AC writes:
From a demonstration on Dec. 28th in Ni'lin, where "Israeli forces shot 20 year old Mohammed Khawaje in the forehead with live ammunition as he was demonstrating":
live in the village went out in solidarity with Ni'lin residents to
demonstrate against the massacre on Gaza. I was standing about 15
meters from the boys, when we heard the sound of live ammunition. I
heard screams and saw that 3 had been shot. One man was shot in the
leg, another in the head right above the eyebrow and a third was shot
in the back. Men carried all three, the one shot in the head was
bleeding profusely. The one that was shot in the back was unconscious.
We ran down to the street from the olive fields and the soldiers would
not stop shooting tear gas at us. It took the soldiers at least 5
minutes to let the ambulance through the checkpoint at the entrance to
the village."
on the coldblooded execution of a man in front of his family on January 5 by the
IDF, who next fired aimlessly at the family themselves, causing the
man's 4 year old son to die the next day from bullet wounds to the
chest.
Weiss adds: A friend came over to dinner tonight and spoke of the lasting damage done to Guatemalan society by the fact that radical students had been taken up in airplanes and dropped over the sea some years ago. How many students? I asked. It doesn't take many to do a ton of damage, my friend said. Look at Kent State, he said. Four students killed; that transformed American society, even though it was a mistake. I immediately thought of the fact that Israel killed 400 children in Gaza. And American Jewish leadership acts as if this is perfectly fine. Can Israel ever recover from this wanton damage to another people? Can American Jewish leadership?
Can the Palestinian people forgive Hamas for causing the events that led to the deaths of so many Arabs?
A majority of Palestinians have rightly embraced Hamas as a formidable resistance to inhumane Israeli occupation.
As has been pointed out numerous times in previous threads, Hamas did not break the cease-fire. Hamas was REACTING to Israel's breaking of the cease-fire, which has been par for the course throughout its brutal history.
The demonization of Hamas is becoming less effective. More and more people realize it's not the "terrorist" organization it's made out to be, rather it's a resistance organization which has done the most to help the impoverished and war-torn people of Palestine.
So, you'll have to find a new tactic…
It may have been pointed out, but it wasn't pointing out anything truthful.
Hamas demonized itself, it needed no help.
While Hamas has done the most to help the poor of teh disputed territories, it is similar to the soup kitchens run by the Nazis of Germany.
No need for a new tactic, your mere suggestion of such a need shows that it works quite well.
In fact, the truth should always work well. And it does.
@Danny boy
The people who think of Hamas as a terrorist organization are probably just fooled by the hundreds of innocent Israelis they have deliberately murdered in suicide bombings and the thousands they have injured while trying to murder them. Or possibly the constant barrage of missiles and mortars they fire, not at Israeli military targets, but at Israeli civilians. Including at schools that, unlike the Gazan schools, are not rocket launching sites.
Or just maybe, the fact that the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the extermination of all Jews worldwide has something to do with it.
Hamas are the Nazis without the power to carry out their genocidal plans.
BTW, Hamas broke the cease fire, not Israel. In November, Israel caught the terrorists digging a 250 meter long tunnel under the border between Gaza and Israel so they could kidnap more Israelis in the same way they kidnapped Gilad Shalit. The Israelis went in to destroy Hamas's kidnapping tunnel. The terrorists fought back and six of them died. Boo freakin hoo.
Now, maybe you don't see attemps to kidnap Israelis as breaking the ceasefire, but then you probably agree with Hamas that all Jews in the world should be killed too.
each day I come to this blog, there are more and more trolls on it, steadily turning it into their jewish nazi living room. What's your game Phil?
The name is Dan, not Danny boy, but then it's obvious you're only half serious about this anyway. Visit as many sites as you can, spread Zionist propaganda and lies, and away you go, right?
Israel broke the cease-fire. It's been widely reported in respectable journals. But then, if it doesn't come from a source within your beloved Israel, I guess it doesn't count, does it? After all, we're all out to get you, you poor, poor Jewish folk, just as it's always been for as long as anyone can remember. Ah, the victim mentality. How would you self-identify without it? Why don't you grow up and join us in the mature world.
