Suicide Bomber Kills 3 in Israel

[slaar]

It's a shame that I have to threaten to ignore you before you engage in the debate, but it's good that you have.

It presupposes that if these attacks were to cease that the isreali governements reaction would be any different in the occupied territoires.

No it doesn't. If the attacks were intended to improve the situation, you don't have to presuppose this, simply to recognise what nino said about the retaliation being disproportionate. Given what you've said, then it must be about revenge and a cycle of violence.

An absence of methods through which individual Palestinians can do very much about the oppression they face doesn't make the bombing any less of a revenge attack.

they wouldn't as theres an active polocicy of settlement of places like mala addumim and galilee around the dead sea... along with hebron an other areas such as the expansion of ariel settlement etc all of this will happen regardless of anything else becuase of simple economic factors and moneies changing hands so even if there were no attacks and the palestinians we meek as church mice they would still be wholesale slaightered just as the amazonian rain forest indians are by logging companies...

Quite possibly. So then it is in fact revenge?

the second failure is to assume that the is some level of hierarchy of suffering which equates on side or the other as being of more moral sigfificance than another...

That's your interpretation of my opening post, as you made very clear. Some other posters agree, some disagree. So why the insults?

the final thing is that it assume an equality of oppertuntiy which again is lacking...

No it doesn't. I'm well aware that Israelis can kill Palestinians much more easily than vice versa.

it sets up the concept that attacks on palestinians only happen becuase of palestinain acitons which isn't true, they happen becuase there is a land grab going on and to hell with the people who are in the way...

Again, I don't disagree that this is going on, but again, don't agree that suicide bombing is a 'natural reaction'.

 

[moono]

Slaar;

People here are justifying the suicide bombing as a 'natural reaction', that somwhow because the Israelis are murdering innocent people that it is natural and I don't agree that it is.

Your grasp of language ain't so hot. Calling something a 'natural reaction' is NOT condoning that something. It's just making an observation.

Now, please explain why you think this is 'silly'.


Rage is a natural reaction to certain stimuli. I can state that without condoning the stimuli ( although you , apparently, would have trouble with that ) Observing the rage I can state that it's a natural reaction without committing myself to approval/disapproval of the stimuli. Simple stuff, Slaar.

 

[slaar]

moono - Rage is undoutedly a natural reaction to oppression, I'm not denying that for a second. But the Hamas statement is clearly a specific reference to the bombing being a natural reaction.

Fatah, the party of the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, condemned the bombing. However, the more radical Hamas group - which controls the Palestinian parliament - described it as a "natural response" to Israeli policies.

That's the distinction I'm making, between types of resistance. Or is there no line at which rage plus means is not a 'natural response'?

That's why I think it is condoning the bombing, because it's in reference to a specific act (blowing up random Israeli civilians).

 

[moono]

Killing Israelis is most certainly a natural response to Israelis killing Palestinians. I don't see how you can adopt the western media spin that pointing that out is more approval than disapproval. It's neither.

Some western media state that it is 'praise' for the action. You think it is 'condoning' the action. I say it is diplomatic abstention from comment.

Do you think that the United States abstaining from an ICC vote on prosecuting infanticide is 'condoning' infanticide ?

 

[slaar]

Killing Israelis is most certainly a natural response to Israelis killing Palestinians. I don't see how you can adopt the western media spin that pointing that out is more approval than disapproval. It's neither.

Some western media state that it is 'praise' for the action. You think it is 'condoning' the action. I say it is diplomatic abstention from comment.

Do you think that the United States abstaining from an ICC vote on prosecuting infanticide is 'condoning' infanticide ?

It's clearly not that diplomatic if it's interpreted elsewhere as praise.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

It's a shame that I have to threaten to ignore you before you engage in the debate, but it's good that you have.

nope that had nothing to do with it you choose to respond to points put to you... your choice.. nothing to do with me ...

