"TheRevivalEditor" wrote:

so , do ppl still think asghar and mpac are all bad or actually quite good for Muslims here.

i dunno much about MPAC but so long as they do not promote hatred then i have no prob with them…

but whats this i hear about that MPAC guy, asghar bukhari, giving money to the, neo nazi, holocaust denying, fake historian david irving?

is it really true?

mr revival ed, if this guy is ur pal, then u should ask him whether the reports about MPAC members funding david irvings vile lies r accurate…

cos if they are, then MPAC should sack bukhari…it really isn’t good publicity for MPAC or UKs muslims…congrts on the baby by the way...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1951773,00.html

Without reading the article again can you say when Asghar Bughari gave money to David Irving? And how much money was it?

Rmember, don't read the article again...

ok beast…

i didn’t read it again…honest….

as i recall, the article claims that this MPAC leader offered support to the nazi irving, sent him money, and urged his muslim friends to offer similar tribute…

i dunno when he supported irving, or how much cash he donated to the nazi….

the article seemed to suggest that bukhari supported irving cos he was “anti zionist”…

im interested in bukharis explanation to this revelation…thats why i asked if it was true or just a media misrepresentation…

if the MPAC fella is entertaining low lifes like irving just cos he hates the jews, then it is worrying and no good for the rep of his organisation…

This was a media misrepresentation and it seems to have worked on you. It made you question Asghar Bukhari's integrity.

Asghar Bukhari sent David Irving £60 in 2000. You have to read the 4th para down to find out it was £60 and then read the 7th para down to find out that it was in 2000.

Irving was tried and convicted this year. 6 whole years after Asghar sent him £60. Does that make Asghar and MPAC Nazi supporters?

Asghar has tried defending himself and said that this an instance of a critic iof Israel being smeared as anti-Semitic. [url=http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/3047/35/]You can read his defence here[/url] but it's waffly and really badly written.

Here is Asghar being [url=http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2006/11/asghar-bukhari-didnt-bank... by a Jewish blogger[/url].

The article gives a further bit of unrelated misinformation before concluding.

Quote:

Earlier this year, speaking on behalf of MPAC, Bukhari said a march in London in protest at the publication of satirical cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad should not have gone ahead. 'We believe it should have been banned and the march stopped,' Bukhari said. 'Freedom of speech has to be responsible.'

There were three marches in London over the cartoons. One was the Al Mauhajiroon one (which got massive media coverage and was almost universally condemned), the second was the HT demo outside the Danish Embassy, and then there was the Trafalgar Sqaure march. The article doesn't make clear which demo Asghar was condemning and why he was condemning it.

Further, the article is written by Jamie Doward "home affairs editor". Surely such a peice of "journalism" is to be expected from a nameless hack but not someone in an editorial position.

ur right, i have questioned ashgars integrity…

ive now re read the article, ashgars response and this from MPAC ..

http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/3028/0/

i accept that the media can spin matters to their own ends…but the observer is a respectable newspaper, its not the sun or the mirror...

the fact that bukhari took the time to write to the nazi irving is disturbing…it doesn’t matter whether it was in 2000 or 2006…similarly, it dont matter if the sum he donated was 6p, 60 quid or 600 notes…

david irvings views are well know, he has been a neo nazi for many a long year, he was never a respected historian..

asghar is seriously claiming that he didn’t know about irvings holocaust denial!?

that asghar was attracted to irvings views suggest he was prepared to entertain any form of anti semitism so long as it fitted in with his political views…

or at the very least, bukhari is ill-informed, biased, very naïve, and ready to accept all sorts of nonsense…

doesn’t say much for MPAC credibility….

having said that, im not saying that bukhari or MPAC are nazi sympathisers…its just that there statements look as if they should be taken with a pinch of salt…everything seems to be a "zionist plot"...

"Asghar Bukhari" wrote:

Good luck! and remember many of the posts I read hear seemed to think Islam and politics were two different things - they are not! [b]Politics in todays world is jihad - and Jihad is fard![/b] - never forget that! - dont cry when Iran and then Pakistan is bombed when you did nothing to stop it - [b]your enemies [/b]are not sleeping and debating, the are acting, see: http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/1263/103/

And for those who do not understand why we criticise the Mosques read : http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4/1262/103/

Anyway - may Allah bless the jihad and those who strive to defend Islam. And that includes the revival team. One of the few magazines that actually have the guts to tell the Muslims the truth without selling us out.

ws

Asghar
MPACUK

If that is the case and if that view is respected by Admin and The Revival Editor, how can I respect your politics and not accept the conferred position of enemy? Can you not promote peace? Is my belief that most Muslims would sooner get along completely misguided?