As for Hamas, their initial charter did indeed call for the elimination of Israel (meaning the Zionist regime occupying Palestine). They never called, or call, for the "death of all Jews". Again, that's just Zionist propaganda intended to further the victim narrative.
As for the numbers of those killed and wounded since Israel's inception – you don't want to go there, do you? The Zionist regime has inflicted far more death and destruction over the years than any of the various resistance movements have. Violence by any measure is reprehensible, but it's important to note that Israel is the aggressor, and always has been. So, if you did wish to enter the admittedly cloudy terrain of attempting to moralize death, any rational person would see the deaths caused by the initial aggressors as more heinous than those caused by the resistance. And Israel is the aggressor, as is evident by the words of its own leaders throughout the years.
I have never been able to understand the 'if only the Palestinians had a Gandhi/Mandela' Zionist talking point.
Two reasons. One, both men are on record as severe critics of Israel's theft of Palestinian lands, and are therefore objectively pro-Palestinian. Two, if ZIonists accept that both men were outstanding advocates of a just cause, then they must implicitly agree that the Palestinian cause is just, mustn't they?
Zionists outsmart themselves with their amoral gymnastics.
Rowan, how old are you? You're only young once, but you can be immature forever, obviously.
Rowan, how old are you? You're only young once, but you can be immature forever, obviously.
I was just going to ask chris nerel the same question.
berel, sorry, typing in the dark.
in fact, the entire jewish project (and not just the 'zionist' part of it) is perpetually 'immature', if you find such terms meaningful at all. It starts from the proposition that 'my daddy is bigger than your daddy' and ends up with the proposition that 'if you don't give me your toys, I'm going to kill your mama.'
@Dan Kelly
I am so glad you challenged my on that.
First, Hamas's current charter calls for the destruction of Israel, not just their initial charter. One of the big sticking points in the negotiations is that they refuse to change their charter. Israel is a little reluctant to trust someone who says in writing "I plan to destroy you" and says in person "I refuse to change my plans to destroy you no matter what". But that may just be because the Israelis can read and hear. Such suspicious people, readers and listeners.
You are probably thinking of the Palestinian National Charter, which Arafat agreed (in 1993) to change to remove similar provisions, as did the Palestinian National Council (in 1996), but which the Palestinians never got around to actually amending.
As to the stated goal of Hamas to exterminate the Jews:
From article seven of the Hamas Charter:
"the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)."
So their charter says they are looking forward to implementing the promise of Allah that the Muslims will kill all the Jews. Gee, sure sounds like they plan to kill all the Jews.
Don't take my word for it, go look up their charter yourself. Or have you done so already, and are just hoping to fool people into thinking that it doesn't say what it says?
@Glenn Condell
Ghandi thought that the Allies should surrender to the Germans rather than fight. He said to the British in 1940:
"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions…If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."
Ghandi also said in 1946 (of the Holocaust) that "the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."
He thought that Jews should let the German's exterminate them. He was also against the Allies fighting the Germans in WWII. Ghandi was a one trick pony who got lucky. Non-violent resistance works splendidly against a foe who would rather leave you alone than kill you if those are the only choices he has.
It worked against England who wanted to control India for labor, but who were not willing to exterminate the Indians if they couldn't control India. It would work incredibly well against the Israelis, who don't even want to control the Palestinians except to the extent of getting them to stop trying to kill Israelis.
Is would not have worked at all against the Nazis, who were quite happy to kill everyone who didn't obey them, or was different. If it had been Nazi Germany in charge of India instead of Britain, Ghandi would have been the first up against the wall and the Germans would have depopulated the country until the people either knuckled under, fought back, or were all dead.
Same with Hamas. The Israelis tried pulling out of Gaza and what did it get them? The area they pulled out of got used to launch rockets ever deeper into Israel. If the Israelis tried non-violent resistance, Hamas would just exterminate them.