No it doesn't. If the attacks were intended to improve the situation, you don't have to presuppose this, simply to recognise what nino said about the retaliation being disproportionate. Given what you've said, then it must be about revenge and a cycle of violence.

the attacks aren't intended to improve the situation why must it continue to be either or and on one level yes i guess it is a revenge attack but as i have said now repeatdly this can only be the case if one side is view as being right and one wrong... otherwise it is what it is asyemetrical warfare where one side uses all means at it's disposeal the other is scrabbelying around in the dirt 9 times out of 10...

either way you clearly have littl concept of human spirt. if a beaten prisioner occasionally lashes out at his guards is that a revenge attack or simply saying enough of this shit... pack it in.... the way you'd tell it it's a revenge attack in reality it's the action of a person taken to their limit who lashes out to define it as revenge is to support the theroy that these actions are designed to destroy the state of isreal that there is some greater attempt than to turn round and say there toay you got a bloody nose think about that next time you launch an attack.. a raid... a rape... a punishment beating... etc... the isreali people are not blind (well outside of tel aviv) they know the score... they know why it's happening .... they register the significance even if their media or governement does not (or pretends not to)...

An absence of methods through which individual Palestinians can do very much about the oppression they face doesn't make the bombing any less of a revenge attack.

the level of tollerence for the level of oppression they will put up with before alshing out is also as remarkable... and would highlight why these ar enot revenge attacks...

when will you get that these are acts of war purpertraed against what these particular peoples (the bombers or the bomber handellers not palesitinians) view as the enemy, the act is one which needs no revenge... merely the act itself....

That's your interpretation of my opening post, as you made very clear. Some other posters agree, some disagree. So why the insults?

because you agenda is appearent you are displaying the western and accepted portraial of isreal and it's actions and then questioning the manner in which the palestinians conduct themeselves with the sort of pioty which only comes from having no clue about what you are talking about...

Again, I don't disagree that this is going on, but again, don't agree that suicide bombing is a 'natural reaction'.

becuase you simply do not understand the subject clearly...

 

[moono]

Slaar;

It's clearly not that diplomatic if it's interpreted elsewhere as praise.

That's applied spin. It's not really interpreted as praise at all. Just another manufactured excuse to attack Hamas.
It seems to me that you're also guilty of applying spin by way of your 'condoning' interpretation. It isn't possible to interpret 'a natural reaction' as 'condoning' , you see, not without the desire to interpret it that way to fit an agenda.

 

[slaar]

Slaar;

That's applied spin. It's not really interpreted as praise at all. Just another manufactured excuse to attack Hamas.
It seems to me that you're also guilty of applying spin by way of your 'condoning' interpretation. It isn't possible to interpret 'a natural reaction' as 'condoning' , you see, not without the desire to interpret it that way to fit an agenda.

Of course it's spin. But I'd hope you're not claiming that your interpretation of Hamas's words as a neutral descrption is agenda free?

 

[moono]

My support for Hamas is obvious but I'm being objective in analyzing what their spokesman said. It's a matter of language, not politics, in this instance.

My interest is that I would prefer Hamas to shun killing Israeli civilians inside Israel. They haven't done so since August 2004 and they have become the government of Palestine as a result of that ceasefire. They have a lot to lose.
For your interest, if they were to bomb civilian Israel tomorrow I'd call it a natural reaction, considering the Gaza civilian corpses However, that would be a condemnation.

 

[derf]

Slaar;


Openly condoning ? Where did you see that ? All I've seen is a 'spokesmen' stating that the bombing was a 'natural response' to Palestinian suffering. That's not 'condoning'.

I'm no expert on this but I know that while one lot bomb the other it will just carry on.
I can see that Israel has much blame here and has caused much suffering but that is something that needs to be sorted out by the great powers that keep Israel going and not by killing even more people in the street.
That can never work to do anything but hurt the palestinian's cause.

I see the Palestinians and Islam as the victim here but killing people in this manner does no good to help them.
All these bombings do is to hurt the name of a wonderful religion and bring more death to palestinians.

Salaam

 

[TomUS]

I'm no expert on this but I know that while one lot bomb the other it will just carry on.
I can see that Israel has much blame here and has caused much suffering but that is something that needs to be sorted out by the great powers that keep Israel going and not by killing even more people in the street.
That can never work to do anything but hurt the palestinian's cause.

I see the Palestinians and Islam as the victim here but killing people in this manner does no good to help them.
All these bombings do is to hurt the name of a wonderful religion and bring more death to palestinians.

Salaam

Agreed. Stating that blowing up innocents is a natural response may play well locally & help Hamas in their fight with Fatah. But they also reinforce their image in the west as a bunch of fanatic terrorists. And like it or not, their image in the west counts. But they don't want peace any more than the Israeli settler types do, so the extremes continue to feed off each other.