This question is of the greatest concern to me and resolving it is the main reason I first commented here.

And how has MPACUK even acquired the slightest shred of respectability when its positions are made quite clear in the links Bukhari posted?

Come to common grounds with people of the book!

Something we agree upon! I think we should make a Muslim-Jewish alliance and wage war on MPAC.

Plan A.
Infiltrate the MPAC premises and infest the offices with maggots (£2.50 for approx 100 from any tackle shop in the UK).

Open to further suggestions.....

No, it doesn't make anything clear to me because it does not ring entirely true. I believe your point of view consists primarily of justifying the injustice of your own by emphasising the injustice of others, [url=http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/483/521.html]sometimes to the point of absurdity[/url]. Perhaps you haven't noticed. Bukhari's obsessive villification of Israel is not tempered by any condemnation of the very physical jihad. Shrug it off and say "that's life" if you believe that is the right thing to do.

"The Great 100" wrote:

Bukhari's obsessive villification of Israel is not tempered by any condemnation of the very physical jihad.

Why does the physical jihad have to be condemned?

[b]Doesn't have to be[/b], Beast, if that's your way forward. Let us be really specific and point out the flimsy construct alleging that the main enemy of Muslims is Zionism, American and other western interests are but tools of Zionism, any condemnation of terrorism is secondary to condemnation of Zionism, that Zionists have an unfair advantage and are somewhat demonic, and that the Zionists intend to oppress the Muslim world. All that is BS. [b]I would be interested to know your reaction and the response of anyone else who cares to comment, to the article I linked, which has made an impression on me.[/b]

As far as I can tell Ed is claiming that Bukhari's jihad is against oppression and injustice. The physical jihad is oppressive or domineering, inherently unjust and a vast distraction from the reality of numerous injustices elsewhere and within the Ummah. This is not a deflection of all criticism of Israel by any means, but it is something you either see or you don't.

Towards someone who states or implies Zionists are necessarily the enemy and any Zionist viewpoint is but the unjust privilege of the enemy, I cannot have any respect. It would be suicide and submission to violence, ignorance and arrogance. I do not perceive therein a belief in the equality of man and the value of listening, contributing, tolerating and compromising, merely one of gain vs loss, pride vs shame, winning vs losing and, much as you might dislike my saying it, an aggressively marketed victim complex.

The very suggestion that non-Muslims represent the devil's work rather hinders mutual respect, and is rampant in the ideology of MPACUK.

This business of sending a donation to Irving is a mark of how little Bukhari really understands his subject outside of a hostile context. Apology or nay, the ignorance is astounding for someone who comments so prolifically on the subject of justice. His ridiculously slanted articles imply that any campaign over non-Muslims or certainly against Israel constitutes pursuit of justice. It patently does not. Why should anyone equivocate in the face of such steely enmity?

"I" wrote:

Can you not promote peace? Is my belief that most Muslims would sooner get along completely misguided?

"The Great 100" wrote:

No, it doesn't make anything clear to me because it does not ring entirely true. I believe your point of view consists primarily of justifying the injustice of your own by emphasising the injustice of others, [url=http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/483/521.html]sometimes to the point of absurdity[/url]. Perhaps you haven't noticed. Bukhari's obsessive villification of Israel is not tempered by any condemnation of the very physical jihad. Shrug it off and say "that's life" if you believe that is the right thing to do.

What I find 'absurd' is your selective memory. Israel and Jewish people still, nearly 70 years later, use the holocaust as an excuse for near enough everything. It disgusts me that the majority of the world still sympathises with Jews.

Palestinian: ‘your dog killed my cat, and I want compensation’
Israeli: ‘what about all the Jews who died in Germany?!’

HOW DARE YOU BELITTLE THE STRUGGLE of Muslims today? You have no authority to do so. Just like I have no authority to belittle the holocaust.

