T Nation

The other side


Ive read a lot of attacks and opinion on Isreal here.

since this argument is so one-sided, here is some links to support my side. notice the hard facts (videos, maps etc) unlike the links you brought.

this powerpoint has the conflict with history facts, bare with it, very interesting and comprehenssive.


about arabs not wanting to hurt the US (right...)

very good pps about arab muslim propaganda and the US citizens views of the conflicts(which match what I hear here...)


a good history and facts faq


this powerpoint link is made from arab media excerpts:


a final note:
I am note a jew. I am an israeli atheist, christian father, jewis mother. I couldnt care less about religion. I care alot about human rights of people in our world. I am all in favor for palestinian country. I am dissilusioned by their lies and history of terror. I think my government could do things alot better, just like any democratic goverment has room to improve
All the things I said here represent 90% of Israel seculars, which are the majority.


in no way the shameless attacks and lies on Israel and the jews are justified, morraly or factualy. comparing them to the natzis or to the appartheid is an actual race/hate crime, which will lead to more falalcies and hatred.



from years of news, i'd have to say both have used lies and terror at one point or another. there was a reporter on the border between palestine and isreal, and they were getting along not caring one was jewish and the other arab. the problem is a win at all cost attitude of some drowning out those that could care less. there was going to be a deal in 6(4?) between the two, but the plo fixed that with the assasination. maybe if arafat is ill, the area will be closer to returning to the talks that nearly ended all this decades ago.


"All the things I said here represent 90% of Israel seculars, which are the majority."

Glutey, I don't disagree with your comments in the thread but I am curious as to which definition of "secular" you are using in the above sentence. Do you mean not affiliated with a religous organization? If so, I find that statement amazing as I, and probably most outsiders, have always assumed that almost all Israelis were devout Jews. Straighten me out on this please.


The majority of Israelis are not religious in the sense that they observe their religious laws on a daily basis or even the Sabbath, something like "lapsed Catholics" here in the U.S.. Most of those secular ones tend to go to temple on the holidays. Most of this group doesn't regard "reform" or "conservative" Judaism as truly representative of the religion, so if they visit Temple for Rosh Hashanah, they would go to a temple normally attended by "devout Jews," who practice the laws of their religion on a daily basis.


I have to agree with glute-spanker, 100%. Israel is completely surrounded by countries that would love to see Israel die. The irony is that Arabs (in general) have more freedom in Israel, than they do in the Arab nations.
And I know that most Israeli's are not devout Jews. Most are Jews by blood, heretage.


This whole palestine and israel conflit is so shitty. It's like many palestinians and israelis are living together side by side going about their daily business, I dunno driving cabs selling food etc they just want stability and to live in peace. But then there are people who want the conflict to just keep going on. I honestly beleive that those people are around, there could be a hundred reasons why they would want this situation to exist.
Arabic countries sell oil to the west, its good for both sides, deep down they know they are relying on eachother but in public they say down with the US. It's like both parties have agreed to let one another do or rather say as they like but secretly carry on trading and acting like there is nothing wrong.
As long as there is a conflict in Israel, countries like Iran and Iraq(prior to now), Libya, Lebanon... can use this as an excuse to spread hate.
When will people wise up to the fact that ordinary people like you and me who want a job a normal life and a roof over our heads dont want the misery that the palestinians and israelis have now, and the question is when will the people who are in control give this peace back to the ordinary people.


Yes, both sides have committed atrocities, but Israel is an occupying force on Palestinian land. I don't understand why Israel can't be compelled to return to the original borders that were set. I'm not completely up to speed on the historical background, but it seems to me that Israel needs to go back to pre-1967 borders.

