News


VIDEO: Stanford students protest Israeli military actions

Pro-Israel supporters hold counter-protest

About 100 Stanford students gathered Friday afternoon on campus to protest Israeli military actions in the Gaza Strip, calling for a cease fire to end the conflict.

The students have also started a petition drive to attempt to persuade the Stanford Board of Trustees to disinvest in companies that "violate international and humanitarian law" in the Gaza conflict, Fadi Quran, co-president of Students Confronting Israeli Apartheid, told the crowd.

Meanwhile, perhaps 75 pro-Israel supporters gathered in a counter-demonstration with the two sides, separated by a double-bike lane running through White Plaza, facing each other and sometimes chanting at each other.

One side spelled out "Cease Fire Now" in single-letter placards held by a dozen or so students, while others held up "Let Gaza Live" and "End the Massacre in Gaza Now" signs.

The other side had two large Israeli flags, many smaller ones, and a large American flag, and included people from the surrounding community, in addition to some students.

The protests were peaceful and limited to chanting. A candlelight prayer vigil on Thursday night included some pro-Israeli supporters who came to counter-demonstrate but then joined in the prayer vigil, according to Nabill Idrisi, co-president of Students Confronting Israeli Apartheid.

"The U.S. needs to stop providing weapons to Israel," Quron said. "War crimes have been committed by Hamas and by Israel." He argued that Hamas has become more popular among Palestinians after Israel attacked the Palestinian political and military group two years ago. Hamas, he acknowledged, "does bad things."

Hamas has fired more than 3,000 rockets into Israeli communities over the last year, leading to the recent Israeli military invasion, Israel supporters say.

"They do not recognize Israel's right to exist, as part of their charter," Bryan Myers, a Stanford professor emeritus of medicine, said of Hamas.

People living in Israeli communities "have been terrorized by the rocket attacks," Carl Grumet, also a professor emeritus of medicine, said. The rocket attacks, he added, "have no military value."

"I support the overall concept to protect both sides," student Josh Weinstein said. "The onslaught of rockets is intolerable."

Arye Schreiber, a Stanford MBA student, is also an Israeli who once served in Gaza as a member of the Israeli Defense Force and supports the decision of Israel to take action in Gaza.

"Every Israeli dreams of a peaceful Gaza and a peaceful neighbor," he said.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by AgainstPAGrain
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 10, 2009 at 7:20 am

I've never been subject to random missile fire but imagine I would eventually react much as the Israelis have against Hamas and the Palestinians who knowingly harbor them.

Whether or not the Gaza citizenry are capable of controlling Hamas is beside the point - Israel has a right to defend itself and has gone out of its way - as usual- to minimize loss of civilian life as it roots out Hamas.


Like this comment
Posted by Greg K
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 10, 2009 at 8:21 am

I'm sure that Israel could minimize the killing of civilians if they really wanted to, but that is not what they are doing. They are firing hundreds of times more rockets than the militants ever fired into Israel, and as expected, killing hundreds of times more civilians.

Just yesterday, CNN reported that Israeli troops herded 100 civilians into a house, then they blew up the house, killing most of those 100 people and injuring the rest. That is not "minimizing loss of civilian life".


Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jan 10, 2009 at 8:25 am

Greg--if you are going to state what CNN supposedly said, then at least get the facts right:

Web Link

This whole incident is still open to interpretation or do you believe everything Hamas tells you?


Like this comment
Posted by I'm just saying ...
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 10, 2009 at 8:34 am

"Israel has a right to defend itself" That's beside the point.

"has gone out of its way - as usual- to minimize loss of civilian life" Well, that's false, as proven by the hundreds of corpses of children, women, and old men killed by Israelis.


Like this comment
Posted by Greg K
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 10, 2009 at 9:00 am

Since Israel refuses to let independent journalists report on the war, we have no choice but to trust the reports from the residents. However, even the Israelis do not dispute that they have killed hundreds of women and children in Gaza.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 10, 2009 at 9:12 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

As someone who was under orders to fire at civilians if they approached our lines, I empathize with those spotting counter battery fire for Israel. When unmanly cowards make war, they do so from behind their babies and women. If you withhold fire because of the hostages then you assure your own defeat and the cowardly enemy success and a continuation of hostage taking. The solution, as I have said, is universal condemnation of Hamas nd war crimes rials for Hamas leaders.
As for the Stanfoo Stupdents, I am confident that Israel would sign and abide by any cease fire that the stupdents were willing to insure with their own bodies. A pity the stupdents lack the education to know the fate of every previous cease fire in that area.


Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jan 10, 2009 at 9:14 am

When you have a terrorist organization, like Hamas, that uses human shields, fires rockets from schools, mosques and hospitals in the hope that Israel will retaliate and kill civilians-you will have civilian casualties. Hamas has little regard for their own people that they cynically use them for their terrorist purposes. Too bad nobody is protesting that aspect of the issue--it is much easier to demonize Israel.
This whole thing can stop tomorrow if Hamas agrees to stop firing rockets at Israel and recognize Israel's right to exist.
I am wondering how many people here in PA would put up with a gang of kids throwing stones at their home on a daily basis and what actions they would expect the police and local authorities to do to stop it.

Anyway Greg, you need to get your facts straight, if you are going to comment on unsubstantiated stories at least get the numbers right ( supposedly 30 killed is not "killing most of those 100 people " as you state). It is statements like yours that inflame the masses with false information.


Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 10, 2009 at 9:20 am



The Israeli is being committed with the weapons and money we give to Israel.

The new Obama team will put a stop to this supply.

Israel has 100s of nuclear weapons, it is in no danger.

We should stay out of what is a tribal fight, Israel no longer serves our interests in the area as it may have done during the cold war.

It is time to cut the cord, we should spend the money that Israel extorts from us on initiatives that further our interests at home and abroad.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 10, 2009 at 9:53 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by I'm just saying ...
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 10, 2009 at 10:55 am

War crimes trials? Sure. But then you'd have to put the Israelis on trial, too.

No one disputes that Hamas, the cowards, are using the Palestinians as human shields. The issue for Israel is how to respond. Their response demonstrates a complete disregard for (non-Israeli) life. The Israelis bear the moral burden for the murder of all those civilians--they had a choice.

Look at it another way. What if Hamas were using Jews as human shields? Would the Israeli military just fire blindly into the crowd, as they are doing into the civilian crowd in Gaza? Not on your life.

Yeah, sure, let's have some war crimes trials.



Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jan 10, 2009 at 11:01 am

Really, I'm just saying, if Israel had a complete disregard for Palestinian life they would have carpet bombed Gaza.
How do you suggest that Israel should have responded? It seems that no one in the world was protesting Hamas' actions and telling them to cease and desist. Should Israel just have sat still and allowed Hamas to continue to shell it?
Let's not forget that Israel pulled out of Gaza anumber of years ago--left infrastructure for jobs and the economy. That infrastructure was destroyed and the shelling of Israel began. Hamas continues to demand Israel's complete destruction.
It is amazing that no one seems to understand that this is what Hamas wants--the death of it's citizens so that they can claim that Israel is out destroy them. How cynical and how tragic. Too bad no one seems to decry that matter.
So, let's have some suggestions from you, I'm just sayin, on how to proceed.


Like this comment
Posted by lou
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 10, 2009 at 11:21 am

Do your own business, please. We cannot involve those countries' business any more. Bush spent our money too much. We paid the lesson already. If you want all American getting the worse, you go Gaza to protest. Don't shout here !!


Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 10, 2009 at 12:28 pm

"Israel has 100s of nuclear weapons, it is in no danger"

Sharon,

Nuclear weapons held by the Israelis are for strategic, not tactical purposes. Israel is not going to drop nukes in Gaza City. Golda Meir threatened the use of nukes (to blow up the Aswan dam ) in the 1973 war. This threat pushed Nixon to step it up and support Israel...in other words, the strategic threat worked as designed.