Maybe your ‘memory’ only goes back 3 or 4 years but Iraq has been a target for the west for a 100 years. Over the last 18 years it’s approximated that over 2 million people in Iraq have died as a consequence of the continued invasions and pathetic sanctions on Iraq. Over 2 million of a population of approximately 22 million. Forget about the rest of the Muslims (Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya etc.)

So stop jumping around like a chimpanzee with its bum on fire every time a comparison is made with the holocaust.

100man. Correct me if I'm wrong: Your view is that Asghar Bukhari and Muslims in general should be promoting peace – in order to promote peace they should drop any enmity towards Zionism and disown any physical Palestinian resistance to Israel.

I would hazard a guess that Asghar Bukhari has no problem with Zionism per se. If Jews want their own state they can have one as long as it is done justly and not at the expense of any non-Jews. The Zionism that Asghar and most Muslims oppose is the Zionism which defends and purports to legitimize the modern state of Israel at the expense of Palestine, the Palestinian people, and international and human rights laws. As such any physical and violent opposition to Zionism is not aimed against the existence and right to existence of a Jewish state – it is aimed against the injustices involved in the creation and perpetuation of the state of Israel in its current form. A condemnation of the physical struggle against Israel, therefore, can be secondary to a condemnation of Zionism – it is the lesser of two wrongs.

However the view that the US and western interests are tools of Zionists is an exaggeration. This view is an uninformed reaction to seemingly overwhelming power of the Israeli lobby in the US and Europe. The Israeli lobby is powerful but not completely dominant.

MPACUK do not believe that “non-Muslims represent the devil’s work.” They very often draw on non-Muslim literature in their website articles. No doubt many MPAC members are influenced by and find inspiration in certain western liberals and socialists.

I agree with you that much of MPAC’s original website content can be categorised as gain v loss, pride v shame, winning v losing. That’s a reflection of the fact they are trying to mobilise and attract, what is sometimes, an apathetic and apolitical community. At the same time they need to give voice to those in the community who may otherwise turn to terrorism. In trying to be all things to all people MPAC fail to articulate a measured message.

Asghar sent David Irving £60 6 years ago. But to hold the Irving thing against Asghar forever would be to deny that he is capable of growing as a person and learning from his mistakes.

In the short run Asghar’s particular struggle for justice might be constrained to Palestine and British Muslim political participation. But that is no bad thing – he can only do so much. His concern for Palestine does not hinder, prevent, or stand in opposition to other struggles.

Asghar is biased towards the Palestinians – these are the people against whom the greater injustice is being committed. For example, in the debate over global warming you wouldn’t give the same deference to the people who deny global warming as you to the people who see that it exists and try to do something about it. The Palestinians being the people who are most disadvantaged are deserving of greater attention and support.

Any support anyone (eg Ed and Admin) gives to Asghar Bukhari and MPAC, is not unequivocal. Backing Asghar does not mean you share every view he has without thinking for yourself. To suggest that we should promote peace and drop any support or deference towards the Palestinians is absurd. It is very much possible to start from the position that the Palestinians are being, and have been, treated unacceptably and then make moves towards a peaceful solution to the problem.

You accuse MPAC of pushing an “aggressively marketed victim complex” and then ask us to consider an article about how Israel is being unjustly blamed for war crimes, ethnic cleansing and systematic murder. This blame is:

Quote:

Sometimes it is because this is fashionable, sometimes it is mistakenly, sometimes it is the result of hypocrisy and double standards. Sometimes it is new and old anti-Semitism, from the left and from the right, overt and covert.

Hmm… but never because it might be true. If MPAC put up an article about the media and academia in the West participating in demonising Muslim you would have thought this was part of the “aggressively marketed victim complex.” Just because of historical and Muslim-Muslim conflicts Israel is no less blameless for its crime against Palestinians – no country attacks any Muslim population, or any other population for that matter, as often as Israel attacks the Palestinians. No other country is in breach of as many UN resolutions as Israel is. (Interesting how the article doesn’t mention Rwanda.)

"mmm" wrote:

"The Great 100" wrote:

No, it doesn't make anything clear to me because it does not ring entirely true. I believe your point of view consists primarily of justifying the injustice of your own by emphasising the injustice of others, [url=http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/483/521.html]sometimes to the point of absurdity[/url]. Perhaps you haven't noticed. Bukhari's obsessive villification of Israel is not tempered by any condemnation of the very physical jihad. Shrug it off and say "that's life" if you believe that is the right thing to do.

