and thus regarded as Jewish, they are entitled at once to become Israeli citizens and benefit from the approximately 70 per cent of the West Bank land (and the 92 per cent of the area of Israel proper), officially designated only for the benefit of Jews. All non-Jews ( not only all Palestinians) are prohibited from benefiting from those lands. (The prohibition applies even to Israeli Arabs who served in the Israeli army and reached a high rank.) The case involving Peruvian converts to Judaism actually occurred a few years ago. The newly-created Jews were settled in the West Bank, near Nablus, on land from which non-Jews are officially excluded. All Israeli governments are taking enormous political risks, including the risk of war, so that such settlements, composed exclusively of persons who are defined as 'Jewish' (and not 'Israeli' as most of the media mendaciously claims) would be subject to only 'Jewish' authority.

I suspect that the Jews of the USA or of Britain would regard it as antisemitic if Christians would propose that the USA or the United Kingdom should become a 'Christian state', belonging only to citizens officially defined as 'Christians'. The consequence of such doctrine is that Jews converting to Christianity would become full citizens because of their conversion. It should be recalled that the benefits of conversions are well known to Jews from their own history. When the Christian and the Islamic states used to discriminate against all persons not belonging to the religion of the state, including the Jews, the discrimination against Jews was at once removed by their conversion. But a non-Jew discriminated against by the State of Israel will cease to be so treated the moment he or she converts to Judaism. This simply shows that the same kind of exclusivity that is regarded by a majority of the diaspora Jews as antisemitic is regarded by the majority of all Jews as Jewish. To oppose both antisemitism and Jewish chauvinism is widely regarded among Jews as a 'self-hatred', a concept which I regard as nonsensical.

The meaning of the term 'Jewish' and its cognates, including 'Judaism', thus becomes in the context of Israeli politics as important as the meaning of 'Islamic', when officially used by Iran, or 'communist' when it was officially used by the USSR. However, the meaning of the term 'Jewish' as it is popularly used is not clear, either in Hebrew or when translated into other languages, and so the term had to be defined officially.

According to Israeli law a person is considered 'Jewish' if either their mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and great-great-grandmother were Jewesses by religion; or if the person was converted to Judaism in a way satisfactory to the Israeli authorities, and on condition that the person has not converted from Judaism to another religion, in which case Israel ceases to regard them as 'Jewish'. Of the three conditions, the first represents the Talmudic definition of 'who is a Jew', a definition followed by Jewish Orthodoxy. The Talmud and post-Talmudic rabbinic law also recognize the conversion of a non-Jew to Judaism (as well as the purchase of a non-Jewish slave by a Jew followed by a different kind of conversion) as a method of becoming Jewish, provided that the conversion is performed by authorized rabbis in a proper manner. This 'proper manner' entails for females, their inspection by three rabbis while naked in a 'bath of purification', a ritual which, although notorious to all readers of the Hebrew press, is not often mentioned by the English media in spite of its undoubted interest for certain readers. I hope that this book will be the beginning of a process which will rectify this discrepancy.

Very nice, Tally Ho. But in all your postings and writings about Israel you still have not addressed the issue of why Israel is wrong in doing these terrible things you say they do, when arab nations and many other countries in the world do the same things. Why pick on Israel? Why this double standard? You have no problem with Israel's arab neighbors discriminating against jews, christians, women and gays, to name a few. You have no problem with the slaughter by Muslims against non-muslims in Sudan. You have no problem with China militarily controlling Tibet. You have no problem with other nations having immigration policies and state religions.
Yet you seem to be able to troll the web and selectively pick out stories that attempt to put Israel in an unfavorable light--you are even willing to use the writings of jews (zionists) when it serves your purposes.
So what is the point? Not, peace with Israel and a independent Palestinian state.

It's as if Israel is a driver who has been stopped for speeding, and when the police officer hands Israel a ticket, Israel bitterly complains "Look, look, the Arabs are speeding, too. What are you ticketing ME for?"