"The new Obama team will put a stop to this supply."

You may be right about this (weapons to Israel). It all depends on what Obama's handlers decide to do. BHO is incapable of actually making a hard decision, where he will end up being hated by one side of the argument.



Like this comment
Posted by Greg
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 10, 2009 at 1:53 pm

The easiest way to minimize civilian deaths is to stop using WMDs (high powered rockets, bombs, and shelling) in civilian areas. The Israeli weapons are hundreds of times more powerful than those homemade rockets fired by militants and are killing hundreds of times more civilians. WMDs may be effective weapons against organized armies, but they are just terrorism when used against civilians.


Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jan 10, 2009 at 3:37 pm

So Greg do you have any suggestions what Israel should do then with regard to Hamas? Allow Hamas to continue shelling Israel because they are using "homemade rockets"? By the way Hamas is getting weapons from Iran and these are not "homemade rockets"--these are weapons with a good range that are fired indiscriminately by Hamas at Israel.
Have you spoken with Hamas about not using human shields and not firing rockets from hoispitals, mosques and schools? let me know what they tell you.
By the way, when Israel has prisoner exchanges they have to give up about 100 or so living terrorists/prisoners for 1 living and or dead person--so i would say that Israelis doing pretty good as far as keeping the ratio correct


Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 10, 2009 at 3:47 pm

Greg,

If fighters hide among civilians, as a tactical or strategic play, it is they, not their pursuers who have the moral burden. Hamas has no concern for such moral quibbles...it understands that, by inviting civilian casualties, the outside world will dump on Israel. It is an effective policy by Hamas...witness all those on this forum, including yourself, who are whining about Gaza civilian casualties.


Like this comment
Posted by TanTan
a resident of Stanford
on Jan 10, 2009 at 4:30 pm

I ask you all, what would you expect the US to do if Al Qaeda fired dozens of missiles DAILY at your schools, hospitals, and children from a neighboring country? I am sure you would agree that the US has not only the right, but the responsibility to protect its citizens. Israel has taken THOUSANDS of missiles throughout 3 years and after numerous tries to solve the problem diplomatically, including a cease fire during which over 200 missiles were fired into Israel, only now has it started its operations in Gaza.

To those of you who accuse Israel of not minimizing civilian casualties, may G-D free you from your ignorance. As you probably do not know, Israel alerts civilians well in time before they attack and warn them to leave the area, even though this eliminates the surprise factor and endangers Israeli soldiers. Israelis value life, unlike Hamas militants who hide behind their children and shoot from schools and mosques. Be sure that if this was any other country involved in the operations, civilian casualties would be ten times greater than they are now.


Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 10, 2009 at 6:10 pm

Mexico ships tons of hard drugs into the US every year, the kill thousands, destroy the lives of many more.

By the logic of Israel we would be justified in carpet bombing Mexican cities killing 100s of thousands and maiming a million.

That would be the size of a proportional attack on Mexico like that by Israel upon the democratically elect Hamas and innocent children who have nowhere to flee to,

It is the Warsaw ghetto repeated, we should condemn such genocide and cease our aid to Israel in weapons and money.

We do not have a dog in this fight, it is tribal and ethnic slaughter


Like this comment
Posted by camille
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 10, 2009 at 6:14 pm

Web Link
Web Link

It is very easy for Palo Altans, living in relative safety, to condemn the actions of Israel. But what would you do -- what would you expect our government to do -- if we were subject to daily attack? Remember that we live in a country that is currently waging war in the middle east because of a terrorist attack that occurred on U.S. soil in 2001. Do we have ANY right to disparage Israel for wanting to protect its citizens?


Like this comment
Posted by ...
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 10, 2009 at 6:44 pm

I am wondering how many people here in PA would put up with a gang of kids throwing stones at their home on a daily basis and what actions they would expect the police and local authorities to do to stop it.

...True, I'd get annoyed, warn them multiple times to stop, and complain to their parents. I'd even call the police. But I wouldn't expect the SWAT team to come and hurl grenades at them and expect my neighbors not to get angry at me.


Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 10, 2009 at 10:29 pm

Israel is enacting revenge on innocent people who have no means of escape from their terror in Gaza.

Obama will stop all military and financial aid to Israel untill it comes to heel and acts like a civilized country, not like Atilla.
It is clear that Israel is committing this slaughter for internal political reasons.


Like this comment
Posted by Abolish Israel NOW
a resident of Stanford
on Jan 10, 2009 at 10:58 pm


Condi Rice says "it's hard" for Israel to spare civilians in Gaza

Web Link

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday "it's hard" for Israeli troops to shield civilians in Gaza because the area is so densely populated and Hamas uses people as human shields.


Like this comment
Posted by I'm just saying ...
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 10, 2009 at 11:04 pm

Marv,

"if Israel had a complete disregard for Palestinian life they would have carpet bombed Gaza." I didn't say they had a complete disregard, I just pointed out that they place a very low value on Palestinian human life. In any case, your conclusion doesn't follow. Israel has good diplomatic and public relations reasons not to carpet bomb.

"How do you suggest that Israel should have responded?" The fact that you ask this question shows you are unable to defend Israel's actions on moral grounds. Your thought runs: They had no option, so murder is OK.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Tantan,

"I am sure you would agree that the US has not only the right, but the responsibility to protect its citizens." Yes, protect but not to murder people randomly and in great numbers to terrorize the actual enemy fighters. No one would object if Israel used proportional force, as they are entitled to do under international law.


Like this comment
Posted by YouShouldKnow
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jan 11, 2009 at 4:13 am

Stats are garbage in, garbage out. They are skewed to whomever is making their point. Israel is willing to accept the existence of Palestine and is willing to attempt a peaceful side by side living arrangement. Hamas is unwilling and is consistent in their attacks on Israel. Israel defends itself. If it uses more firepower maybe it's because there is still a hope that someone will finally get it and all this endless warring will stop. I swear you can pick up a paper from the early seventies and basically read the same headlines you do now. These people will never stop fighting!


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 11, 2009 at 5:36 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

The Gaza people have the option of refusing to be used as human shields and to rise up against rulers who demand that they be so used. When they love their children more than they hate Jews...


Like this comment
Posted by Abolish Israel NOW
a resident of Stanford
on Jan 11, 2009 at 7:03 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jan 11, 2009 at 8:23 am

.....-But you would expect something to be done about it. well, nothing had been done to try to get Hamas to stop shelling Israel.

I'm Just Saying--I was asking you for other options on how Israel should have proceeded. It is clear that you do not have any so you attack my defence of Israel. Please respond as to what Israel should have done[portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
Also please describe what you consider "proportional force".


Like this comment
Posted by Tom
a resident of Woodside
on Jan 11, 2009 at 9:42 am

Let these two pre-historic preschool tribes sort out their problems with sharing things in their sandbox by themselves. The #1 problem on the table right now is the economy. Let's concentrate on that.

I'm so sick of stupid people and their religious blinders. Armagedon is a self fullfiling prophecy.


Like this comment
Posted by YouShouldKnow
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jan 11, 2009 at 12:39 pm

More people have been killed in the name of Religion than for all other causes combined!

I laugh because religion is supposed to be a spiritual belief system, certain codes of behavior are proscribed and people should follow them in their daily lives. Yeah, 'til they exit the door of their place of Worship!

Most people believe politics and religion are supposed to be separate. At least here. Guess someone forgot to tell the rest of the world about that. Like they'd care.

No matter how you slice it, in the Middle East it's all about religion and hatred of others whom are different. I do believe if people would leave Israel be, Israel would leave them be. So simple, yet will never happen.


Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 11, 2009 at 12:51 pm

"More people have been killed in the name of Religion than for all other causes combined!"

YouShouldKnow,

WRONG! More people have been killed by socialism, in the 20th Century alone, than all of the recorded religious wars in human history.


Like this comment
Posted by I'm just saying ...
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 11, 2009 at 3:43 pm

Marv,

You keep trying the same old rhetorical trick: To justify Israel's murder spree, you say that they had no choice. The onus is not on me to resolve Israel's dilemma, much of which is self-inflicted; the onus is on you to justify your claim that there is nothing immoral with the way Israel is murdering civilians.

Please do explain.


Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jan 11, 2009 at 4:59 pm

I'm just saying--that is correct Israel had no choice (youa re free to call it a murder spree or whatever makes you feel better)--Hamas has been shelling Israel for 7 years now with the intent of killing civilians. Israel has let this go on for far too long.
the time to put a stop to this is now. unfortunatley for the Palestinians, Hamas are cowards that have no qualms about using inocent women and children as human shields and/or firing missiles from hosiptals, mosques and schools. they clearly want Israel to return fire and kill women and children--so that people like you can exploit this and claim that Israel is on a "murder spree".
There is nothing immoral about the way that Israel is defending itself at this time (if you feel it is immoral that is your right). unfortunately no one in the world has gotten Hamas to cease and desist in it's attacks on Israel and it is very convenient for you and others to ignore the fact that Hamas has sworn to destroy Israel.
No country in the world would put up with the constant barrage of rockets emenating from their neighbor as Israel is expected to.
In one of your posts above you stated "No one would object if Israel used proportional force, as they are entitled to do under international law.""-so what is your definition of proportional force?
To conclude, the onus is not on me for anything, I sleep well at night knowing that Israel is doing the right thing. the fact that inncoent people are being killed is disturbingm however this is the goal of Hamas and therefore their "pain" is self-inflicted. Israel is protecting it;s citizens from a terrorist organization that you seem to have no problem holding blameless.
I await your reply regarding "proportional force".


Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 11, 2009 at 5:50 pm

Proportionate war ususally leads to more innocent deaths, not less. The point of war is to defeat the enemy...best done with overwhelming force.


Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 11, 2009 at 7:07 pm



I see on Fox today that Israel tried to blackmail us into supporting their attack on Iran.
Fortunately Bush had the balls to tell them to go to hell.

What return do we get for our massive handouts to Israel?

What we get is them spying on us, not extraditing US financial criminals who claim dual Israeli citizenship, exporting drugs and gangsters etc etc.

There is no net benefit for us.We should spend the money at home or with true allies.

Israel is not an asset in anyway to us, they are a direct liability in the War on Terror, slaughtering innocents and children in Gaza creates a new generation who have nothing to loose and are enraged after seeing their babies murdered.

Enough is enough, we need to severe the connection with Israel, it has become a toxic pariah for the international community of civilized nations.


Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 11, 2009 at 8:10 pm

Sharon,

Your posts, along with some others, are reflective of a natural desire to "spend the money at home". Another way to say this is isolationism. One can argue either side of that approach, although I would maintain that the USA is better off getting involved, than not. Our history, during the 20th Century, is that isolationism results in us getting into huge conflicts, that might have been avoided, if we had stayed involved in international affairs.

Other than Britain, I am hard pressed to think of a better ally than Israel. Having said this, abandoning Israel would probably win us some short term brownie points in the Middle East and Europe, perhaps also some lower oil prices for a while...then it would turn over, as the al qaeda types take over the oil supplies.

I should probably also say that there is an undertone of anti-semitism in some of the posts that I have read, perhaps, at least partially, due to the dual-citizenship issue. I have always thought that U.S. citizens should not be allowed to have dual citizenship, becasue it raises the loyalty issue.


Like this comment
Posted by Jim
a resident of another community
on Jan 12, 2009 at 2:31 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 12, 2009 at 2:36 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

After Israel, who is next? Wanna guess?


Like this comment
Posted by Jim
a resident of another community
on Jan 12, 2009 at 3:33 pm

My post got censored. That was lame. This one will probably get censored too. I critized Stanford students for being tools of Hamas. When Hamas uses civilians for cover, they do it for those protesters. Apparently critizing Hamas and their supporters is not allowed here.


Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 12, 2009 at 3:48 pm

As stated by an editorial in Wall Street Journal today by Kasparoz ( or something like that)...exactly how many Israelis need to die before Israel can do whatever is necessary to stop the shelling?

How many missiles need to land in Israel, aimed at civilians? 6,000 so far in 7 years...is 8,000 the magic number?

Exactly what should Israel do? For "proportional response"..should they go in and shoot a Gazan kid when one of theirs dies? Or woman? Would that be "proportional"? How many thousands of "proportional" deaths is acceptable before Israel finally has the "approval" of useful idiots to do what it takes to put a stop to the constant shelling and killing by people who have a CHARTER which clearly states that they will not stop until Israel ceases to exist.

What would you Stanford students do if a group was hellbent on annhilating you? And gave no thought to their own deaths? Would you just let them keep picking you off, never knowing when or from where the next shot/bomb was coming? And do nothing in response? Would you give in to their demands and just go away, giving them Stanford? Would you give them pieces of Stanford, and then do nothing when they used those pieces as launching pads to kill and hurt you?

Where have the Stanford students been protesting all these years, which corner of Stanford or Palo Alto, as Gazans have launched 6,000 missiles into Israel and killed innocents, getting ever closer to highly populated areas and nuclear sites?

Dear Stanford students: Use the brains that God obviously gave you, and read about "useful idiots" and their use. Stalin coined the phrase, and was quite successful at using fools for his propoganda..starting with the New York Times and progressing through universities throughout our country. 50 years later...yes, it took 50 years, the New York Times finally "apologized" for having covered up the truth in Russia and spreading their propoganda. Are you going to take 50 years to realize your error?



Like this comment
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus
a resident of Professorville
on Jan 13, 2009 at 11:42 pm

First it is interesting that some have now begun to whip up a "socialism equals genocide" sound bite. Using the crimes/blunders/wars of Mao and Stalin to malign even a move towards a more egalitarian society as we once had under FDR and for years after (before the rabid greedfest of the wealthy took overt hold), or many European countries, etc.

When one steps back and applies a bit of a Marxist perspective to the "Communist" movement it is clear that the true functionality was for it to function as a crude but effective way for some "late comer" under-developed nations to achieve "take off" and establish themselves as truly independent and world stage powers. This happened under Stalin with a crude and brutal regime which used essentially slave labor to kick start it's development (but hey, we slaughtered a continent and built up much wealth based on slavery also). But, at the end of WWII they entered Berlin and formed the other half of The Cold War.

Ditto in China as Mao's bizzare mobilizations and campaigns both delayed development and yet also erased the old pages and laid a crude foundation for a new national emergence (if a bit schizo in that Mao is their George Washington, yet guilty of many crimes, and his image oversees a capitalist country run by the new power elite.

Other obvious examples are Vietnam---"Communism" formed a matrix for an infused nationalism capable of defeating the USA and naming Saigon Ho Chi Minh City. Or Cuba----despite rampant underdevelopment they are a cultural/educational/military/ideological beacon for Latin America. And what other small Carribean nation could have whooped South Africa and basically driven the Boers from power? They started out hoping to incite guerilla warfare to "free" South America from "Yankee Imperialism" and instead used conventional military power to free the sub-saharan continent of apartheid.

Then there is North Korea, an obvious train wreck but one in which still national mobilization has gotten them nuclear weapons and such.