What I find 'absurd' is your selective memory. Israel and Jewish people still, nearly 70 years later, use the holocaust as an excuse for near enough everything. It disgusts me that the majority of the world still sympathises with Jews.

Palestinian: ‘your dog killed my cat, and I want compensation’
Israeli: ‘what about all the Jews who died in Germany?!’

HOW DARE YOU BELITTLE THE STRUGGLE of Muslims today? You have no authority to do so. Just like I have no authority to belittle the holocaust.

Maybe your ‘memory’ only goes back 3 or 4 years but Iraq has been a target for the west for a 100 years. Over the last 18 years it’s approximated that over 2 million people in Iraq have died as a consequence of the continued invasions and pathetic sanctions on Iraq. Over 2 million of a population of approximately 22 million. Forget about the rest of the Muslims (Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya etc.)

So stop jumping around like a chimpanzee with its bum on fire every time a comparison is made with the holocaust.

mmm, I have not justified the creation of Israel on the basis of the holocaust. The holocaust, the creation of Israel and the wars in Iraq are very distinct things. It is true that the sympathy for the Jews after the holocaust increased global support for the establishment of Israel, but the Jews had been lobbying for their own state there for many years, and the troubles between Jews and Arabs first reached their zenith in the 1920s. Nor do I believe that on account of Hitler's holocaust Muslims should be apathetic about the violence in Iraq. The article I linked makes the case that organisations like MPACUK shift focus very heavily onto Zionism but ignore immense atrocities the world over. The subtext is that Israel's battles are very pinpointed by comparison and that in fact Israel is responding to provocation from militant groups and the Arab world at large. I am not being selective and as I said this cannot deflect all criticism of Israel.

"Palestinian: ‘your dog killed my cat, and I want compensation’
Israeli: ‘what about all the Jews who died in Germany?!’"

What a simplification. Israel has made many offers to the Palestinians and also behaved out of goodwill. The issue is whether the Palestinians can stop threatening more violence every time they negotiate. Many Palestinian groups including Hamas expressly want to destroy Israel. All of this is not about the holocaust and amounts to responding with non-sequiturs.

"Beast" wrote:

100man. Correct me if I'm wrong: Your view is that Asghar Bukhari and Muslims in general should be promoting peace – in order to promote peace they should drop any enmity towards Zionism and disown any physical Palestinian resistance to Israel.

Bukhari can disown or not disown Palestinian resistance but he should not resort to propaganda or he can expect to make enemies.

"Beast" wrote:

I would hazard a guess that Asghar Bukhari has no problem with Zionism per se. If Jews want their own state they can have one as long as it is done justly and not at the expense of any non-Jews.

That is not at all clear in his writings. Your measured response is a very far cry from the kind of anti-Israel comment that fills his website.

"Beast" wrote:

As such any physical and violent opposition to Zionism is not aimed against the existence and right to existence of a Jewish state – it is aimed against the injustices involved in the creation and perpetuation of the state of Israel in its current form. A condemnation of the physical struggle against Israel, therefore, can be secondary to a condemnation of Zionism – it is the lesser of two wrongs.

That is putting the cart before the horse. Get this straight, Israeli operations target those who fight Israel. The policy of bulldozing the homes of suicide bombers may be illegal and controversial but it is pretty targetted. Palestinian fighting takes the form of attacks on the Israeli public. If those were to cease, the immediate injustices would cease and Palestinians could negotiate on borders. As long as you support hostility by those who - whatever you might think - are hostile to Israel per se, you cannot at the same time walk the fine line of criticising Israel and believing in resolution.

"Beast" wrote:

However the view that the US and western interests are tools of Zionists is an exaggeration. This view is an uninformed reaction to seemingly overwhelming power of the Israeli lobby in the US and Europe. The Israeli lobby is powerful but not completely dominant.

Not an exaggeration, a lie. Frequent references by Bukhari to the Zionist media etc are just plain rabble-rousing.

I have not said I will hold that £60 donation against Bukhari forever, merely that it demonstrates he got into this either with very few scruples about playing dirty or as a total ignoramus.