 

[moono]

TomUS;

But they don't want peace any more than the Israeli settler types do, so the extremes continue to feed off each other.

Perhaps you'd like to explain your in-depth understanding of what Hamas want in the light of the fact that Hamas called a unilateral ceasefire in August of 2004 and they haven't bombed anybody since.

Between that ceasefire declaration and the Zionist slaughter of a Palestinian family on Gaza beach ( an atrocity for which the Zionists have offered, yet blocked, an investigation ) the Zionist killed over EIGHT HUNDRED, that's 800, EIGHT FUCKING HUNDRED Palestinians, many of them women, many of them children, almost all of them civilians.

Yet you wandering around, like a Zionist arse-licker, claiming that 'Hamas don't want peace' with nary a mention of the brutes who imprison them.

 

[nino_savatte]

Agreed. Stating that blowing up innocents is a natural response may play well locally & help Hamas in their fight with Fatah. But they also reinforce their image in the west as a bunch of fanatic terrorists. And like it or not, their image in the west counts. But they don't want peace any more than the Israeli settler types do, so the extremes continue to feed off each other.

This would be the west, whose idea of reporting events from that part of the world, tends to be biased. The west, such as it is, tends to support Israel. This isn't all about image and those who are concerned solely with images tend to view things superficially. No wonder things are as fucked up as theyare.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Agreed. Stating that blowing up innocents is a natural response may play well locally & help Hamas in their fight with Fatah. But they also reinforce their image in the west as a bunch of fanatic terrorists. And like it or not, their image in the west counts. But they don't want peace any more than the Israeli settler types do, so the extremes continue to feed off each other.

So HAMAS should police their language so as to give no hostages to fortune to the (usually either ambivalent or pro-Zionist) "western" media? They should go in for PR and image management?
Pathetic.

As for your certainty that they don't want peace, what specifically do you base this conclusion on?
I'm betting it's not on anything substantive, because if it were you'd have drawn the opposite conclusion.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Agreed.

but you don't ...

you state something entirely different.

Stating that blowing up innocents is a natural response may play well locally & help Hamas in their fight with Fatah. But they also reinforce their image in the west as a bunch of fanatic terrorists.

logical fallicy the first doesn't justify the second.

either way regardless of the show od muddled thinking here, the former statement is partially correct there is a lot to lose if hamas are seen to be in collusion with the west, isreal and in particular fatah.

as it's essence as has been explained many times the vote for hamas was a vote by palesitnians to return to the PLO and abandone the palestinian authority a toothless infectual body with no powers and limited reach which helped and aided the perpetuation of the oppression and occupation. whcih is all it was ever designed to do as it was never meant to be a permenant organsieation but a transistion group from the PLO to the sovigerin palestinian goverment of the new palestine state.... it was never intended to control palestine for this long it was set up to be a short term (6months) thing.

Hamas know that the palestinians had said in near enough one voice enough of this sham stealin gour moneies, aid monies, whole sale selling out to isreal and the west we cannot give anything more we are barren and we are dry we have nothing now and still the attacks come. This is why hamas were voted in and they know they cannot turn from this mandate. It has little to do with islam, as has been said many times hamas didn't stand on an islamic platform outside of their obvious muslim origin. Nor did they stand on a militaristic platform, indeed reducing their military wing even before the elections and over the course of the cease fire... they didn't come on a platform of health or education although hamas have equalled if not bettered schools and health care provided by other (western) funding their mandate was simple they were elceted to take back the power surrrendered in the so called consessions to peace which turned out to be a stalling tactic by the west to allow more extra judical killing and collective punsihment for simply not leaving their homes and land...

so yes it was in a way a play to the home crowd to say yup we're not gonna say ooo bad man blowing yourself up that is very bad... tut tut... but more over and more overtly it was a comment to the west which said we know why they did it, you know why they did it, we're not going to pretend we don't, even if you are going to pretend that it's an act in isolation with no cause, because we know you know... don't lie about it because we're not going to lie about it... and we have the power with the palestinian people not your prefferred option fatah ... you don't... remeber that...

there words in effect aren't condoning the bombing itself but being used to serve a pointent reminder that the west may call it whatever they choose but the palestinians and their democratically elected governement will not follow the lead of lying about it's causes...