But I digress...the whole spin is to know lambast "BHO" (let's not forget the H stands for Hussein!) and his "handlers" (oooh could they be Muslims?). And to blast socialism as to be on some equal footing with Facism!

And about the current war. It seems obvious to me that Israel's goal is to get a leg up on the situation on the ground BEFORE Obama takes office. I suspect that they know he will not be the slovenly and Pavlovian lap dog to them that Bush and his Neocon cronnies were. I envision a scene from the movie Animal House---where the Omega Frat House is having it's initiation...only now Olmert is whipping George Bush and he's saying "thank you sir, may I have another". Obama probably won't say that if they try to whip his behind and Israel knows it. So they are trying to create a new default situation on the ground. Civilian casualties be damned. They figure they are just all Arabs anyway and the only people who really care already hate them. The problem is that the end game is changing and it's one more time that Israel has failed to realize that the best time to be the most magnanimous politically and diplomatically is at the zenith of military power. Unfortunately they have only used such to do Begin type lies and double crosses while they continue the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. If only they had acted like the Native Anmericans of the USA had...going more quietly into the night. But if the Native Americans had had backing from Saudi Arabia, etc., things for us might have been different also.

As for Hamas.....when a people's bitterness gets boiled so long and hot they tend to turn to desperation. Israel's overt military might now confronts a population whereby the elected heroine is some old lady whose many sons all were suicide bombers. Chickens coming home to roost.

I was watching the Daily Show the other night. He was quoting Mayor Bloomberg as "what is someone was armed and trying to break into your apartment at 2AM? Would you want the police to send out only one officer so the response was proportional?". Well...but what if you had forced the guy trying to break in to live in the hall, have to get a pass to go to the bathroom, etc.

And for all the "they hide behind civilians" hoopla.....

This is the atandard fare that genocidal occupiers have used to lambast underdog freedom fighters ---I'm sure German soldiers said it about why they had to destroy some Polish village because the partisans were hiding among the civilans, the scum USA soldiers whom murdered the civilians at My Lai in their pursuit of the Viet Cong freedom fighters also, British troops probably said the same thing about the colonist revolutionaries also. It's the nature of guerilla warfare, the swimming among the fish, etc.


Like this comment
Posted by J
a resident of Stanford
on Jan 14, 2009 at 12:37 am

To A Noun Ea Mus -

I would like to address the second part of your post. Regarding "a new default situation on the ground". Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 to create a very specific new reality. They left behind valuable agricultural equipment for Gazans to start an industry. Gazans destroyed them, preferring to use agricultural structures to shelter weapon-smuggling tunnels into Egypt. At the same time Israel, in conjunction with the World Bank created a scheme to accelerate shippment through the border crossings. Israel assembled convoys of trucks, cars and buses to move between the West Bank and Gaza. Israel began plans for a port in Gaza. Israel wanted Gaza to succeed.

Everything changed when Hamas took control and began lobbing their thousands of rockets and Israeli kindergartens and apartments. Rockets were landing in Israeli towns and Israel responded by putting restrictions on border crossings. Hamas even targeted the border crossings.

The Israelis want peace and quiet. That peace would ideally include economic and cultural exchange, but failing this, a simple lack of armed violence would suffice. Hamas and a majority of their Gazan constituents want to Israel to be replaced by an Islamic Palestine (from the Jordan to the sea), and they are prepared to engage in any means to achieve that end – even if the cost is extreme suffering by their people. "They hide behind civilians" is more than hoopla: the videos of rockets being lobbed from schoolyards, booby-trapped schools, and mosques that double as weapons arsenals are all over YouTube. The hard evidence to rebut your claims is in plain sight.


Like this comment
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus
a resident of Professorville
on Jan 14, 2009 at 1:20 am

Well I certainly don't think that Hamas is any ideal organization, even if one is sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians....it is IMO a bit of Chickens Coming Home to roost that such a rabid and religious-based extremist organization took over from the PLO. The PLO was such a boogeyman for years, finally when negotiations started and the big Begin double-cross and settlement A Go Go took over, the PLO lost credibility. (And their own corruption). So a push is on by the Neocons to "democratize" the world and they elected Hamas!

It makes me a bit nauseated when I keep hearing the rendition of how poor Israel just wants peace. (oh and quiet, damn Arabs and their stereos and rockets!). Israel has always wanted land, and more land, and has used ever opportunity to continue to steal it....albeit leaving behind valuable land in Gaza for a settlement.

Of course they lob rockets from areas crowded with civilians. A huge number of Palestinians were kicked off their land and now huddle like rats packed in sardine cans in Gaza.

I don't think there are any "good guys" in this whole mess. I can piss off my pro-Palestinian friends at times by pointing out a bunch of holes and shortcomings in their arguments and positions. But whenever I hear the usual "poor Israel has bent over backwards in an almost, just short of,.. Chamberlain-at-Munich and the Arabs just responded by marching into Poland......

Israel has, and continues to, create much of the misery that continues to befall it. In a way I suppose the Israeli's had wished that their taking of Palestinian lands would be as ancient history by now as akin to that of a current-day white suburb in South Dakota is as regards the Sioux. But the other Arab countries didn't "assimilate" them, the camps "endured" and a host of countries and interests fuel a still legitimate anger and fervor.

We can ask how we'd feel if we were Israeli's and rockets were raining down on us. Or ask how we'd feel is we had been forced off our land, our houses bulldozed and now watch in poverty as others live off it all in relative comfort.

I suspect this whole thing as regards Gaza was really planned to stimulate a war with Iran...one in which they could drag good ole USA along for the ride.

The Last Picture Show.....


Like this comment
Posted by J
a resident of Stanford
on Jan 14, 2009 at 1:46 am

You start out making sense, and then I lose you. There's a reason why the symmetry is broken between the Arabs and Jews. The Jews endured an equivalent, if not heavier, expulsion from Arab lands. In 1948, there were 260,000 practicing Jews living in Morocco, 129,300 in Iraq, 14,000 in Algeria, 56,000 in Tunisia, 35,000 in Libya, 90,000 in Egypt, 51,000 in Yemen, 6,000 in Lebanon, and 4,500 in Syria. In total nearly 900,000 from across the Middle East, the communities having roots dating back as far as 2500 years. By 1949, most of these Jews had been stripped of their nationalities, their citizenship rejected, their belongings robbed, their homes taken, and they escaped to Israel, away from the throngs of Pan-Arab nationalists screaming "idbah al-yahud": slaughter the Jews. The Native American analogy doesn't stand up to even the lightest scrutiny, unless there's some historian out there claiming the English started off as second-class Sioux "Dhimmi" in early America ...

Therefore, in the very sense that Israel has even negotiated with parties such as the PLO that have the country's destruction explicitly outlined in their 1964 charter, the Israel-bends-over-backwards model is an accurate description of the reality. But it's not just that. It's everything I described above. The farm equipment, the utilities, the medical care, and everything else (Hamas-bombs permitting) is the true indicator that the two-sidedness of this conflict is not simply overstated, it's entirely non-existent.


Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 14, 2009 at 8:55 am



The reason Israel left Gaza was demographic.

The fact is the birth rate among Arabs is much greater than the Jewish Israeli.

If Israel had held on to Gaza in a few years the Arabs would be in the majority, Israel would have to choose between calling itself a democracy and giving power to the Arabs or continuing to impose the white South African segregation and tyranny.

Israel steals Arab land in the West Bank and then wants the Arabs to be peaceful or be slaughtered, the analogy with Native Americans is accurate.

The Arabs will not roll over and Israel is demographically doomed, it is just a matter of time.

We have no interest in this local tribal fight, we should not take sides, we should act in our own best interests.

The world community condemns Israels ethnic cleansing, let the UN deal with it, we have enough entanglements and economic challenges to deal with.
We are not the worlds police.Enough is enough.


Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jan 14, 2009 at 9:03 am

Sharin--aren't you the same Sharon who vigorously supported McCain/Palin while vilifying Obama during the last presidential election campaign. Supposedly McCain/Palin were bigger supporters of ISrael than Obama (according to the republicnas).
Funny how you write these things about Israel now.
Actually I think you are actually another poster who posts under a second identity (obviously using a second computer) so that this second identidy can write back refuting your comments.
You may have fooled everyone else, but your writing style is too similar.
BTW, your analysis about Israel and Gaza is completely wrong,but that is another story.


Like this comment
Posted by Jim
a resident of another community
on Jan 14, 2009 at 2:46 pm

Once again, I have to explain to people that the North Vietnamese did not in fact "defeat the USA". When the USA left Vietnam in 1973, we left with a truce between two countries that still existed, North and South Vietnam. The war had stopped, temporarily, until the North could re-group and start again, this time without having to deal with the USA. South Vietnam lasted until 1975 when they were defeated by the communists. The USA had nothing there but an embassy.

BTW, I took a class in Marxism in college and learned that it is nothing more than a bunch of BS that someone made up. I didn't learn that from the teacher, I had to figure it out for myself.


Like this comment
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus
a resident of Professorville
on Jan 14, 2009 at 8:08 pm

Jim,..

Once again I have to belly laugh at the construct that the USA was not defeated by the Vietnamese in their war for liberation.

We spent over ten years there (not counting aiding the French and also unleashing surrendered Japanese soldiers to fight the Viet Minh) and lost over 50,000 soldiers. And the end result was that their tanks and running soldiers crashed into the Presidential Palace and changed flags, renamed it Ho Chi Minh City. That is called a defeat.

In a guerrilla war if the conventional forces dont' win they lose. If the guerrilla forces don't lose then they win. (I think even Kissinger acknowledged this). I suppose even today there may be some inordinately nationalist British history professor who is still claiming that the American colonists never really defeated them, that the battle of Yorktown was really a French victory.

When Kissinger/Johnson signed the Paris accords they did it such that it allowed the continued occupation of southern Vietnam by NVA regular forces. And the Saigon government got to keep Thieu for a time. When this happened people in Japan were suddenly exclaiming that in 1945 Japan didn't really surrender but, rather, achieved "Peace with Honor".

And as for J's comments as regards the "Arab's" expulsion of the Jews. While undoubtedly it happened there is much suspect in the numbers and the spin. Part of the colonialist plan was that Israel would be a bastion for continued colonial interest in the Middle East (why Israel helped attack Egypt during the "Suez Crisis" and killed American sailors).

But back up and look at how this is spun. When backed into a corner and forced to open the lid and acknowledge the massacres and ethnic cleansing Israel did to the Palestinians....suddenly they must all become just one vast camp of "Arabs" and somehow what happened in Baghdad is used to in turn justify horrific acts committed on Palestinians by the Irgun and Stern gang. One also has to suspect that this expulsion was in fact welcomed, encouraged, whipped up by the early Zionist founders. Until the Holocaust these people were regarded as basic nutjobs, much like African Americans viewed Marcus Garvey and his "return to Africa" movement. Some of the early Zionist founders even reached an agreement with the Third Reich that, in return for being anti-British, they would reap the "benefits" of the anti-Jewish campaign in order to solicit immigration to Palestine.

Now having said all that, it is true that in many countries there was both indigenous anti-Semitism and this was unleashed (sometimes even before) when Israel was established. I am all for the Jewish people having some homeland (why didn't they give them Germany and move the Germans to Utah were they could duke it out with the Mormons?). And I don't know how in the world sane people can ever hope to achieve any kind of peace---so in a way I can see how people would be in a totally reactive and fighting mode on both sides. I can't imagine being a Palestinian and, even if infused with a barrel of anger and resentment, joining with Hamas or the corrupt PLO. Or if I were Israeli, even if infused with rabid anger over the brutal murder of a close relative(s), still not carry a "we kind of helped cause this and continue to".

The problem is that the sound bites in reflex defense of Israel, while initially amazingly effective at belaying true scrutiny of all the issues, serve two subversive functions as regards true security and peace for Israel. One even the purveyors start to believe their own propoganda. And two, the construct necessitates building a "we vs. all the Arabs" above and beyond the real situation.

Hence what happened in 1946 is looked at as "tit for tat" and "too bad".


Like this comment
Posted by J
a resident of Stanford
on Jan 15, 2009 at 1:29 am

I haven't followed the socialism = genocide bit, so I'll refrain from commenting on that. But I'm curious as to how and to what end you downplay the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands. There are records of those communities certainly for the millenia I mentioned, and all of this even discounts the large historic population of Arabia. Medina, now the second holiest Islamic site, absolutely verboten to Jews now, was originally the oasis, Yathrib, settled by three Jewish tribes a few hundred years after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem: Banu Kaynuka, banu Kurayza, and banu Nadir. Under Persian governance, they maintained peace among rival pagan Arab tribes. The town was under the Jews central to economic activity in the peninsula. Much under the riling of mass envy, Muhammed united the warring pagan tribes and by the sword, the Jews were driven from their homes. Medina, and Mecca along with it, were in this way the first Jewish "colonies" as you have phrased it. But this is clearly meaningless in this context, as is the contention that Zionism is colonialism: it has and always will be a national liberation movement, because a continuous Jewish presence Israel has existed since thousands of years before the Arabs arrived in the 6th century. Again, unless you can present me with a historical argument that the English started off as second-class Sioux "Dhimmi" in early America, the total irrelevance of your claim of "spin" is blatantly obvious, because it's pretty damn difficult to "spin" the Quran's own account of Arabs expelling Jews from Arabia, the photos of the Mufti of Jerusalem shaking hands with Adolph Hitler, and the fact that enormous historical Jewish communities in Baghdad, Damascus, Alexandria, Casablanca, and Tunis were there one moment and then gone the next ...


Like this comment
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus
a resident of Professorville
on Jan 15, 2009 at 8:14 am

I don't downplay the expulsion. It's just that given Zionism's history of assisting and being parasitic to anti-Semitic campaigns I am sure the expulsions were greeted with elation in some of those circles.

But step back and look at what your perspective now engenders and supports.

Greater Summaria ala Begin's scheme and how he went back on his agreement with Carter and Arafat (oh but now Jimmy Carter is "anti-Semitic").

Yes the Mufti and some of his followers aligned with Hitler. They were opposed to Britain's rule and they made the enemies of their enemies their friends. An Indian independence movement made the same blunder with the Japanese. In the former case I don't doubt that a big part of it was anti-Semitism. But some of the early Zionists made the same type of contacts and alliances with the Third Reich.

But to get back to Gaza and the question of the whole mess.....

It's like we are at a fork in the road.

One path leads to continued just reactively supporting everything and anything Israel does and wants. This will probably lead to a war with Iran. And continued seetlements (did you see the CNN Christiane Amanpour documentary "God's Warriors" episode on how the revived settlement movement has aligned with the most right-wing USA Christian zealots?). One picks their side and goes from there. Pick Israel and it means supporting anything and everything done to (supposedly) protect and expand that state. Even some go as far as supporting the expulsion of all Arabs from Israel. There is a default problem of Israel being a democracy and also a Jewish State when a growing portion of the population is non-Jewish Palestinians (or just Arabs). The other side means picking the Palestinian cause and trying to carve out a homeland that works. Pick Israel and Zionism becomes a national liberation movement and the whole Arab array is Nazism II. Pick the Palestinian/Arab side and they are the national liberation movement and Zionism is Apartheid II. Not much wiggle room when people are at those extremes.