"Beast" wrote:

In the short run Asghar’s particular struggle for justice might be constrained to Palestine and British Muslim political participation. But that is no bad thing – he can only do so much. His concern for Palestine does not hinder, prevent, or stand in opposition to other struggles.

Rubbish. How does exclusively rallying Muslims against Israel not detract from other agendas? Very clearly that is how I expect the rulers of the countries mentioned in that article to deflect criticism, and with tools like Bukhari following their lead the tactic works. The effect of this is that reform in those areas comes from without, perhaps at the expense of many more lives. mmm suggests that the number killed in Iraq over 18 years is 2 million, for example. Which might bring you back to comparing the figures described in that article before you write: "Asghar is biased towards the Palestinians – these are the people against whom the greater injustice is being committed. For example, in the debate over global warming you wouldn’t give the same deference to the people who deny global warming as you to the people who see that it exists and try to do something about it. The Palestinians being the people who are most disadvantaged are deserving of greater attention and support. "

It goes without saying he is biased but my concern is not the bias, it is the obsession. Such obsession is prevalent throughout the Muslim world and distorts the fact that most of the "enemies of Islam" are themselves Muslim. Witness the Sunni-Shia issues in Iraq and Lebanon, blame a third party. The truth is most people in Iraq who want the US to withdraw want to do so not so that equality can be established but so that the battle can commence unhindered by western powers.

"Beast" wrote:

Any support anyone (eg Ed and Admin) gives to Asghar Bukhari and MPAC, is not unequivocal. Backing Asghar does not mean you share every view he has without thinking for yourself. To suggest that we should promote peace and drop any support or deference towards the Palestinians is absurd. It is very much possible to start from the position that the Palestinians are being, and have been, treated unacceptably and then make moves towards a peaceful solution to the problem.

Agreed, that can be your position but you ought to be realistic and acknowledge that terrorism is a constant provocation to Israel and that there can be little talk of peace as long as Muslims do not deal with this.

Did I say you justified the creation of Israel? As to my knowledge Israel is still yet to be created. I see an occupying force that will be removed in exactly the fashion it came. No true Muslim and free thinking non-Muslim accepts Israel.

You say ‘Israel has made many offers to Palestine’. That land has never known peace unless under complete Muslim control. Palestine will be for Palestinians again.

You are not for peace. This makes me doubt further Beast's guess that "Asghar Bukhari has no problem with Zionism per se." What gives you the gall to say, "No true Muslim and free thinking non-Muslim accepts Israel"?

[url=http://www.jerusalempeacemakers.org/]Jerusalem Peacemakers[/url]

"The Great 100" wrote:

You are not for peace. This makes me doubt further Beast's guess that "Asghar Bukhari has no problem with Zionism per se." What gives you the gall to say, "No true Muslim and free thinking non-Muslim accepts Israel"?

[url=http://www.jerusalempeacemakers.org/]Jerusalem Peacemakers[/url]

It makes wonder how what you stand for. You talk about peace but you have never condemned Israel’s terrorism. In your eyes they aren't. Then you make up statements like 'you are not for peace' and assert them.

A majority of Palestine was stolen and will be returned. In the carefully planned theft of a whole nation, genocide took place and still is rampant. In fact it has always been like that for Palestinians. If you sympathise with the plight of Palestinians you are supporting terrorism. Hamas are protecting their people and are fully within their rights.

What gives Jews rights to Palestine? It’s the Promised Land? You lived their 2000 years ago? Where were the Palestinians? In Japan?

I would really like to read your response.

"mmm" wrote:

"The Great 100" wrote:

You are not for peace. This makes me doubt further Beast's guess that "Asghar Bukhari has no problem with Zionism per se." What gives you the gall to say, "No true Muslim and free thinking non-Muslim accepts Israel"?

[url=http://www.jerusalempeacemakers.org/]Jerusalem Peacemakers[/url]

It makes wonder how what you stand for. You talk about peace but you have never condemned Israel’s terrorism. In your eyes they aren't. Then you make up statements like 'you are not for peace' and assert them.

A majority of Palestine was stolen and will be returned. In the carefully planned theft of a whole nation, genocide took place and still is rampant. In fact it has always been like that for Palestinians. If you sympathise with the plight of Palestinians you are supporting terrorism. Hamas are protecting their people and are fully within their rights.