A police officer would laugh right in your face if you used that line of reasoning to weasel out of a ticket.

It's about dignity and self-respect.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

The police officer giving a ticket, eh? So clever. In your universe, that officer spends all his time ticketing Israel for misdemeanor speeding, while ignoring the Arabs' felony hit and run.

The officer could laugh in your face, but any sane jury would hand you a huge civil rights claim.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Our friend writes: "The officer could laugh in your face, but any sane jury would hand you a huge civil rights claim."

In 2004 the World Court, the highest international court in the world, made it clear in its 14-1 decision that Israel must return to its 1967 borders states because it’s illegal under international law to obtain territory through war.

While other decisions were several thousand pages, this decision regarding Israel was less than 100 pages because it was so uncontroversial.

Match the illegality of gaining territory by war with the illegality of waging undeclared war against a neighbor as the Arabs have been doing almost forever. There is no equivalency. Responding to a rocket is not the same as firing a rocket no matter how you obfuscate. The Arab animus toward Israel is evil and criminal by any rational measure.

Slight problem with the "illegal to obtain territory through war"...begs the question of WHO determines what is illegal internationally, and if you accept that it is this sham court, then you have to ask yourself where the rest of the sentence is..

I would submit the rest of the sentence should be "illegal to obtain territory through war BEGUN BY THE ATACKERS, not finished by the attacked".

All the land to which you refer was obtained in the defense of a Country under attack. This is a rightful consequence of starting war against a neighbor; the neighbor can push you back and take the land on the way.

This is why this "court" is a sham for the dictators who want to feel free to start a war, and risk nothing but the loss of lives (because lives mean nothing).

Draw the Line:

Please provide evidence that even one serious scholar of Middle East studies (i.e., not Alan Dershowitz) denies Israel started the Six-Day War in 1967.

Hint: Don't bother trying, no serious scholar exists who doubts Israel started the 1967 war.

Tally- If the US had detected Japanese forces on their way to Pearl Harbor and attacked them first, then the US would have "started" the war with Japan too. But enough history. You're very concerned about the plight of Muslims today, right? So, here's the latest from the "eternal war on Muslims" -

- The Lebanese government and army are preparing an offensive against Palestinian fighters that Lebanon calls "terrorists," and the Palestinian fighters are hiding out among civilians in a refugee camp. The bloodshed has only begun. Where's the outrage?

- Almost every day in the past few years, dozens of Muslims are killed and injured in Iraq. The perpetrators? Muslims.

---Just a reminder, since this thread has gotten a bit long, I'm not excusing Israel from blame or criticism when they deserve it, though we'd disagree about how much or how frequent the blame should be. However, I'm waiting (and waiting and waiting and waiting) for ANY recognition that ANY other players in these conflicts might also be blameworthy. If the ONLY thing you can do is demonize Israel, then you cannot avoid raising the question of antisemitism as your main agenda. I've asked before many times - should be easy enough to answer - what is your view of Hamas?

FACT: In 1948 the vast majority of people living in Palestine were Muslims.

FACT: In 1948 the Declaration of the State of Israel used the term "Jewish" or "Jew" 25 times and the term "Arab" 1 time.

Web Link

I report: You decide.

Thanks, Tally. I decide that the resolution of the problem is to convey to Palestinians all the land confiscated from Jews in Islamic and Arab countries in exchange for a quitclaim agains any lands in Israel and a treaty of peace.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Who was the most eager to push Mizrahi Jews into Palestine?

Arabs?

Or Zionists?

Tally, I have now read enough by "ex" Middle Easterners who have reported what they were taught as truth, and how shocked they were to learn the real truth, to conclude that you are newly here, and must give yourself time to do the research to learn the "rest" of the stories you believe to be true.