And like it or not, their image in the west counts.

erm no it's not ... like it or not the west has to accept that the palestinian people are choosing to put the palestinian people first, they have said loud and clear you have no dominion over us any more... none... we choose to be free and we will be... with or with out you... judging by recent events this looks likely to be with out you... but still we will be free...

palestine tried the route of capitualtion for the years with arafat and fatah they wanted more than anything for the old man to make it work with out him giving up the integrity of the state and he tried so hard to do that but he failed... arafats death meant there was no longer a need to support fatah anymore no need to go along with continued appeasement, bowing and scraping etc...

so now palestine doesn't...

Isreal missed a trick when arafat died they could have ended htis once and for all by sitting down with bagouti and the others and saying lets sort this out... now quickly before it get's to polarised... instead sharron was busy infighting and attempting to push the right wing kamedia as beign a left wing rivialist hope... great spin unless you actualyl listened to what was being said...

still hamas have no need to concern themselves with their western image, which is just as well becuase they don't...

But they don't want peace any more than the Israeli settler types do, so the extremes continue to feed off each other.

hmmm this is just prejudical ingorenat rhetoric might as well say all americans are racist arab murdering scum who want to drink the blood of arab babies... if you follow the logic to it's natral conclusion... you got a burning cross meeting to be some where tom???

 

[TomUS]

As for your certainty that they don't want peace, what specifically do you base this conclusion on?
I'm betting it's not on anything substantive, because if it were you'd have drawn the opposite conclusion.

Have they changed their covenant?

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm

 

[TomUS]

Hamas know that the palestinians had said in near enough one voice enough of this sham stealin gour moneies, aid monies, whole sale selling out to isreal and the west we cannot give anything more we are barren and we are dry we have nothing now and still the attacks come. This is why hamas were voted in and they know they cannot turn from this mandate. It has little to do with islam....

But Hamas has everything to do with Islam.

Nationalism, from the point of view of the Islamic Resistance Movement, is part of the religious creed. Nothing in nationalism is more significant or deeper than in the case when an enemy should tread Moslem land. Resisting and quelling the enemy become the individual duty of every Moslem, male or female. A woman can go out to fight the enemy without her husband's permission, and so does the slave: without his master's permission.

Nothing of the sort is to be found in any other regime. This is an undisputed fact. If other nationalist movements are connected with materialistic, human or regional causes, nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement has all these elements as well as the more important elements that give it soul and life. It is connected to the source of spirit and the granter of life, hoisting in the sky of the homeland the heavenly banner that joins earth and heaven with a strong bond.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm

...like it or not the west has to accept that the palestinian people are choosing to put the palestinian people first, they have said loud and clear you have no dominion over us any more... none... we choose to be free and we will be... with or with out you... judging by recent events this looks likely to be with out you... but still we will be free...

I hope they will be free also - in their own state alongside Israel.

still hamas have no need to concern themselves with their western image, which is just as well becuase they don't...

Would be good if it wern't so, but they need very much to be concerned with their western image. It may feel good to flip the bird at the west & try to go it alone & it's an understandable emotional reaction to their situation, but they need to be media savvy if they are to be free from Israeli domination I think.

An analogy - In 2000 many in my country did what felt good. They voted for Nader. It felt so good it was almost like sex. But this pleasure gave birth to the Bush admin, the most brutal, corrupt & dishonest government my country has seen in my memory. It's difficult to do what's practical instead of what feels good, but not doing so can bring the worst posible results.

you got a burning cross meeting to be some where tom???

No. My Klan robes are still at the cleaners.

Yelling "racist" at those who disagree with you is like the extreme right does in my country, but they yell "commie", "terrorist sympathizer" etc. It's an attempt to shut down debate & should never be tolerated.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

what does lieing and spreading shit and claiming that some one who has never ever ever once 'blamed isreal' but has worked extensively with peace organsieations to help provide solution to the middle east which extends way beyond violence and suffering could be dismissed by you shit spreading ways by some republican troll who hides behind belife that the ayrabbs are evil to give creedence to his repulsively racist view point and beleives the only good arab is a dead arab... after nine wun wun...

yet again you have nothing to add to the debate but lies bullshit spreading defamation, and general lowering the tone...

we all know your game jonny it's a simple game of racism ... hell should we order you a whtie hood and a lyching noose...

I see Mr. Hyde hasn't gone home yet; can we expect Henry back anytime soon?