What gives Jews rights to Palestine? It’s the Promised Land? You lived their 2000 years ago? Where were the Palestinians? In Japan?

I would really like to read your response.

I stand for an Israeli and a Palestinian state. That part is very simple. Residents in either state would be eligible for automatic citizenship but could also apply for citizenship of the other and be entitled to free movement in the other although not necessarily residency. This cannot take place as long as there is a security threat to Israel. Israel is not conducting a genocide. Sympathy with Palestinians does not amount to supporting terror. Sympathy with Israel does not amount to a carte blanche for military action. Terror does necessitate military action. Peace necessitates an absence of provocation. Israel's actions are not ideologically provocative but they can go overboard. Terrorist actions are ideologically provocative and are usually accompanied by outright vilification of Israel.

Palestine under the Byzantinians had Ramallah as its capital. Much later under the Ottomans it was a district of Syria but was still often called Palestine, sometimes in reference just to Ramallah or Jerusalem. It was officially called Palestine under the British mandate of 1920. A majority of what became Israel and a majority of Jerusalem were Jewish long before 1948, and the Arab resistance began in the 1920s. However a majority of Western Palestine - that part of the mandate (roughly a fifth) which did not become Transjordan - was Arab. Prior to 1948 the Jews purchased land from Arab landowners at high prices in addition to paying off many of the inhabitants. A British survey in the 1930s found that some 100 Arabs had a tenable claim to having been dispossessed. Only when war broke out in 1948, upon Israel's declaration of independence, was land won and lost or what you have called stolen, including much of Jewish Jerusalem that was lost to the Arabs. As for the half a million Jews who were dispossessed from Arab lands in 1948, they were offered settlement in Israel, whereas the Palestinian refugees were left by their neighbours to live in camps.

"mmm" wrote:

Then you make up statements like 'you are not for peace' and assert them.

The reason I wrote that was in response to your comment:

"mmm" wrote:

Did I say you justified the creation of Israel? As to my knowledge Israel is still yet to be created. I see an occupying force that will be removed in exactly the fashion it came. No true Muslim and free thinking non-Muslim accepts Israel.

You say ‘Israel has made many offers to Palestine’. That land has never known peace unless under complete Muslim control. Palestine will be for Palestinians again.

Perhaps you actually do support peace between a state called Israel and a neighbouring state called Palestine. So did I misunderstand that remark?

ftr I do justify the creation of Israel but not solely in reference to the Nazi holocaust (implied by your earlier remarks). Almost sixty years later I certainly do not condone the dismantling of Israel and I do support the establishment of a Palestinian state.

I hope that answers your questions. A lot of time can be wasted exchanging points of view and in the meantime war rages on.

"Beast" wrote:

(Interesting how the article doesn’t mention Rwanda.)

Beast,

I'm sure you can do this. Why doesn't the article mention Rwanda?

"The Great 100" wrote:

"Beast" wrote:

(Interesting how the article doesn’t mention Rwanda.)

Beast,

I'm sure you can do this. Why doesn't the article mention Rwanda?

Beacause it tries to put Israel's killing of Muslims in the context of killings of Muslims globally - 'what Israel does is not so bad, look what they do to each other.' Therefore Rwanda is not important here because it's not Muslim and Israel wasn't involved.

"The Great 100" wrote:

Get this straight, Israeli operations target those who fight Israel. The policy of bulldozing the homes of suicide bombers may be illegal and controversial but it is pretty targeted. Palestinian fighting takes the form of attacks on the Israeli public. If those were to cease, the immediate injustices would cease and Palestinians could negotiate on borders. As long as you support hostility by those who - whatever you might think - are hostile to Israel per se, you cannot at the same time walk the fine line of criticising Israel and believing in resolution.

This is the central point of contention here. You believe Israeli actions are reactions to Palestinian provocation whereas the majority of the rest of the board believe that Palestinian actions are a reaction to Israeli provocation.

Whatever the truth - chicken or egg - it is very clear that Israeli actions are always disproportionately severe and increase the likelihood of further Palestinian resistance.

Reading the report below tell me how any of the Israeli actions were proportionate and measured reactions to Palestinian provocation:

Quote:

Palestinians shot by Israeli troops

Israeli soldiers have shot and wounded two Palestinians who approached Israel's border with the Gaza Strip, and arrested 45 Palestinians in Kufr Dan village, near the West Bank city of Jenin.