The other path leads to a basic going back to the drawing board and trying to figure out a long-term resolution to the whole mess. I am not optimistic. Maybe now that we have a new President new enlightened leadership can formulate something.


Like this comment
Posted by J
a resident of Stanford
on Jan 15, 2009 at 10:10 am

So most of this last post I agree with wholeheartedly, minus the bit about Zionism trying to align itself with the Third Reich in the early years. There's a fundamental difference between the Zionist approach to the Third Reich and the Mufti al-Husseini. The Zionists attempted to build a diplomatic corridor for Jewish immigration, which the British White Paper had forbidden while allowing for thousands of Arabs to immigrate and take advantage of the much better quality of life in the British Mandate of Palestine in no small part due to the infrastructure the Zionist movement had laid. The Mufti, on the other hand, was solely concerned with using the Nazi movement to annihilate the Jews. In his own words from a letter to Eichmann in 1940, he requested "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy." On transcript from the Nuremberg trials is Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny saying the following: "The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. ... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz."

In discussing the realpolitik contacts with Nazi contacts by the Zionists and the very clear intentions in the Mufti's relationship with the Nazi command, there is no comparison.


Like this comment
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus
a resident of Professorville
on Jan 15, 2009 at 10:22 am

Just some other comments...

On some issues I am pretty partisan. I don't look back on the Vietnam War and regret my partisan take on that one.

But with, oh how do you describe it "The Middle East Crisis" hardly fits as "crisis" somehow to me implies something short term.

My own background has some somewhat funny stories. Back in the anti-war days of the Vietnam War I was an activist in high school. My knowledge of Israel and Palestinians was pretty much limited to the usual movie Exodus and images of hijacked planes and Palestinian atrocities, etc.

Then during the protest era, I as a high schooler had college age "mentors" (for lack of a better word), many of whom were Jewish. One related a family reunion where he had "been on the side of the Arabs" (67 war it was).


So over the years I've heard many sides and takes on it. You could get skilled academics from both camps to go back and forth and would leave me dizzy. And at the end of it I'm hardly partisan but just feel a bit politically nauseated and depressed.

I can equally piss off pro-PLO people by pointing out that their organization has been basically a pawn of Saudi Arabia, profoundly corrupt, etc. And Hamas to me is obviously obnoxious. I have to wonder if all those suicide bombers had instead immolated themselves publicly in Israel, leaving behind personal histories of why they had chosen that path...if the peace process (such as it is or isn't!) would be moved along, their real cause better served?

But then another part of my brain says..."if the suicide bombers had taken that high road Israel would have just spun it such that 'they only did it for the money Iraq would pay their families' and spin it to make them out to be the most base of mercenaries".


Like this comment
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus
a resident of Professorville
on Jan 15, 2009 at 10:33 am

I agree that the Zionist's dealings with the Nazi's were far shorter than the Mufti's. And that even the Baath Party(s) of Syria and Iraq were based in part of Realpolitik and part anti-Semitism.

But this is then spun to dismiss real suffering and legitimate grievances and dump it all into the big cauldron of any and all opposition to Israel to be just anti-Semitism.

I had a thought....

I wonder if a big "Museum of Suffering" as regards the "Middle East Crisis" would be of value.

I had this vision/fantasy "If I Were President" (me singing Betty Boop style wouldn't be pretty)...

Sort of throw up my hands and just, instead of diplomacy, build a big museum to it all.

A huge wall with ALL the victims----from the explelled Jews from Arab lands, to the villagers wiped out by Zionists, school kids killed by PLO fighters, Klinghoffer, the hundreds killed in the various Infatada's, suicide bombers and their victims. And displays showing all the sordid and varied aspects of it all. Taking partisanship from every angle and objectively (yeah right) showing the facts. No holds barred.


Like this comment
Posted by Jim
a resident of another community
on Jan 15, 2009 at 3:08 pm

The Vietnamese Communist "war for liberation" - that's the real belly laugh. The only liberation they get is when they manage to escape the country somehow. Now the South Vietnamese are in the same boat as those in the north, and the Vietnamese people that I've spoken to about it are not happy about that. And if the USA was defeated by anyone in the Vietnamese war, it was by the activists like you who marched in the streets in the support of the communists. Nice work, I'm sure you're proud of that. The U.S. military kicked their asses again and again, they had to wait until we left to "liberate" South Vietnam.


Like this comment
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus
a resident of Professorville
on Jan 15, 2009 at 4:30 pm

I guess we could call the Colonist Loyalists (many who fled to Canada) "The Wagon People".

Yes, I and many others---including many GI's who helped, are very proud and I'll always savor the day I got to see the gates of the Saigon Puppet Palace knocked over by Vietnamese tanks, the sight of helicopters being tossed into the sea. That is an image of a military, political and diplomatic defeat.

Yes, the military "kicked their asses" many times, just as the Brits did to the colonists. But somehow they never "got the message" and just kept fighting on until they won. It's really that simple and it's too bad you can't face the historical reality.

The only really strategic battle was the one over the Ho Chi Minh trail. The bombing and raids didn't work. When we air-supported the Saigon troops in an invasion of Laos and a chance for them to go head to head with NVA it was a disaster for them. Despite air superiority and taking massive casualties they Saigon troops scurry'd out.

Project yourself to years later in some History classroom. A student's hand goes up..."teacher, in the war between the USA and Vietnam who was it that won?". We all know the answer.

If you think it wasn't a defeat then maybe the Japanese weren't really defeated either at the end of WWII. After all they got to keep the Emperor.


Like this comment
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus
a resident of Professorville
on Jan 15, 2009 at 4:45 pm

PS

War is inherently political. It is not a sporting event.

So yes, from your perspective of it being such then the big bad USA hulking gear-laden soldiers kicked the little skinny Vietnamese people all over.

Kind of like the tunnels of Cu Chi. They served their purpose but couldn't stand up to massive B-52 bombing and many Vietnames patriots were entombed. But the residual served as forward base for the final assault and takeover of Saigon. All the tunnels had to do was keep the struggle going longer.

It reminds me of stories I heard from older friends who were among the Freedom Riders in Mississippi. Taking your perspective the Klan won over them. The first black person they registered to vote had their house burned down. They knew the murdered students and the Detroit Mayor's wife who was also gunned down. Looking at it as a sporting event, as you wish to ala Vietnam, the score was Klan 10 Freedom Riders 0.


Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 15, 2009 at 4:51 pm

A Noun Ea Mus,

Your socialist drivel is similar to my own, when I was 20 years old. I eventually grew a brain, and began to appreciate individual freedom.

Good luck...growing a brain is not always that easy.


Like this comment
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus
a resident of Professorville
on Jan 15, 2009 at 9:49 pm

No you eventually got old and sold out.

Good luck finding your conscience and social bearing. The coming years may bring many political disappointments to you.

The Communist movement of yore is of course a thing of the past. But all this has done is to clear the decayed fields so that new fruit can bloom. Your stance is somewhat similar to why the New Left and the anti-war movement took this country by storm. The powers that be'd thought that the McCarthy era had totally sidelined any leftist activity. The right wingers were so freaked by the New Left that they were frantically looking for "the foreign" connection. J Edgar went bonkers over it, and we helped drive Jesus Angleton into just a demented caricature ending his days in Tuscon with a residual.

A new generation is taking over. Obama is President (he was friends with Bill Ayers ya know). And college kids are starting to demand living wages for the workers.


Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 16, 2009 at 6:23 pm

Wow..communism is indeed alive and well in the good ol' USA. And, of course, our own home grownn communist is proud to say how happy he was when the coms took over Vietnam and set about massacring 1,000,000 south vietnamese we abandoned there.

and, of course, north korea is such a flying testament to how great communism is..as was china, cuba, Soviet Russia, all the dead and/or dying people are a great testament to the wonders of communism.