So perhaps you will forgive us if we don't take Ghandi's advice to the Jews too seriously.
As for Mandela he said "I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if Arab states do not recognize Israel, within secure borders".
Got any counter arguments?
@Rowan Berk
Thanks for outing yourself Berk. The cleaners called, your white hood and sheet are ready.
Their initial charter IS their current charter. It hasn't changed, as far as I know. As for the verse about killing Jews, it sounds like something from the Old Testament or something ("The prophet said…"). I mean, obviously it's not pleasant, but I don't take it literally, and neither does Hamas:
In a February 2006 interview with the Washington Post, Haniyeh dispelled many of the lies circulating in the western media about Hamas. He said that he wanted to see an end the "vicious cycle of violence" and vehemently denied the claim that "Hamas is committed to destroying Israel". He said, "We do not have any feelings of animosity toward Jews. We do not wish to throw them into the sea. All we seek is to be given our land back, not to harm anybody….We are not war seekers nor are we war initiators. We are not lovers of blood. We are oppressed people with rights."
Wa Post: "Would Hamas recognize Israel if it were to withdraw to the '67 borders?"
Haniyeh: "If Israel withdraws to the '67 borders, then we will establish peace in stages… We will establish a situation of stability and calm which will bring safety for our people.
Wa Post: "Do you recognize Israel's right to exist?"
Haniyeh: "The answer is to let Israel say it will recognize a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, release the prisoners and recognize the rights of the refugees to return to Israel. Hamas will have a position if this occurs."
Wa Post: "Will you recognize Israel?"
Haniyeh: "If Israel declares that it will give the Palestinian people a state and give them back all their rights, then we are ready to recognize them."
Haniyeh's answers are straightforward and rational. He asked for nothing that isn't already required under existing United Nations resolutions; a return to the 1967 borders, basic human rights, and settlement of the final status issues. An agreement could be facilitated tomorrow if Israel was willing to conform to international law. Instead, Israel has chosen to invade Gaza. For 60 years it has employed the same failed strategy.
Haniyeh again:
"Israel's unilateral movements of the past year will not lead to peace. These acts — the temporary withdrawal of forces from Gaza, the walling off of the West Bank — are not strides toward resolution but empty, symbolic acts that fail to address the underlying conflict. Israel's nearly complete control over the lives of Palestinians is never in doubt, as confirmed by the humanitarian and economic suffering of the Palestinians since the January elections."
"We want what Americans enjoy — democratic rights, economic sovereignty and justice. We thought our pride in conducting the fairest elections in the Arab world might resonate with the United States and its citizens. Instead, our new government was met from the very beginning by acts of explicit, declared sabotage by the White House. Now this aggression continues against 3.9 million civilians living in the world's largest prison camps. America's complacency in the face of these war crimes is, as usual, embedded in the coded rhetorical green light: "Israel has a right to defend itself."
Haniyeh's efforts for reconciliation are doomed. Israel will not bargain or compromise. The Israeli state is driven by an ideology which requires continuous expansion and subjugation. There's nothing Haniyeh can do to change that. The answer to the present crisis lies within Zionism itself, the philosophical underpinning of Jewish nationalism.
In his recent article, "Israel's Righteous Fury and its Victims in Gaza", Ilan Pappe, the chair in the Department of History at the University of Exeter, explains Zionism in terms of its effect on Israeli policy vis a vis the invasion of Gaza:
"There are no boundaries to the hypocrisy that a righteous fury produces. The discourse of the generals and the politicians is moving erratically between self-compliments of the humanity the army displays in its "surgical" operations on the one hand, and the need to destroy Gaza for once and for all, in a humane way of course, on the other.