Forgive me if I am mistaken in my belief that you have ever blamed israel. The assumption comes from reading five years worth of your posts.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Forgive me if I am mistaken in my belief that you have ever blamed israel. The assumption comes from reading five years worth of your posts.

good good then you'll be coming up with the quotes forthwith or retracting the statement won't you you lying shit bag...

Jonny you have claimed and attempted a slur you have now to provide he evidence to back up your slur. as usal you will now eithe rslink off the thread and hope you have to provide nothing only that the mud sslung will sticks or you will flip flop implying that you have read things which you couldn't bear to repeat but you are sure that they were horrific and make furhter implications....

which way are you going to play yourdull game today wee jonny...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

But Hamas has everything to do with Islam.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm

but not witht he wishes of the electorate who put themthere of which hamas know.... it could have been the fish and chip party had they camapgine on a platform of returnign to the ideals of the PLO it wouldn't mean that palestinians wanted to set up a british seaside replica in each town or become fair ground attendants...

the longer people conflagrate the concept of hamas being just a party of islam the longer there will be discord as islam is being bashed at the present as the new commie...

I hope they will be free also - in their own state alongside Israel.

can't see that happening anytime soon or even if the two state solution is now what is wanted...

Would be good if it wern't so, but they need very much to be concerned with their western image. It may feel good to flip the bird at the west & try to go it alone & it's an understandable emotional reaction to their situation, but they need to be media savvy if they are to be free from Israeli domination I think.

that's the point it doens't matter what you think they aren't instrested and have effectively said the time for that has passed which it had... it doesn't matter if the palestinians government appears defferential or defiante the attacks don't stop and the west don't help. Western aid actually undermines the fabric of palesitnian society for a large part as it has teribly conditions attached to it on each and ever occasion and keeps palestine on it's knees ... each NGO should be wrokign towards it's own destruction in theroy sot hat their work can be taken up and beocme sustainable by palestinians but once profit becomes involved and the handouts from other agencies keep coming there's and entire western industry which was set upto help and now exploits the situation to meet their own profit margin lead aims...the palestinains aren't blind to this exploitation. this is why they don't need western help any longer they'd rather do with out it....

An analogy - In 2000 many in my country did what felt good. They voted for Nader. It felt so good it was almost like sex. But this pleasure gave birth to the Bush admin, the most brutal, corrupt & dishonest government my country has seen in my memory. It's difficult to do what's practical instead of what feels good, but not doing so can bring the worst posible results.

no you'll find that bush STOLE the election and votes for nader were totally irrelivent as the COURT decided your president based on LIES. the simple fact that you still don't get this is shameful...

No. My Klan robes are still at the cleaners.

Yelling "racist" at those who disagree with you is like the extreme right does in my country, but they yell "commie", "terrorist sympathizer" etc. It's an attempt to shut down debate & should never be tolerated.

hmmm nope still don't beleive this damascus conversion.

 

[TomUS]

no you'll find that bush STOLE the election and votes for nader were totally irrelivent as the COURT decided your president based on LIES. the simple fact that you still don't get this is shameful...

The votes for Nader were totally relevant, in fact devistating, since they made the election so close it gave Bush the opportunity to steal the election, which he probably did. Nader & his supporters have blood on their hands.

 

[TomUS]

Eliminating double post.

 

[TAE]

Nader & his supporters have blood on their hands.

Did they vote for the war?


Standing up for your beliefs (and rejecting both major parties) is not a crime.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

The votes for Nader were totally relevant, in fact devistating, since they made the election so close it gave Bush the opportunity to steal the election, which he probably did. Nader & his supporters have blood on their hands.

NO IT DIDN'T the fact that machiens were designed faulty meant that the election counts crossed witht he chad issue and of course the fact that gore had mroe fucking votes only a fuckign monutmental moron beleives nader lost the election for gore...

read

learn

shut the fuck up

http://prorev.com/green2000.htm

A STUDY by the Progressive Review of national and Florida polls during the 2000 election indicates that Ralph Nader's influence on the final results was minimal to non-existent.

The Review tested the widely held Democratic assumption that Nader caused Gore's loss by checking changes in poll results. Presumably, if Nader was actually responsible for Gore's troubles, his tallies would change inversely to those of Gore: if Gore did better, Nader would do worse and vice versa.

In fact, the only time any correlation could be found was when the changes were so small - 1 or 2 percentage points - that they were statistically insignificant. On the other hand when, in September of 2000, Gore's average poll result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only declined by 1 point. Similarly, in November, Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7 points but Nader's only went up 0.8 points.