I understand being a communist before it became extremely clear to anyone with 1/2 a brain what happens to people underr communism....simply death, often of the most horrid kind, after a life in prison, working for someone else, yet never realizing any benefit or freedom.

To believe in idealized communism 40-50 years ago, in ignorance, is at least understandable.

But to continue to believe that communism is the better way in the face of the 20,000,000 massacred in the 20th century by communists..wow. THAT takes a heavy dose of denial,..or maybe a lot of drugs.


I recommend any book by Horowitz, a former USA communist, (Jewish, if you care), but especially his first one which chronicles, a bit long windedly but well, his journey of understanding from where you are Noun to one of well informed adulthood. It is never too late to grow up!!



Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 16, 2009 at 6:24 pm

J...well written.


Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 16, 2009 at 8:59 pm

This thread is about the Israeli slaughter of Arab children in an attempt to consolidate and further their colonial strategy to steal land.

The communist topic is trivial.

Historically North Africa and most of the Mid East was Christian, acting on Israeli logic Italy and the Vatican should reclaim their homeland through out North Africa and the Mid East, which was stolen by Muslim Arabs in the 7th century.

Mexico can also make a claim against the US on California, Texas and New Mexico by the Israeli logic, what about the Indians and the US in total? it never ends ---

In fact demographics will determine the outcome in Palestine if democracy prevails.


Like this comment
Posted by good grief
a resident of Monroe Park
on Jan 17, 2009 at 11:56 am

The communist topic is not drivel, it is relevant because murderous tyranny attracts the same kind of people no matter what it is called and uses the same useful idiots, the same absurd propoganda...and is always against freedom

Sharon, your "logic" argument fails to remember that the League of Nations, the precursor to the current UN, placed Israel where it is, then did nothing to protect Israel when it was attacked on all sides by people whose sole purpose was to annhilate Israel.

Israel did not just "happen", it was carefully planned and approved by the "world's government" that so many people, like you, seem to think is so valid. Israel did not "take over" anyone's land. You do not know your history. No Israeli official told Muslims to leave and took their land, unlike all the surrounding Muslim countries, which stole everything the exiled jews couldn't carry, and forced them to leave

where Israel managed to take them in

where the same countries couldn't manage to take in the people the surrounding countries encouraged to VOLUNTARILY leave from Israel.

no moral equivocation here.

and here we are 60 years later with these poor people being used as pawns by the same countries, never allowed to enter..and you want Israel to take in people who have been taught from toddlerhood to kill all Jews because the Jews killed Mickey Mouse's parents?

Why don't you take someone into your home who has vowed to annhilate you?


Like this comment
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus
a resident of Professorville
on Jan 18, 2009 at 12:24 pm

I suppose this thread is so far off the radar screen it is a bit of a waste to post anything here, but just to set some things straight...

I don't celebrate the Vientnamese victory over the USA because it was supposedly some victory for "Communism", but rather because it was a very inspiring victory by a colonized people over yet another in a series of despicable and genocidal occupiers (France, Japan, USA).

To "Perspective:

Can't you read? I posted above the fact that I am not really a communist. Of course if you consider everyone one millimeter to the left of FDR to be a big pinko commie then maybe I would fit your definition.

I believe in some type of democratic socialims. And one in which the class nature of any consolidated wealth is periodically smitten down via effective inheritance taxation, democracy is guaranteed for all and not just a commodity to be bought via lobbying.

Communism is dead. But the fight for social, economic, and political injustice goes on.

It is not I who am addicted to Communism, but rather people like you who need to throw up that bogeyman whenever anyone threatens your priveleged status. What, raise the minimum wage!?? My god that is "Communism" and soon the Khmer Rouge will be ransacking our houses to steal our 60 inch plasma sets!

Looking back on the world-wide Communist movement---from it's theoretical birth via the writings/activities of Marx and Engels, to it's evolution via Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, etc., it is clear to me that the basic concepts were actually implemented as an ideological tool to both usher in national take-off and to fight colonialism----one or the other in some cases and sometimes both. The communist movement both fought against a host of injustices and crimes and ushered in a host of injustices and crimes. The Comintern under Stalin resembled the Catholic Church and the Pope (Stalin was a divinity student).

It's kind of like blaming the basic tenets of Christianity for all the horrific crimes and murders committed by the righteous Christians over the years. Nothing in the New Testament really says things like "go forth and conquer all of South America---kill and enslave the entire population". Yet the Christians used the Biblical teachings to go convert as a way to foster the colonial agenda. Just as nationalists use the Communist doctrine to foster various nationalist agendas. And nothing in basic Marxist/Communist doctrine specifically instructs any "followers" to commit any of the crimes committed under it's "name". People just grab various ideological or religious tools (and Communism became just another lame-brained religion IMO) and mold them to fit their basic agenda.


I have read some of David Horowitz's pathetic drivel. I am sorry he was involved in the activities which apparently led to the murder of one of his associates while both were involved with the Black Panther Party years ago. I hope someday he gets the needed therapy. But until then his "flight to the far-right" is pretty inane. I actually ran into him briefly during those years and it is pretty funny to recall the image he cast even while pretending to be a "big bad leftie" allied with the Panthers.


Like this comment
Posted by good grief
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 18, 2009 at 12:57 pm

Doncha just love the way Hamas just fired into Israel ..again....breaking the "cease fire"..

anyone shocked besides A noun ea mous?

BTW, clearly you haven't read even one of his books if you believe that his buddy being shot is what opened his eyes. More proof is that he did NOT veer "to the far-right", he simply realized that his original goals of decreasing poverty, increasing freedom, increasing education, decreasing racism..all the "far left" goals ..were best met through the now-called "right". His values and goals remained the same, as they did for all of us neo-cons who realized we were duped into being useful idiots for fascism.


Like this comment
Posted by good grief
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 18, 2009 at 1:02 pm

the fundamental flaw in your "not blaming communism" for the atrocities of communism/tyranny just like you don't blame "Christianity" for the horrors committed in the name of Christianity is that horrors were committed as a perversion of Christianity, but horrors under Communism/Tyranny/Fascism are committed as a fulfillment of their ideology.

In other words, a failure of human nature caused the horrors in the first, a failure of ideology in the second. Commmunism never brouught a stop to its own horrors, Christians brought a stop to their own horrors.

Now, we await the "awakening" of the Muslims to stop the horrors done in Allah's name.

And hope that soon the linkage of Islam with communist/fascist dictators is broken so the true Islam can break forth.


Like this comment
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus
a resident of Professorville
on Jan 18, 2009 at 4:55 pm

I have not sat down and read any of David Horowitz's books. Nor do I intend to. I have read one article he wrote describing his views. That was enough time wasted. I stand by my characterization. Obviously different than yours.

As far as Hamas firing into Israel I, nor anyone else, should be shocked. I am not a Hamas supporter. I recall an article describing that the Palestinians voted for Hamas over the PLO not because they were more radicalized. But, rather, because of disgust with PLO corruption.

One has to wonder what Israel's goal here is? If it's to destroy Hamas it seems all they've done is to increase support for Hamas on the West Bank (though maybe that was the goal---then use that to reverse any land loss there?). If it was to generate a war with Iran and get USA involvement then the clock is ticking down. If it was to just improve security for "poor Israel" then this will all backfire-----a big blowback as future Palestinian commandos and suicide bombers have probably been pre-recruited.

Christians have hardly put a stop to their horrors! Just in the last century we've had Christian horrors God's Army lunatics in Africa, to Moral Rearmament for the British in Kenya, to Christian Germans, priests, ministers all participating in the Holocaust, to Christians in Guantanamo. What basically happened, over time, was that Christianity lost it's entrenched power over states compared to the past during the Crusades and Holy Roman Empire era.