This righteous fury is a constant phenomenon in the Israeli, and before that Zionist, dispossession of Palestine. Every act whether it was ethnic cleansing, occupation, massacre or destruction was always portrayed as morally just and as a pure act of self-defense reluctantly perpetrated by Israel in its war against the worst kind of human beings. In his excellent volume The Returns of Zionism: Myths, Politics and Scholarship in Israel, Gabi Piterberg explores the ideological origins and historical progression of this righteous fury. Today in Israel, from Left to Right, from Likud to Kadima, from the academia to the media, one can hear this righteous fury of a state that is more busy than any other state in the world in destroying and dispossessing an indigenous population.
It is crucial to explore the ideological origins of this attitude and derive the necessary political conclusions form its prevalence. This righteous fury shields the society and politicians in Israel from any external rebuke or criticism. But far worse, it is translated always into destructive policies against the Palestinians. With no internal mechanism of criticism and no external pressure, every Palestinian becomes a potential target of this fury. Given the firepower of the Jewish state it can inevitably only end in more massive killings, massacres and ethnic cleansing.
The self-righteousness is a powerful act of self-denial and justification. It explains why the Israeli Jewish society would not be moved by words of wisdom, logical persuasion or diplomatic dialogue. And if one does not want to endorse violence as the means of opposing it, there is only one way forward: challenging head-on this righteousness as an evil ideology meant to cover human atrocities. Another name for this ideology is Zionism and an international rebuke for Zionism, not just for particular Israeli policies, is the only way of countering this self-righteousness." ("Israel's Righteous Fury and its Victims in Gaza", Ilan Pappe)
It wouldn't make a bit of difference if Hamas surrendered tomorrow and handed-over all its weapons to Israel, because the problem isn't Hamas; it's Zionism, the deeply-flawed ideology which leads to bombing children in their homes while clinging to victim-hood. Ideas have consequences. Gaza proves it.
Separating the Truth from the Hype
Here's another good article on the Hamas charter:
Of "Racist" Ideologies and Nuclear Weapons
The Tempest Over the Hamas Charter
@Dan
Hamas terrorists have often shown themselves to be willing to tell pretty lies in English.
Notice that he never said that Hamas would stop trying to destroy Israel. Only that if Israel committed suicide by "recogniz[ing] the rights of the refugees to return to Israel" that Hamas would acknowledge the existence of Israel. Right before they destroyed it.
There are few actual refugees (it has been 60 years since Israel was founded, most have died of old age), but the descendants of actual refugees who call themselves "refugees" are enough to put Jews in the minority in Israel if allowed to "return" to Israel. At which point, they would simply vote in a pro-Holocaust government and exterminate the Jews in Israel.
He said that they want a state. The state that they want includes all of Israel.
As for the part of their official charter about exterminating the Jews. Part of it is a quotation from a Muslim Hadith. The rest is not a quotation, but a modern endorsement that Hamas is eager to carry out the killing described in the Hadith. Nice little mix of old and new. An old statement that Muslims should kill all the Jews and a modern endorsement of that policy.
Remember, we are talking about their charter, which they refuse to change, not some ancient document with some embarrassing things in it like the Bible ot the Koran.
A position that is in the Koran cannot be automatically attributed to modern Muslims any more than a position that is in the Bible can be automatically attributed to modern Christians (even those who claim to take the Bible literally). But when a modern Christian group or a modern Muslim group picks out a particular section and says "we are going to do that" then it is fair to take them at their word.
You remind me of the people before WWII who thought Hitler didn't really mean what he wrote in Mein Kampf.
Yes they mean it literally. I will give them this, as big a bunch of liars as Hamas is about most things, they are not denying that their plan is to use any ceasefire to rearm and start trying to destroy Israel again.
@ Dan Kelly
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with that article you linked to. There is nothing in there that refutes the fact that the Hamas Charter calls for the extermination of the Jews. It just says that they aren't up to the job if they even mean it.
It does call their charter vile and racist. That part was true.
That they aren't up to the job is not for lack of trying. Oh, and saying if they mean it doesn't mean that they don't mean it. It just means that the author wants to cast doubt on whether they mean it without actually coming up with anything to refute it.