Look, if Canadians invaded the US and started annexing our territory, I'm sure a lot of people would take up arms, if our government were unable to mount a military resistance. Nobody straps a bomb onto themselves unless they feel incredibly desperate. What one person calls a "terrorist" another person calls a "freedom fighter", sometimes it just depends on whose side you are on. The Israelis have nuclear weapons and the most powerful military in the region, due to the support of the US. Right now, it seems like Bush is letting Sharon do whatever the fuck he wants to, and attack Palestinian camps at will. How can Bush complain? Didn't the US just finish doing massive "pre-emptive strikes" on "terrorists"? How can the US turn around and tell other countries not to do the same thing?

I thought this "If Americans Knew" website was interesting:



If Canada attacked us and we repelled them, we would occupy the strategic land in between the two countries to ensure they didn't attack us again. Israel was attacked. Israel won. It's their land now, it's not occupied territory. Are they supposed to say that there is no penalty for attacking them? They didn't initiate the war, so why should they have to give back the land. It's not like the land is worth anything, it's just a buffer between themselves and those countries who want to destroy them.


Doogie's right. Additionally, the Palestinians have jurisdiction (and policing) over virtually all their land. What is at issue here is incursions and checkpoints that arise in response (or in anticipation, from intelligence gathering) to suicide attacks.

The only sense it's an "occupation" is that the Palestinians don't have their own state yet and in many areas, often endure the presence of Israeli troops. Otherwise, it just doesn't fit the mold.


Strange how when the Germans did it to the jews it was the worse crime in history (even though Stalin and Mao killed more than twice as many people as Hitler) but when the israelis do it to the Palestinians its OK.

Fuckin hypocrits.

My aunt, whi is jewish, even admitted the israelis lost the "moral high ground" a long time ago.


Let's not forget what the Japanese did to the Chinese or what Pol Pot did in Cambodia. Or the Serbs. Hell, even the English did it to the Irish in the 1800's. The Americans did it to the indigenous indians. If somebody does you wrong, you fight back. If you have to fight, you should fight to win. Screw this fair fight according to the rules crap. Rules don't do you any good if you lose. However, what do you do when both sides are right and both sides are wrong, as in the middle east?


Hey, Mexico City, there are no concentration camps, work camps or death camps in the Gaza Strip. What is the "it" you're referring to?


The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the religious icon of Palestinians (currently cited by Arafat as his mentor and hero) wrote in his memoirs:

"Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: 'The Jews are yours."

He organized thousands of Bosnian and Albanian Muslim into NAZI military units that killed Yougoslav Jews, Gypsies and Serbs and in radio broadcast from Berlin told the Arab people in 1944 (before the Jews got their state and the Palestinians turned down theirs),

"Arabs! Rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor."

Israel faces the same elements in the Arab world that the West is fighting today: Islamists and Baathists who took their ideology from European totalitarian movements of the 20th century that could not abide the free world.

Arafat, who supported the Communists in the Cold War supported Saddam Hussein in 1991, calling him ?the defender of the Arab nation, of Muslims, and of free men everywhere.? In contrast, Israel blew up Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. The Palestinian people have legitimate grievances, however, they have a habit of being on the wrong side of history, with all the homocidal mania this entails.


avoids roids:
the jewish people in Israel are a nation, not a religion. we observe our religion no more then you "observe" christmess. thats about it.
the division is about 75% totally unreligious, 15% somewhat religious, and 10% religious to orthodox(you know, the ones that dress like penguins...)
also, regarding those occupying nations you mentioned I think from all of those cases, compare them to the current conflict and you can see how israel is (mostly) coming out of its way not become such a nation, of mass murders/deportion. (again, the links I present will give some insight)

mexico city: did you fucking read my post? and if your aunt said that your father was hitler would you believe it? you have a brain to think with for yourself? I believe you do so stop quoting and do some research. even in a library and youll find that your comparison is invalid



Mark, I've already addressed your "Israelis think God gave them the land" comments in the WW3 thread so the list:

(1) You seem to have dodged the question as to whether Gandhi's methods or Mandela's ANC as morally equal to suicide killings. Please answer this directly.