Case in point: I know it is taught, at least in Egypt, that Israel started the 6 day war, and that the Egyptian military was given misfiring rifles by those wily Israelis so that when the Egyptians fired, the rifles fired back and killed the Egyptians ( and the Jordanians and Syrians and Iraqis who had also gathered around the borders of Israel to invade). And that is why the Israelis won.

The people I know now realize that they never questioned to themselves WHY a country of 3 million people, at the time, would PROVOKE a war with 4 surrounding countries that totaled ...I forget the number..suffice it to say AT LEAST 10 times as many people. ( Might have been 20 times).

Ask yourself that question.

Ask yourself also this...pick your favorite country..now, imagine it surrounded by countries who have vowed to annhilate your favorite country, ..now imagine these same countries placing hundreds of thousands of soldiers and war machinery around your borders...

Who is starting the war?

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Let's put it this way--Egypt booted the UN out of the Sinai, Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran, massed troops on Israel's border and called for Israel's destruction

Here is a portion from this website:
Web Link">Web Link


Military Provocation By Arab Countries and Soviet Disinformation

While Israel consistently expressed a desire to negotiate a peace with its neighbors, there was no matching sentiment on the Arab side. In an address to the UN General Assembly on October 10, 1960, Foreign Minister Golda Meir challenged Arab leaders to meet with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to negotiate a peace settlement. Nasser (Egypt) answered on October 15, saying that Israel was trying to deceive world opinion, and reiterating that his country would never recognize the Jewish State. Nasser's rhetoric became increasingly bellicose; on March 8, 1965 he said:

* We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.

A few months later, Nasser expressed the Arabs' goal to be:

* ... the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel.

Other Arab leaders from Syria, Jordan, and Iraq joined in the rhetoric and preparations for war, increasing pressure on Egypt's President Gamal Nasser, perceived as the leader of the Arab world. Syria's attacks along the DMZ grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966. Syria's attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, during which Israeli planes shot down six Syrian MiGs. Israel followed up by re-introducing military forces to the DMZ.

At the same time, and unknown to the Israelis, the Soviet Union mounted a disinformation campaign pushing Egypt to join Syria against Israel. At that time, the Soviets were providing military and economic aid to both Syria and Egypt. On May 13, 1967 a Soviet parliamentary delegation visited Cairo and informed the Egyptian leaders that Israel had concentrated eleven to thirteen brigades along the Syrian border in preparation for an assault within a few days, with the intention of overthrowing the revolutionary Syrian Government. This was a complete fabrication designed by the Soviets to destabilize the Middle East. Similar false information may have been given to Egypt by the Soviets as early as May 2.

The build up and aggressive intent were denied by Israel. UN Secretary General U Thant reported that UNTSO observers on the Syrian border:

* ... have verified the absence of troop concentrations and absence of noteworthy military movements on both sides of the [Syrian] line.

Nasser probably correctly interpreted the Soviet information as an indication to him that the time was ripe for an attack on Israel and that he had their backing. With the United States deeply distracted by the War in Vietnam, the Soviets had reason to think there would be no US intervention. Nassar then abandoned his former cautious policy and took the lead for new aggression against Israel. Syria and Iraq eagerly joined Egypt's preparations, increasing the momentum toward war.

On May 15, Israel's 19th Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.

On May 16, Nassar requested the withdrawal of the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956. Egyptian forces moved up to the UNEF lines and began to harrass the UN positions. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. This was a direct violation of the conditions under which Israel had returned control of the Sinai to Egypt after the Sinai Campaign. The UN force was supposed to safeguard Israel from Egypt again closing the Straits of Tiran or launching terrorist attacks from that quarter.
Blockade of the Straits of Tiran

In 1956, the United States gave Israel assurances that it recognized the Jewish State's right of access to the Straits of Tiran. In 1957, at the UN, 17 maritime powers declared that Israel had a right to transit the Strait. Moreover, any blockade violated the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which was adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958. Nonetheless, on on the night of May 22-23, 1967 Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel's only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran.