Thom
I said: 'I have never been able to understand the 'if only the Palestinians had a Gandhi/Mandela' Zionist talking point.' – and gave two reasons or my confusion. How does anything you say address what I said? You don't get within a bull's roar of it, preferring, as per usual with barrow-pushing zealots, to jump onto your high horse and ride into High Dudgeon.
I was wondering about the advisedness of Zionists using Gandhi and Mandela to moan about not having a partner for peace negotiations – how did we end up in WW2? Maybe it’s because deep down you agree the use of this trope by Zionists is akin to their taking aim at their shoes with a blunderbuss. Like everything else they do or say. Better to change the subject quicksmart, eh?
Of course Gandhi would have said those things – he was a pacifist. Did anything I said indicate I agreed with him about the war or the Holocaust? No, your fevered imagination provided that. It's irrelevant in any case; it's not me that keeps bringing Gandhi and Mandela into it, it's you guys.
The Zionists tried for 20 years to Gandhi to say something, anything, favourable about Zionism. He refused, and must be doing about 180rpm right now, given the way Zionists are trying to appropriate his good name as cover for their hated one. (Well, he would be, if he hadn't been cremated)
Gandhi of course also said: 'Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs…' and 'in my opinion, they [the Jews] have erred grievously in seeking to impose themselves on Palestine with the aid of America and Britain and now with the aid of naked terrorism… Why should they depend on American money or British arms for forcing themselves on an unwelcome land? Why should they resort to terrorism to make good their forcible landing in Palestine?"
What's the matter Thom, didn't read that far?
‘Ghandi was a one trick pony who got lucky.’
Dear me. It’s Thom vs Gandhi. Don’t like your odds Thom. Who’s next – Jesus?
‘As for Mandela he said "I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if Arab states do not recognize Israel, within secure borders".’
Er, yes. So what. Garden variety common sense. He also said: ‘Every word about peace remains empty so long as Israel persists in occupying Arab lands’. Your point must be… well, very subtle, too subtle for me. Perhaps you can explain.
I end as I began, genuinely confused about why Zionists try to shoehorn Gandhi into their hideous straitjacket . Well, why they wish they could is clear enough, but why do they persist when the whole cockamamie idea is so mad?
To repeat: ‘if Zionists accept that both men were outstanding advocates of a just cause, then they must implicitly agree that the Palestinian cause is just, mustn't they?’
Perhaps you can clear that up for me Thom.
Got any answers?
There is nothing in there that refutes the fact that the Hamas Charter calls for the extermination of the Jews.
This is just total hypocrisy. Look at the genocidal apocalypses in your own bible. They're equally, in both cases, talking about the end of the world, when among other things all false religions and their unrepentant votaries will be destroyed. No major religion differs from any other in this respect. But why waste time on you? Your comments are just mechanical regurgitations of the usual hasbara talking points.
"And American Jewish leadership acts as if this is perfectly fine."
I've not heard anyone claim that the results of civilians getting harmed so, is "perfectly fine".
Its an inference you derive only.
Hamas' declarations since the 2006 legislative elections
Although Hamas omitted its call for the destruction of Israel from its election manifesto, calling instead for "the establishment of an independent state whose capital is Jerusalem," several Hamas candidates insisted that the charter remains in force.[21][22]
On February 8, Hamas head Khaled Mashal speaking in Cairo had clarified that "Anyone who thinks Hamas will change is wrong".[23]
However, on February 13, 2006, in an interview in Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta, the same Khaled Mashal declared that Hamas would stop armed struggle against Israel if it recognized the 1967 borders, withdrew itself from all Palestinian occupied territories (including the West Bank and East Jerusalem) and recognized Palestinian rights that would include the "right of return". This was the first time that Hamas even talked about an eventual stop to armed struggle. But Mashal continued to refuse to acknowledge the Road map for peace, adopted by the Quartet in June 2003, "since nobody respects it". The Road map projected the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in 2005.[24] A poll taken in 2006, published in Israel's The Jerusalem Post, showed that 75% of Hamas voters, based on the responses of "863 Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and West Bank," opposed the destruction of Israel. [25]
In April 2006, Henry Siegman, former director of the American Jewish Committee, stated that according to "a prominent senior member of Hamas's Political Committee" Hamas is prepared to explicitly recognize the state of Israel. "Members of Hamas's political directorate do not preclude significant changes over time in their policies toward Israel and in their founding charter, including recognition of Israel, and even mutual minor border adjustments. Such changes depend on Israel's recognition of Palestinian rights. Hamas will settle for nothing less than full reciprocity." These sentiments "are in striking contrast to the odiousness of Hamas's founding charter," said Siegman.[26]
In May 2006, Hamas leaders threatened a new Intifada, as well as to decapitate anyone who tried to bring down their cabinet.[27]
We can endlessly go on with this exchange of course. The machiavellian mindset of always mistrusts the other side, based on its own maneuvers at perception control. Even Hamas depends on the wishes of its supporters. The JP isn't exactly pro-Palestine, is it?
