YourBuddy: Anti-Semite?

[Yissaskhar Ben-]

John Thompson <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, Yissaskhar Ben-Tzion wrote:
>
> >> There was no reason for the Israeli Defense Force to allow armed militia into the camps.
>
> > Both camps were being used as terrorist hideouts and warehouses. Both camps had weapons and had
> > an unarmed force entered, an actual massacre would have occurred.
>
> Duh... an actual massacre *DID* occur!

Oh really? Care to explain how, despite both sides being well-armed and both sides suffering
casualties.

> And if anti-Israeli terrorists residing in the camps were the concern

In this case anti-Lebanese terrrorists.

> shouldn't the IDF

Under the alliance signed with the Lebanese government, the Israelis were not permitted to enter.

> or a UN team

The UN has a terrible track record when it comes to terrorists in Lebanon...giving them aid,
shelter, and even weapons.

> A hostile, armed and poorly regulated miltia is the last thing a sensible person would have
> allowed into the camps if safety of the residents had been considered at all.

It was the only thing that could be done under the circumstances.

> Come on now. You told me before that the reason why Palestinians living in the occupied
> terrirtories do not have the same civil rights as residents of Israel is because "the Occupied
> Territories are NOT Israel"

Correct.

> and are ruled by the Palestinian Authority.

Depends on the territory.

> Now, you're telling me that Israel has the right to build settlements on the > occupied
> territories

A Jew or Israeli Arab should have the right to build wherever he so chooses.

> because "Jews have a right to live in territories under Israeli rule."

If Israel did not send in the IDF to defend these people, their deaths would be on Israel's head. No
responsible government wants to leave any part of their populace undefended.

> You can't have it both ways. If the occupied territories are not under Israeli rule and not part
> of Israel, then Israel has no right to build settlements there.

Why the hell not? Jews are allowed to live in the United States, why not in their own homeland?

> If they are under Israeli rule, then the Arab residents there should have > the same civil rights
> as enjoyed by the rest of Israel, and both Jews and > non-Jews should have a right to live there
> under the same set of laws.

Just because a territory is under Israeli rule does not make it part of Israel. The difference is
significant.

-Yissaskhar

 

[Theodore Herzl]

John Thompson <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, Yissaskhar Ben-Tzion wrote:
>
> >> There was no reason for the Israeli Defense Force to allow armed militia into the camps.
>
> > Both camps were being used as terrorist hideouts and warehouses. Both camps had weapons and had
> > an unarmed force entered, an actual massacre would have occurred.
>
> Duh... an actual massacre *DID* occur! And if anti-Israeli terrorists residing in the camps were
> the concern, shouldn't the IDF or a UN team have been the ones to enter the camps to look for
> suspects and weapons? A hostile, armed and poorly regulated miltia is the last thing a sensible
> person would have allowed into the camps if safety of the residents had been considered at all.
>
> >> > 1. The "Occupied Territories" are NOT Israel.
>
> >> Really? Then why is Israel so insistant on building settlements there?
>
> > Jews have a right to live in territories under Israeli rule.
>
> Come on now. You told me before that the reason why Palestinians living in the occupied
> terrirtories do not have the same civil rights as residents of Israel is because "the Occupied
> Territories are NOT Israel" and are ruled by the Palestinian Authority. Now, you're telling me
> that Israel has the right to build settlements on the occupied territories because "Jews have a
> right to live in territories under Israeli rule."
>
> You can't have it both ways. If the occupied territories are not under Israeli rule and not part
> of Israel, then Israel has no right to build settlements there. If they are under Israeli rule,
> then the Arab residents there should have the same civil rights as enjoyed by the rest of Israel,
> and both Jews and non-Jews should have a right to live there under the same set of laws.

You may confuse this fellow with logic John. You're exposing the plan of the Zionist Jews to occupy,
divide and destroy the Palestinians living in the occupied territories. Giving equal rights to
non-Jews would certainly eventually put an end to Israel as a Jewish controlled country, which is
why they employ such apartheid techniques. Giving equal rights to non-Jews doesn't happen in Jewish
society for they believe they are superior to Goyim so to expect equal treatment from a Jewish run
government is a fantasy. This fatal flaw in Judaism is why they're been driven from so many regions
throughout history, not because people hate Jews or Judaism, but because Jews have a superiority
complex. Basically they're taught to be snobs.