Here is a portion from tis website:
Web Link">Web Link

Military Provocation By Arab Countries and Soviet Disinformation

While Israel consistently expressed a desire to negotiate a peace with its neighbors, there was no matching sentiment on the Arab side. In an address to the UN General Assembly on October 10, 1960, Foreign Minister Golda Meir challenged Arab leaders to meet with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to negotiate a peace settlement. Nasser (Egypt) answered on October 15, saying that Israel was trying to deceive world opinion, and reiterating that his country would never recognize the Jewish State. Nasser's rhetoric became increasingly bellicose; on March 8, 1965 he said:

* We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.

A few months later, Nasser expressed the Arabs' goal to be:

* ... the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel.

Other Arab leaders from Syria, Jordan, and Iraq joined in the rhetoric and preparations for war, increasing pressure on Egypt's President Gamal Nasser, perceived as the leader of the Arab world. Syria's attacks along the DMZ grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966. Syria's attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, during which Israeli planes shot down six Syrian MiGs. Israel followed up by re-introducing military forces to the DMZ.

At the same time, and unknown to the Israelis, the Soviet Union mounted a disinformation campaign pushing Egypt to join Syria against Israel. At that time, the Soviets were providing military and economic aid to both Syria and Egypt. On May 13, 1967 a Soviet parliamentary delegation visited Cairo and informed the Egyptian leaders that Israel had concentrated eleven to thirteen brigades along the Syrian border in preparation for an assault within a few days, with the intention of overthrowing the revolutionary Syrian Government. This was a complete fabrication designed by the Soviets to destabilize the Middle East. Similar false information may have been given to Egypt by the Soviets as early as May 2.

The build up and aggressive intent were denied by Israel. UN Secretary General U Thant reported that UNTSO observers on the Syrian border:

* ... have verified the absence of troop concentrations and absence of noteworthy military movements on both sides of the [Syrian] line.

Nasser probably correctly interpreted the Soviet information as an indication to him that the time was ripe for an attack on Israel and that he had their backing. With the United States deeply distracted by the War in Vietnam, the Soviets had reason to think there would be no US intervention. Nassar then abandoned his former cautious policy and took the lead for new aggression against Israel. Syria and Iraq eagerly joined Egypt's preparations, increasing the momentum toward war.

On May 15, Israel's 19th Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.

On May 16, Nassar requested the withdrawal of the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956. Egyptian forces moved up to the UNEF lines and began to harrass the UN positions. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. This was a direct violation of the conditions under which Israel had returned control of the Sinai to Egypt after the Sinai Campaign. The UN force was supposed to safeguard Israel from Egypt again closing the Straits of Tiran or launching terrorist attacks from that quarter.
Blockade of the Straits of Tiran

In 1956, the United States gave Israel assurances that it recognized the Jewish State's right of access to the Straits of Tiran. In 1957, at the UN, 17 maritime powers declared that Israel had a right to transit the Strait. Moreover, any blockade violated the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which was adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958. Nonetheless, on on the night of May 22-23, 1967 Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel's only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran.

Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel's hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly:

* The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war.


So I think that Israel would have been foolish to wait for the attack--if someone with a gun is standing outside your door, you do not wait for him to start shooting at you--you take action.

Even with the surprise element in 1973, Egypt and Syria still got their asses whooped once again.

Here are a couple of more lin ks to sites regarding the 6 Day War, clearly these will not meet Tally Ho's standards but every one else interested:

Web Link
Web Link

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Boaz, I wish I could come shake your hand personally for your patient, persistent scholarship.

Who knows? Maybe ONE person will read and think a bit, who will then pass it on to ONE other person, and slowly the world wakes up.

You might enjoy reading "Now They Call Me Infidel" by Nonie Darwish. She was raised in Gaza until 8 years old, then in Egypt, while it was being destroyed by Nasser. I assume you know everything she writes about already, but just in case, I recommend it.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

By the way, Nonie lived through and confirms the history your web sites state.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]