The shootings in Gaza are the first time the Israeli military has opened fire in the area since a November 26 truce.

Palestinian ambulance workers said on Wednesday that the two men were unarmed.

An Israeli military spokesman said they had behaved suspiciously and ignored warning shots to make them move away from an Israeli-built border fence. The shootings occurred in separate locations on Wednesday, he said.

In the first incident, one Palestinian climbed a pole near the fence while another appeared to place an explosive charge on the ground, the spokesman said.

"The Israeli force called on them to move back and fired in the air. They moved away," he said.

"Later, several dozen people crowded near the fence, along with the same two men. One of them, using the crowd for cover, appeared to continue to place a charge. The force then fired at him, and according to our information, he was shot in the leg."

In the second incident, near the Erez border crossing, a Palestinian crossed a perimeter fence, drawing shouted warnings from Israeli soldiers to turn back before he reached the main barrier.

"He didn't. They fired in the air and he still didn't stop. Then they fired at him, hitting him in the leg," the spokesman said.

Local residents said the two men may have been collecting scrap metal in the area.

West Bank arrests

Al Jazeera's Ali al-Sumodi reports that Israeli forces have launched military operations in Jenin city in the West Bank and arrested several families.

Most of the arrested people were reported to be relatives of wanted activists of al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and al-Quds Brigades.

More than 30 military vehicles entered west Jenin on Wednesday and proceeded to surround houses in the area.

Israeli forces arrested the family and relatives of Ibrahim and Ramzi Abed, two al-Aqsa Brigades leaders, and arrested relatives of members of al-Quds Brigades and Hamas movement.

Israel has said that there is a Palestinian cell in Kufr Dan village that plans to carry out military attacks. As a result Israel has escalated its operations in the area.

People in the area have called, through Al Jazeera, on human and international organisations to intervene in order to free the arrested families that include old people and students.

[url=http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E7911F28-6E74-48D4-9B68-CB818ECCE...

Further, if Palestinian actions ceased they would not be able to negotiate on borders – that’s wishful thinikng. Israel will continue to take overwhelming action against those it sees as responsible for previous attacks (responsible in the loosest sense of the word). It would also demand changes to the politics and memberships of Palestinian organisations. Real negotiations will take only when Israel wants regardless of what the Palestinians do.

"The Great 100" wrote:

As long as you support hostility by those who - whatever you might think - are hostile to Israel per se, you cannot at the same time walk the fine line of criticising Israel and believing in resolution.

You can't tell us we have to stop criticising Israel in order to believe in resolution and then make excuses for Israel and dismiss Palestinian actions as provocations all the while claiming that you yourself believe in resolution.

It is possible to believe in resolution despite being critical of Israel and the Palestinians. If there were no criticisms to be made of either side what would we be trying to resolve?

"Beast" wrote:

"The Great 100" wrote:

"Beast" wrote:

(Interesting how the article doesn’t mention Rwanda.)

Beast,

I'm sure you can do this. Why doesn't the article mention Rwanda?

Beacause it tries to put Israel's killing of Muslims in the context of killings of Muslims globally - 'what Israel does is not so bad, look what they do to each other.' Therefore Rwanda is not important here because it's not Muslim and Israel wasn't involved.

No. It is because Muslims were not killed in Rwanda. Close consideration will reveal that the point is not, "What Israel does is not so bad" but, "This is what genocide looks like. Why are you silent?" Your resentment of the point is no rebuttal.

"Beast" wrote:

"The Great 100" wrote:

Get this straight, Israeli operations target those who fight Israel. The policy of bulldozing the homes of suicide bombers may be illegal and controversial but it is pretty targeted. Palestinian fighting takes the form of attacks on the Israeli public. If those were to cease, the immediate injustices would cease and Palestinians could negotiate on borders. As long as you support hostility by those who - whatever you might think - are hostile to Israel per se, you cannot at the same time walk the fine line of criticising Israel and believing in resolution.

This is the central point of contention here. You believe Israeli actions are reactions to Palestinian provocation whereas the majority of the rest of the board believe that Palestinian actions are a reaction to Israeli provocation.

Whatever the truth - chicken or egg - it is very clear that Israeli actions are always disproportionately severe and increase the likelihood of further Palestinian resistance.