 

[John Thompson]

In article <[email protected]>, Yissaskhar Ben-Tzion wrote:

> John Thompson <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Yissaskhar Ben-Tzion wrote:
>>
>> >> There was no reason for the Israeli Defense Force to allow armed militia into the camps.
>>
>> > Both camps were being used as terrorist hideouts and warehouses. Both camps had weapons and had
>> > an unarmed force entered, an actual massacre would have occurred.
>>
>> Duh... an actual massacre *DID* occur!

> Oh really? Care to explain how, despite both sides being well-armed and both sides suffering
> casualties.

Listen to yourself! You're sounding like one of those Holocaust-denial crackpots! The reason a
massacre occurred is because the Christian militias were armed and indiscriminant in their victims
and the vast majority of refugees in the camps were just that -- unarmed refugees.

From http://www.badil.org/Resources/War_Crimes/Overview.htm:

---<begin>---

Between September 16-18, 1982, several thousand Palestinian refugees - men, women, and children -
were brutally slaughtered by Lebanese Christian Phalangist forces allied with Israel, while Israeli
forces looked and prevented refugees from fleeing the camps.(1) The massacre happened within weeks
of the US brokered withdrawal of PLO fighters from Lebanon in the late summer of 1982. Left without
protection, Israeli-allied Lebanese forces were able to enter the camps of West Beirut without
opposition. On September 16, the day the massacre began, General Amos Yaron, commander of Israeli
forces in Lebanon - and now Director General of the Israeli Defense Ministry - provided Lebanese
Forces Intelligence with aerial photographs to arrange entry into the camps. Researcher Rosemary
Sayigh describes the scene as the massacre unfolded:

The targeted area was crammed with people recently returned from the places where they had taken
refuge during the war, now supposedly over. Schools would soon open, everyone needed to repair
their homes, clear the streets and get ready for the winter. There was fear of what the regime
of Bashir Gemayel would bring, but there was also determination to rebuild. People felt some
security from the fact that they were unarmed, and that all who remained were legal residents.
Many of the massacre victims were found clutching their identity cards, as if trying to prove
their legitimacy.

One contingent of the [Lebanese] Special Units commanded by Hobeiqa entered the area through the
sand-hills overlooking Hayy Orsan, just opposite the IDF headquarters. At this stage they were
almost certainly accompanied by Israeli soldiers, since the dunes had been fortified by the
Resistance. Another contingent entered through the southeastern edge of the Hursh, between Akka
Hospital and Abu Hassan Salameh Street. Apart from co-planning the operation and introducing the
Special Forces into the area, the IDF provided several kinds of back-up: they controlled the
perimeters and prevented escape through light shelling and sniping, as well as by blocking the
main exits; they also used flares to light up the narrow alleys at night."(2)

When Israel finally ordered the withdrawal of the Lebanese Special Forces two days later on 18
September 1982, the camps had been destroyed and several thousand refugees had either been
slaughtered or had disappeared. Today one of the mass graves is used for dumping garbage and another
has been paved over for a golf course. An Israeli Commission subsequently found then Defense
Minister Ariel Sharon who now heads the Likud party indirectly responsible for the massacre.

(1) It was never possible to make an accurate count of the victims: an IRC representative counted
328 bodies, excluding mass graves or the "disappeared". Israeli figures, based on IDF
intelligence, cite a figure of 700-800. One journalist cites a figure of 3,000. A Kapeliouk,
Sabra and Shatila: Inquiry into a Massacre. Belmont, MA: AAUG, 1984.
(2) Rosemary Sayigh, Too Many Enemies, The Palestinian Experience in Lebanon. London: Zed Books,
1994, pp. 117-18.

---<end>---

Even the official Israeli commission formed to investigate the matter doesn't dispute the fact that
a massacre took place:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ign0

>> You can't have it both ways. If the occupied territories are not under Israeli rule and not part
>> of Israel, then Israel has no right to build settlements there.

> Why the hell not? Jews are allowed to live in the United States, why not in their own homeland?

Yes, but here in the United States and everywhere else in the world except the occupied territories,
they have have to do so under the laws of the land. That is, they have to purchase the land, acquire
whatever permits are needed for construction, pay taxes to the government and be subject to the laws
of the nation. In the USA and elsewhere, neither Jews nor non-Jews can simply pick out a piece of
land, bulldoze whatever buildlings/orchards/farmlands are there and start building on it, and then
live there under an entirely separate set of laws than their neighbors.