As far as comparing the "Horrors" of communism: First let's leave out tyranny and Facism---I know you'd like to bundle everything vile and evil in one corner and then place Israel in the other corner but really! To compare Communism to Christianity and then pleading "but with Christianity it's a violation of the basic tenets yet with Communism it's hard-wired".....

It all depends on what dividing line you want to establish for either. With both Christianity and Communism one could either stick with the originals (New Testament--Jesus and Disciples for Christianity, Marx and Lenin's writings for Communism) OR stretch it out a bit or very wide (Old Testament, various Papal and high level Church doctrine for Christianity and then throw in cryptic comments by Stalin, Mao, and any revealed edicts). In either case there really isn't any easily recognizable religious/political "instructions" to carry out the crimes or "horrors". Yet there are also various Old Testament scriptures as well as Church doctrine and edicts which were used to forment and justify horrid crimes. So too could one look for lesser known writings or credited remarks by various Communist leaders which, when affixed to the goings on at the time, provide clear evidence that the crimes were sanctioned.

But on bulk there is not really any default call for such in either Christianity or Communist doctrine. This in comparison to Nazism. Any even casual reading of Mein Kamf reveals Hitler's hatred towards the Jews and it's not a big leap to see where he would go with it.

There really is a big comparison to Christianity and Communism. Both arose and generated fervent hope among the "True Believers" that the whole world could be saved. Both preached going out and converting. Both established world-wide power matrixes (Holy Roman and various Christian Empires and states from Rome to Constantinople to London). Both then saw their lofty initial tenets get twisted to fit various other agendas----be they colonialism for Spain or USSR foreign policy for the Comintern.


Like this comment
Posted by Good Grief
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 18, 2009 at 5:30 pm

Wow, you really hate Christians to have the beliefs you have.

Since your basic premise is false ( that Christians have continued to practice their horrors in the name of Christianity in the last 100 years), there is no room for further discussion. To think that the Holocaust was a "Christian" horror, or that IF any horrors occurred at Guantanamo ( still holding onto that Canard, are you?) they were in the name of a "Christian" faith..well that pretty much defines where you are coming from.

Well, good luck finding a better audience for this stuff! Me, I understood the point about not throwing pearls before swine a long time ago. It was good advice for speakers trying to talk to a less than receptive audience. In this case, i suspect we both fit that definition.




Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 18, 2009 at 5:50 pm


"And nothing in basic Marxist/Communist doctrine specifically instructs any "followers" to commit any of the crimes committed under it's "name". "

One thing dedicated Marxists/Leninists refuse to grow a brain about is the fact that socialism, both at the theroetical and practical levels, is based on personalization of the macroeconomic decision. whther it be 5-year plans or Industrial Policy or Global Warming, etc. Command economic systems develop COMMAND (and commanders!). It ALWAYS leads to totalitarianism, sometine slowly (confiscatory taxation and state power), sometimes rapdily (mass murder).

The only realistic antidote to the socialist toxin is to allow the INDIVIDUAL the freedom to develop his/her own economic choices. Supply and demand is the only holy grail in economics, however one slices the pie. It is irrational to fight this force of nature, as so many socialists have tried to do...in the end it will always prevail, even if tens of millions of innocent people are murdered in the meantime. The essential moral question is: Why do so many millions of individuals needs to be slaughtered or enslaved for such an irrational belief as socialism?


Like this comment
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus
a resident of Professorville
on Jan 18, 2009 at 6:52 pm

Ahh but you provide evidence that it is not the basic tenets of "COMMUNISM" (not socialism really) that fostered the crimes committed under the name.

You are of course entitled to your opinion as to the "natural order" being that individual freedom, supply/demand being the holy grail, that it is a "force of nature", etc. One can look to the natural world and find a model of construct to defend or debate any premise. Indeed, if one looks at basic primate proclivities we would all be living like a bunch of Hells Angels or in a cult. And even ants have "police" or soldiers whom keep individualism at bay.

But can't you see how you are doing a big leap in logic? There are plenty of socialistic/capitalistic countries which have blended elements of both and don't engender the horrors you describe. You take the various crimes committed under the banner of communism, pretend that such crimes are part of the default "buy in" concept, then further retrofit it all and assign to "socialism" in general. If only life were so simple!

And even some of the ones you abhor have achieved national independence and some status under the "communist" governments (Cuba, Vietnam for instance). Before you slam Cuba you should compare it's record with our own death squad count across Latin America----from Guatemala to El Salvador to Brazil----it's one of the all time horror stories of the century. Sure Cuba isn't the democracy many would love to see there in the USA (so they could buy it and the island back). But under the circumstances----being able to stand up for their national independence for decades and make fools of successive administrations (I particularly thought it funny how they furloughed all their San Quentin types to the USA). History will look back on how Cuba held out against the squeeze and it will be admired for many generations.

And communist ideology provided for Vietnam a unifying and apparently ideological matrix upon which they defeated the most powerful government and armed forces the world has seen (and please let's forgo the armchair NFL watching perspective on war).

Communism is dead and a moot point. It's only purpose now is to serve as a red herring for people whom need to stop the inevitable drift towards infusing more socialism into our greed infested out of control capitalist system (not destroy it, just tame it like a fire in a fireplace). I can sympathize as it must be hard for people of your perspective. GW Bush and his neocon cronnies themselves had to unveil the basic "socialism for the rich" underpinnings ala Toto pulling aside the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. They were further forced to even adopt the European fix and not even cover it up as they wished.

Meanwhile as you scream into the night about the crimes of Communism apparently it wasn't enough to keep a (somewhat) friend or acquaintance of Bill Ayers from being elected. And there tonight at the pre inauguration party was Pete Seeger--himself a former member of the Communist Party USA. And there is a new movie coming out about Che Guevara.

To the barricades you must go!


Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 18, 2009 at 7:27 pm

I make no distinction between socialism and communism, other than by rate of accomplishment. Eleanor Roosevelt is reported to have said, "communists are just liberals in a hurry". The socialist end game is complete social and economic control. For example, try to protest against the current U.S. tax system by refusing to pay conficatory taxes...you will be imprisioned.

Cuba and other other socialist slave states can prove their confidence in their system by opening up their borders to allow their own slaves to leave, should they choose to do so. If the socialist regime in Cuba did this, it would collapse overnight. Freedom is the best of all disinfectants.

Leftist drivel is boring to me.


Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 18, 2009 at 9:37 pm

The discussion about communism is trivial apart from the fact that Zionists where not only communist/socialists as well as racists.
Israel has mellowed over time but there is still a hard core or comm/socialist/racists among the west bank colonists, I am suprised that they do not get more coverage.

There was an interesting program on Iran on PBS last night, the majority of Iranians have good will towards us, the acts of the CIA to topple their democracy was a long time ago.
If we do not mend fences with Iran they will deal their oil with China, not in our best interests.
We need to back off the Wilsonian dream and focus upon our interests.
We have no friends only common interests. The UK and USA have a common interest in good relations with Iran, Obamas advisers will make this happen.
Israel will have to come to heal or suffer the results, we have to face reality, the major challenge to our future is China not Iran or the Islamofanatics.
China is a communist state, Iran is open to persuasion.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

He said – she said – who is lying? Justice Brett Kavanaugh or PA resident Christine Ford
By Diana Diamond | 69 comments | 6,737 views

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 2 comments | 1,053 views

Couples: Sex and Connection (Chicken or Egg?)
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 916 views

Populism: A response to the failure of the elites: Palo Alto edition
By Douglas Moran | 1 comment | 912 views

Zucchini Takeover
By Laura Stec | 1 comment | 814 views