Another complex matter are the tunnels which are reduced to two functions: abduct soldiers and smuggling weapons. The reality is much more complex than that.
What do you know about the Israeli control of the area? What literature are you relying on, Thom and chris berel?
I've not heard anyone claim that the results of civilians getting harmed so, is "perfectly fine".
That is because crocodile tears are required.
I see Israel's new program to infest the USA's few objective blogs
discussing the I-P situation with Israeli super-patriots has already taken hasbara root. As all the regulars here know, here's the beginning list
of our new friends, merely on this article thread:
chris berel
Thom
You wish to discuss your ideas solely with the choir? Sounds like masterbation.
Berel, use your spelling corrector. Having to put up with your 'reasoning' is bad enough.
I'm sure you can understand the concepts well enough to excuse the spelling mistakes. But if you can't, that is more revealing, is it not?
But why waste time on you? Your comments are just mechanical regurgitations of the usual hasbara talking points.
Exactly. It's like conversing with a computer program that is written to continually obfuscate and not allow the truth of the matter to see the light of day.
User input: Disputing Zionist propaganda and setting the facts straight.
Computer output: Bring up Hitler! Terrorists! Can't trust the Arabs!
@ Dan Kelly
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with that article you linked to. There is nothing in there that refutes the fact that the Hamas Charter calls for the extermination of the Jews. It just says that they aren't up to the job if they even mean it.
It does call their charter vile and racist. That part was true.
That they aren't up to the job is not for lack of trying. Oh, and saying if they mean it doesn't mean that they don't mean it. It just means that the author wants to cast doubt on whether they mean it without actually coming up with anything to refute it.
Perhaps they're waiting for the Israelis to renounce such Talmudic sentiments as the killing of gentiles is a holy sacrifice, the value of Jewish lives is far greater than that of gentiles, etc. Arabs, of course, are even worse off than us poor goy, but I'm sure you already know that.
Waiting for Israelis to renounce texts that the majority do not read, do not believe in, while the minority, while reading, don't follow such nonsense?
That's what Hamas is waiting for?
Nice joke. I thought for a minute that you were actually serious.
Actually, that bit about killing gentiles isn't from the Talmud, it is from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. An anti-Semitic propaganda piece by the Czar's secret police. Well, actually, they plagerized most of it from a book about the government of Napoleon.
Lying about what is in the Talmud is a common tactic of anti-Semites.
As for you Danny boy, if you want to dispute me, you are welcome to look it up. Here is an extensive online translation:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm#t09
If you want absolutely the entire Talmud you can pick up a nice hardback copy (73 volumes) here:
http://www.amazon.com/Talmud-Schottenstein-English-COMPLETE-SCHOTTENSTEIN/dp/1578190673/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233120483&sr=1-11
You thought I was kidding about Jews and education huh?
@Glenn Condell
Ok. Sorry, I thought I was clear. Let me dumb it down for you.