>> If they are under Israeli rule, then the Arab residents there should have the same civil rights
>> as enjoyed by the rest of Israel, and both Jews and non-Jews should have a right to live there
>> under the same set of laws.

> Just because a territory is under Israeli rule does not make it part of Israel. The difference is
> significant.

Exactly my point. So you concede that Palestinians living in the occupied territories are
second-class citizens?

--

-John ([email protected])

 

[Seth Breidbart]

In article <[email protected]>, John Thompson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>If they were truly criminals why were they reinstated to the ballot?

If that sort of thing didn't happen, New Jersey wouldn't have a government.

Seth
--
There's no amount of rudeness in the world that can not be cured by the judicious application of
extreme violence. -- Roland Lee

 

[Seth Breidbart]

In article <[email protected]>, John Thompson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Exactly my point. So you concede that Palestinians living in the occupied territories are
>second-class citizens?

Of which country?

They aren't citizens of Israel at all.

Seth
--
There's no amount of rudeness in the world that can not be cured by the judicious application of
extreme violence. -- Roland Lee

 

[Yissaskhar Ben-]

> Listen to yourself! You're sounding like one of those Holocaust-denial crackpots!

How dare you! I don't even know where to begin in response to that. It doesn't dignify a response.

> The reason a massacre occurred is because the Christian militias were armed and indiscriminant in
> their victims and the vast majority of refugees in the camps were just that -- unarmed refugees.

Unarmed refugees? ********. The towns, like Janin, were swarming with terrorists and illegal
weapons. Unlike Janin, Sabrah and Shatilah contained extensive terrorist training
facilities---hosting terror groups from all around the world. A battle ensued in which there were
victims on BOTH SIDES.

> From http://www.badil.org/Resources/War_Crimes/Overview.htm:
>
> ---<begin>---
>
> Between September 16-18, 1982, several thousand Palestinian refugees - men, women, and children -
> were brutally slaughtered by Lebanese Christian Phalangist forces allied with Israel

you left out the fact the Christian forces were under the command of Alias Hubaykah who was working
as a double agent with the Syrian government.

> while Israeli forces looked and prevented refugees from fleeing the camps.

Israeli troops had no idea what was going on.

> Researcher Rosemary Sayigh

An unreliable pseudo-scholar, just like anyone who Zed Press will publish.

> Even the official Israeli commission formed to investigate the matter doesn't dispute the fact
> that a massacre took place:
>
> http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ign0

An Israeli commission set up to please the public and the US. It was by no means accurate---simply
there to get rid of Sharon, whom they did not even find directly responsible for the events.

> >> You can't have it both ways. If the occupied territories are not under Israeli rule and not
> >> part of Israel, then Israel has no right to build settlements there.
>
> > Why the hell not? Jews are allowed to live in the United States, why not in their own homeland?
>
> Yes, but here in the United States and everywhere else in the world except the occupied
> territories, they have have to do so under the laws of the land.

There are no "laws of the land" in Judaea, Samaria, and Gaza, being as how they are territories of
"status to be determined" and not a separate entity.

> That is, they have to purchase the land

They do.

> acquire whatever permits are needed for construction

Again, they acquire all the necessary permits. Those communities which do not are torn down.

> pay taxes to the government

They pay taxes to the Israeli government because they are Israelis.

> and be subject to the laws of the nation.

Again there is no nation.

> In the USA and elsewhere, neither Jews nor non-Jews can simply pick out a > piece of land,
> bulldoze whatever buildlings/orchards/farmlands are there and > start building on it

You have been watching too much PLO propoganda. This simply does not happen. Most "settlements" were
built on empty, rocky hilltops. Many of them were built in vacated or destroyed Jewish houses. While
some are built in place of ILLEGALY PLACED farmlands, none are built on top of former villages.

> and then live there under an entirely separate set of laws than their > neighbors.

They live under the same law.

> >> If they are under Israeli rule, then the Arab residents there should have the same civil
> >> rights as enjoyed by the rest of Israel, and both Jews and non-Jews should have a right to
> >> live there under the same set of laws.
>
> > Just because a territory is under Israeli rule does not make it part of Israel. The difference
> > is significant.
>
> Exactly my point. So you concede that Palestinians living in the occupied territories are
> second-class citizens?