In the close Florida race, there were similar results: statistically insignificant correlation when the Gore tally changed by only one or two points, but dramatic non-correlation when the change was bigger. For example, in nine successive surveys in which Nader pulled only 2 or 3 points, Gore's total varied by 7 points. As late as two weeks before the election, Gore was ahead by as much as 7-10 points.

Nationally, the Review's five poll moving average showed Gore steadily hacking away at Bush's 15 point lead until he was ahead by as much six points in September. But this lead rapidly disappeared until Bush was back in a narrow lead by early October. While Gore eventually won the popular vote, the election was so close that most polls projections were still within the standard margin of error.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/writing/comsen04.html

Lie #3: “If Nader hadn’t run, everyone who voted for him would have voted for Gore!”
According to exit polls, Nader’s support came from Democrats, Republicans, independents, and many others. Many would not have voted for Gore if Nader hadn’t run, and some voters might not have voted at all.

http://www.gp.org/organize/spoiled.html

you fucking moron...

 

[TomUS]

Did they vote for the war?


Standing up for your beliefs (and rejecting both major parties) is not a crime.

No it's not a crime. They were well meaning. But their actions resulted in Bush coming to power and all the horror that he has brought. It pisses me off because I tried & tried to convince people that there was a big difference between Bush & Gore but they wouldn't listen. If Al Gore were president, the world be much better off I think.

 

[TomUS]

NO IT DIDN'T the fact that machiens were designed faulty meant that the election counts crossed witht he chad issue and of course the fact that gore had mroe fucking votes only a fuckign monutmental moron beleives nader lost the election for gore...

shut the fuck up

you fucking moron...

From one of your articles:

But if he doesn’t, and rational analysis demonstrates Nader contributed to that defeat in some small way, that’s one of the risks of freedom and democracy. I'm willing to take that heat.

Some small way? Many "progressives" in the US hate the political process so much, they can't understand practical politics.

Must you constantantly insult anyone who disagrees with you? You seemm so hate filled. Perhaps you should strap on a suicide vest and kill some Jews.

 

[moono]

Perhaps you should strap on a suicide vest and kill some Jews.

I think that Americans are currently in season. They will keep leaving their homeland and asking for trouble.

 

[TomUS]

I think that Americans are currently in season. They will keep leaving their homeland and asking for trouble.

I can't disagree with that, especially if our dear leader attacks Iran.

 

[rachamim18]

Moono: "Killing Israelis is most certainly a natural response to Israelis killing "Palestinians'." When an Israeli wraps a belt filled with c4 and covered in thumbtacks, enters a cafeteria, and detonates, post that drivel. Otherwise you are completely lacking any common sense what so ever.

The killers came from Gaza. Gaza does not have a single Israeli resident. The Arabs of Gaza bemoaned the fictioous "occupation" for years until Israel upped and left. Now they are fighting for what? The "West Bank?" That is on scheduale to be ceded as well. What then?

It is time for a reality check. Nothing EVER excuses the blind murder of whoever happens to be standing closest to you simply because you THINK they might blong to a certain ethnic group or religion. It is insanity personafied.


So you admit to supporting HAMAS. I am pleased that you are finally honest. Article 7 calls for the genocide fo the entire Jewish People . The Charter, much to your chrgrin, has never been edited or ammended and stands on its own. I appreciate your owning up to your own beliefs but a racist is a racist is a racist.. Oh, as for your claim that HAMAS has not kiled a Jewish person inside Israel since 2004, guess you forgot those rankling Qassams, right?

If you are owning up to your beliefs, do not half step to it, be proud.


Garfield: Please do not tell us what the Israeli people think. I have invited you to visit and if you ever take me up you will then have an idea on what SOME Israelis think but we have a saying here: "2 Israelis equal 3 opinions." Take it to heart. In fact, currently, the right has never been in a stronger position.

 

[rachamim18]

In fact Moono, your claim of a unilateral ceasefire in 2004 was smashed by me when I provided merely 5 examples within a 4 week period. You admitted at the time that perhaps you had been wrong but now you are back to the bag of tricks
. Should I get the list again. Also, does that ceasefire mean anything againt their own people? There was a running gun battle between your HAMAS and Fatah today in Gaza City. Are you proud of that as well?