Your original post said "Two reasons. One, both men are on record as severe critics of Israel's theft of Palestinian lands, and are therefore objectively pro-Palestinian. Two, if ZIonists accept that both men were outstanding advocates of a just cause, then they must implicitly agree that the Palestinian cause is just, mustn't they?"
So, your premise was "Ghandi is good. Therefore everything he said was right. Ghandi said the Jews should let the Arabs have the land, and Ghandi is always right, therefore the Jews should let the Arabs have the land".
Or "Ghandi supported one just cause therefore every cause he happened to say anything about was just".
Though your premise is absurd on its face, to disprove it, I went the extra mile and provided examples of some incredibly stupid things Ghandi said.
Maybe you think the Jews should have let the Nazis kill them (like Ghandi said they should), but do you think the British and the other Allies should have let the Nazis kill the British and the other allies as well? Ghandi said they should. Therefore not everything Ghandi said was right. Therefore, your premise is false.
Happy now?
Oh, as to Mandela. You are probably basing your idea of his position on a hoax letter that Arjan El Fassed of the Electronic Intifada has confessed to writing. AEF says he meant it as satire and does not accept any responsibility for people thinking it was real. So again we get a Palestinian propagandist making excuses about why it is OK for Palestinians to just make shit up.
So for Mandela, I provided an actual quote that shows that he thinks the Arabs should recognize Israel.
'So, your premise was "Ghandi is good. Therefore everything he said was right. '
We're not talking about MY premise you goose. My post did not contain one. I am asking Zionists like you a simple question about what their premise could possibly be for trying to drag two towering moral figures who hated Zionism into their camp. It is quite simply crazy.
'Your premise' and 'maybe you think' and 'basing your idea' – really, stop fart-arsing around trying to turn this into a subject-changing mind-reading exercise. Answer the question.
‘if Zionists accept that both men were outstanding advocates of a just cause, then they must implicitly agree that the Palestinian cause is just, mustn't they?’
Still waiting Thom. You can drive around the neighbourhood again if you really can't bear to park, but I'm not tagging along this time.
Wow. OK. You want it THAT dumbed down.
Here goes. No, just because Ghandi and Mandela were advocates of _a_ just cause does not meant that the Palestinian cause is just.
The reason that the answer is "no" is because someone (i.e., Ghandi and Mandela) can advocate for one just cause without every cause they advocate for being a just cause.
Oh, and stop ignoring the fact that the Mandela position you are citing was a hoax letter that wasn't written by Mandela.
Are you really this dense or are you just pretending to be this dense to waste my time?
'just because Ghandi and Mandela were advocates of _a_ just cause does not meant that the Palestinian cause is just… Ghandi and Mandela) can advocate for one just cause without every cause they advocate for being a just cause.'
Then why have Zionists tried to appropriate their good name for themselves, and, when that failed, tried instead to belittle Palestinians by inferring that they're incapable of producing such a person ( a racist idea, by the way)?
Why, if these moral exemplar's primary causes were just, and the Palestinians' isn't, do Zionists persist with this bullshit plea for the P's to have a Gandhi/Mandela? What's in it for them?
And as I keep asking you, given both men's clear rejection of Zionism (and your view that they're wrong about that) do the Zionists persist in trying to use their name as a way to belittle Palestinians?
Answers, not evasions. Come on, you can do it.
Also, I knew about the hoax letter in real time. My Mandela quote was genuine.
Keep twisting your morality into pretzel shapes to accommodate your ethno-centrism Thom, see if I care.
Care to comment about the clear evidence of the execution of children by your brave mates in the IDF Thom? Or the obvious Israeli policy to prevent food, medicines, water, rebuilding materials etc into Gaza? Have you seen the footage of the brave Palestinian woman who tried to stop two IDF soldiers from murdering unarmed protestors? Do you agree with the official approval for the Kirbyat settlers' memorial shrine for Baruch Goldstein, who murdered 29 innocent civilians at prayer? OK by you, while the Palestinian women celebrating after 911 isn't – would that be right?
I would look forward to more racist pretzel logic if I could stomach it, but I can't. You make me sick.
Over and out.