No. The "Palestinians" are not second-class citizens because they ARE NOT CITIZENS. They are not
even residents of Israel.

-Yissaskhar

 

[David Cohen]

"Seth Breidbart" <[email protected]> wrote
> John Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >If they were truly criminals why were they reinstated to the
ballot?
>
> If that sort of thing didn't happen, New Jersey wouldn't have a government.

True. But as a native New Joyzian, I must say we were always more subtle than Washington, D.C.

And our dead people only vote ONCE, unlike Chicago.

David

 

[Bluto]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (Bluto) wrote:
> >
> >Democracies don't marginalize, politically suppress, and exterminate major population groups.
>
> Ours did.

I wonder if black folks in Florida believe they live in a democracy.

Chalo Colina

 

[John Thompson]

In article <[email protected]>, Yissaskhar Ben-Tzion wrote:

>> Listen to yourself! You're sounding like one of those Holocaust-denial crackpots!

> How dare you! I don't even know where to begin in response to that.

If the shoe fits...

If "logic" like yours is common in Israel, all I can say is that it is no wonder that the
Palestinians are feeling frustrated.

All I can say is that you have lost any credibility with me. Your comments will henceforth be
interpreted in the same light as those of the holocaust-deniers, white-supremacists, neo-nazis and
other self-deluded, narrow minded bigots.

Peace in the Middle East, as elsewhere, will only come when all parties are willing to accept
compromise. The Palestinians have contributed to their share of problems, but Israel, especially
under Sharon in particular and Likud in general has taken on a religious-zealot quality that has no
place in a modern secular democracy as you claim Israel is.

Shalom.

--

-John ([email protected])

 

[Seth Breidbart]

In article <[email protected]>, John Thompson
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Yissaskhar Ben-Tzion wrote:
>
>>> despite the fact that the Palestinians lived on what is now Israel for centuries before the
>>> state of Israel was established.
>> ********. Most of them arrived within the last 100 years. Even those who had been there longer
>> had been there for perhaps 150 or 200. Very few of today's "Palestinians" were there more than
>> 250 years ago.
>And the vast majority of Israeli Jews haven't had any ancestors there since the Diaspora.
>Your point?

If the question is "whose ancestors were there first" what is your answer?

If the question is "who is there now" what is your answer?

Yet you seem to want to claim that some group that is not the answer to either question should
control the land. It's hard to see that as anything other than bias against the group that is the
answer to both of those questions.

Seth
--
There's no amount of rudeness in the world that can not be cured by the judicious application of
extreme violence. -- Roland Lee

 

[Chris Phillipo]

> >>> despite the fact that the Palestinians lived on what is now Israel for centuries before the
> >>> state of Israel was established.
> >> ********. Most of them arrived within the last 100 years. Even those who had been there longer
> >> had been there for perhaps 150 or 200. Very few of today's "Palestinians" were there more than
> >> 250 years ago.

Average human lifespan being what it is, I very seriously doubt anyone that was there 250 years ago
is still living there today. Since Israel was established about 50 years ago, not 300, I don't know
what you are trying to prove anyway.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Yissaskhar Ben-]

> If the shoe fits...

Whoa, I lost the respect of a total moron...big deal!

> If "logic" like yours is common in Israel, all I can say is that it is no wonder that the
> Palestinians are feeling frustrated.

Most Arabs want an end to this intifadhah as much as the Jews do.

> All I can say is that you have lost any credibility with me. Your comments will henceforth be
> interpreted in the same light as those of the holocaust-deniers, white-supremacists, neo-nazis and
> other self-deluded, narrow minded bigots.

Explain how I am a narrow-minded bigot? I don't deny Israel has done regrettable things. But the
fact remains is that Sabrah and Shatillah were terrorist camps in which there were battles, not
massacres---and Israel could do little to nothing to stop it.

> Peace in the Middle East, as elsewhere, will only come when all parties are willing to accept
> compromise.

I could not agree more, but I feel Israel has compromised more than it can already.

> especially under Sharon in particular and Likud in general has taken on a >
> religious-zealot quality

********. Sharon sits in a government with the Shinui Party and may in fact abolish the Ministry
of Religion.

> that has no place in a modern secular democracy as you claim Israel is.

Are you saying it's not? Are you that foolish?

-Yissaskhar