In answer to your question, in South Africa, the people did NOT use non-violent resistance but used violence against soldiers and infrastructure, not women and children. From what you’ve written, it does not seem you were aware of this basic fact. In my view, the ANC was justified (although Mandela and his wife have both become disappointments to me and others subsequent to the end of apartheid). But my question was not about the rightness of Gandhi or Mandela's causes (or their feelings about the Middle East), but about the rightness of their methods as compared to suicide killings. If the Palestinians only attacked soldiers, they would be soldiers themselves, not genocidal butchers. That was my point, now please answer my question.

I should however mention that by ending the quote as you did, you imply that Ghandi would not be critical of the Palestinians’ nationalist methods. In fact, in the same essay, he argues against fighting against the Nazis in World War 2 because
" . If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be
completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province. " His advice to the Jews is to fight anti-Semitism by demanding full rights in their countries of birth and not giving antisemites a case by asking for a national homeland. He writes:

“If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German might, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance, but would have confidence that in the end the rest were bound to follow my example”

Suffice it to say, Gandhi would not have given his approval to Palestinian suicide killers. He was against violence by all peoples against all peoples.

(2) Your example of "ethnic cleansing" in 1948 took place after these people aided and abetted a murderous rampage. Leaders of Arab nations have also admitted their responsibility in making them refugees. As for settlements, ethnic cleansing is not building settlements where no one resides. The settlers typically build IN territory surrounded by Palestinians, but not OVER Palestinian property. Secondly, building a wall that separates two states does not constitute "ethnic cleansing," unless you're referring to the small number of people who are dispossessed on the line of wall. But using the label in this way devalues the enormity of actual ethnic cleansing taking place in the world (and also ignores that this small group is being replaced by a wall, not another group). When you say it "dispossesses Palestinians from their land," do you mean all of Israel is their land? If so, then there's no point in this discussion.

(3) I don't feel that your definition of "apartheid state" is sufficient. A grievance for full voting representation does not indicate an apartheid state (otherwise the American colonies under England were living in an "apartheid state"), but a complete Jim-Crow situation does. Arab Israeli citizens have the same legal rights as Jewish Israeli citizens. In fact the Arabs have more legal rights and voting rights in Israel than they have in any Arab state! As for the non-citizen Arabs in the territories, they are represented by the Palestinian Authority, in which Fatah manages the voting system with outrageous corruption. If special voting rights are accorded to Jews it's to keep the country a Jewish state. And if a Jewish state is by definition an "apartheid state," then that's begging the question, and there is no point in discussing anything with you.

(4) You wrote that Jews "had less than 50% of the land in 1948, when they simply took the rest of it by declaring statehood, supported by the British." That just contradicts basic history.
(5) "Israel has complete control over the occupied territories." Your denial that the Israelis have given the Palestinians civil jurisdiction over virtually all the land is plain incorrect. Did you just say this reflexively?

(6) Actually, Israelis elected Barak and Rabin before Netanyahu and Sharon, when they decided to make security more of priority as they continued to look for peace. And labor leaders are AGAINST settlement construction! Where the heck do you get your information? Check out the polls, the majority of Israelis support a Palestinian state, the majority of Palestinians support suicide bombings (69%)
(7) Imperialist powers don't want to eject people from land, but want to use the people on the land? So in your view, is Israel an imperialist power or does it want the land for itself?

As for MY view, the U.S. should continue to support Israel because
1) as President Johnson first decided after the ’67 War, Israel is a potent military ally in the Middle East. We can’t always depend on Turkey (and now Iraq).
2) the technical, medical and scientific research done by Israel benefits United States citizens and the U.S. economy
3) the U.S. should support democracies across the globe amidst tyrannies. Why? Because to endure, every nation has to have values that they protect in spite of criticism, and because plainly and simply, democracy is right and totalitarianism is wrong.
4) the US should not give support to ANY side that employs suicide killings and embraces the targeting of civilian lives as a charter position. To do otherwise, would be to allow death cults to develop and spread across the globe.
5) if the U.S. gives in to ANY of the demands of Islamic totalitarianism in the face of their attempts at intimidation, it will encourage them (as it did with Beirut), and we will face more terrorist attacks.



Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions of you. I didn't know what you meant by 'The Other Side', but now I see that it's another thread. I see why you wish to move the debate -- this is friendlier 'turf' for you. I don't know why it's called the OTHER side, though. Both threads are extremely pro-Israel.

I'll have to get back to you on your questions. I'll be doing most of my posting on the other thread, though. It doesn't make any sense for me to go back-and-forth with this. Besides, it's a debate no one will win. You've decided that Muslims and Arabs are inherently evil, and that Israelis are inherently right. Perhaps you were brought up religiously, or you think it's patriotic to be in line with the neo-cons. Regardless, it's not right to keep people in refugee camps for 35 years, regardless of who won what war.

Resolving the conflict is easy. Israel needs to give the Palestinians back their damn land, including East Jerusalem (and full control over their land and airspace), and either the right to return or compensation. Anything else is mere bullshit, and serves to extend the conflict.


hey glute, you know what's funny? it seems you can't support your arguments on the other thread, so you start your own!

how is "we need leadership change across the board" a one-sided argument?

in the ww3 thread, the only people who seem to be one sided are mark r. and brian smith. take your issues of one-sidedness with them.


Mark, please respond directly to question (or point) #1. You may re-post whatever you'd like to write on WW3 thread here if you want me to deal with it.

You've written: "You've decided that Muslims and Arabs are inherently evil, and that Israelis are inherently right."

That's simply untrue, and it's sad that you have to distort things that way to feel in the right.

And Danh, I should have informed you that Osama Bin Laden in the videotape after Septermber 11 referred to "a great catastrophe" that he was avenging with the Trade Center bombing. Guess what it was? It was Kemal Ataturk's forced Westernization of a Muslim country.

Osama and his ilk are fighting a war against the non-Islamic culture that has nothing to do with U.S. support of Israel (down on the list of grievences in Osama's video, with U.S. presence in Saudia Arabia #1). They are fighting that same war against any Muslim that is with us on the side of liberty, who they label as "Jahili". Attempting to cast the blame on Israel, backed by a bunch of "neocon Jews," is just being blind to historical reality.


brian, as i said before, there are two basic kinds of terrorists, those who are fundamentalists like osama, and those who have been directly affected by another nation's foreign policy and seek revengy like the suicide bombers whose family members have been accidentally killed during incursions.

i despise the former. although i don't condone them, i understand the plight of the latter.

one of my uncles was mistakenly shot and killed by a police officer about a decade ago and for a while i felt rage and everytime i saw a police officer on the street or televisoin, my blood boiled at the thought of my uncle's death. only later could i think of police officers in an objective manner. it's easy to feel rage and it's hard to let go.

with dozens of innocent lives lost every month during the israel/palestine conflict, it's no wonder that everyday there are more palestinians willing to kill themselves and those they perceive as their enemy.

that said, i believe the united states should focus its military and economic resources on covert operations to take out the terrorists the like of osama bin laden. by helping out israel and invading iraq, we are spawning more terrorists than we can handle.



Who gives a fuck if the ANC was justified in attacks against civil authority (yes, I do know about that, thank you). Was the French resistance justified in attacking Vichy government civil authority? What's justifiable and what's not? As I've said before, it doesn't matter. Palestinian militants are not justified in attacking civilians. I've said that about 20 times now...it's not the issue, but you and other "pro-Israel whatever they do" types keep trying to make it the issue. The issue is the occupation. Is it morally right for Israel to have colonized the West Bank and Gaza just because they won a war 35 years ago? Most nations absorb the people and the land when they take land following a war (like when the US took SW America from Mexico) or they free the people and the land (like we did with Japan).