Reading the report below tell me how any of the Israeli actions were proportionate and measured reactions to Palestinian provocation:

Quote:

Palestinians shot by Israeli troops

Israeli soldiers have shot and wounded two Palestinians who approached Israel's border with the Gaza Strip, and arrested 45 Palestinians in Kufr Dan village, near the West Bank city of Jenin.

The shootings in Gaza are the first time the Israeli military has opened fire in the area since a November 26 truce.

Palestinian ambulance workers said on Wednesday that the two men were unarmed.

An Israeli military spokesman said they had behaved suspiciously and ignored warning shots to make them move away from an Israeli-built border fence. The shootings occurred in separate locations on Wednesday, he said.

In the first incident, one Palestinian climbed a pole near the fence while another appeared to place an explosive charge on the ground, the spokesman said.

"The Israeli force called on them to move back and fired in the air. They moved away," he said.

"Later, several dozen people crowded near the fence, along with the same two men. One of them, using the crowd for cover, appeared to continue to place a charge. The force then fired at him, and according to our information, he was shot in the leg."

In the second incident, near the Erez border crossing, a Palestinian crossed a perimeter fence, drawing shouted warnings from Israeli soldiers to turn back before he reached the main barrier.

"He didn't. They fired in the air and he still didn't stop. Then they fired at him, hitting him in the leg," the spokesman said.

Local residents said the two men may have been collecting scrap metal in the area.

West Bank arrests

Al Jazeera's Ali al-Sumodi reports that Israeli forces have launched military operations in Jenin city in the West Bank and arrested several families.

Most of the arrested people were reported to be relatives of wanted activists of al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and al-Quds Brigades.

More than 30 military vehicles entered west Jenin on Wednesday and proceeded to surround houses in the area.

Israeli forces arrested the family and relatives of Ibrahim and Ramzi Abed, two al-Aqsa Brigades leaders, and arrested relatives of members of al-Quds Brigades and Hamas movement.

Israel has said that there is a Palestinian cell in Kufr Dan village that plans to carry out military attacks. As a result Israel has escalated its operations in the area.

People in the area have called, through Al Jazeera, on human and international organisations to intervene in order to free the arrested families that include old people and students.

[url=http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E7911F28-6E74-48D4-9B68-CB818ECCE...

It is not proportionate, but it is appropriate action.

"Beast" wrote:

Further, if Palestinian actions ceased they would not be able to negotiate on borders – that’s wishful thinikng. Israel will continue to take overwhelming action against those it sees as responsible for previous attacks (responsible in the loosest sense of the word). It would also demand changes to the politics and memberships of Palestinian organisations. Real negotiations will take only when Israel wants regardless of what the Palestinians do.

We disagree. If Hamas proposed to operate a ceasefire on all fronts with the intention of negotiating a permanent settlement with Israel, in renuciation of its charter which unequivocally sets out to fight Israel to the death, provided Hamas maintains that ceasefire Israel will categorically enter into negotiations and hold back any military action. If in that time Hamas presents a threat such as by arming militia against Israel, Israel will act on it and the ceasefire will not hold.

"Beast" wrote:

"The Great 100" wrote:

As long as you support hostility by those who - whatever you might think - are hostile to Israel per se, you cannot at the same time walk the fine line of criticising Israel and believing in resolution.

You can't tell us we have to stop criticising Israel in order to believe in resolution and then make excuses for Israel and dismiss Palestinian actions as provocations all the while claiming that you yourself believe in resolution.

It is possible to believe in resolution despite being critical of Israel and the Palestinians. If there were no criticisms to be made of either side what would we be trying to resolve?

We are agreed on this point and I have been clear about it, but it is no excuse to permit the continuation of terrorism, as though Israeli criticisms of it were mere political fodder. Israel will refuse to allow militia to gain an upper hand through violence, no matter if we call Israel's actions counter-terrorism or injustice.

In addition to the facts of the matter, Palestinians and Arabs in general are taught exceptionally nasty propaganda about Israel and also about Jews and have been taught this by the state madrassahs for several generations. Consequently there is an immense reluctance to accept the notion of devilification and negotiation. By contrast Israelis are taught by the state, if not always by one another, to adopt a modern liberal view of others and profoundly to believe that if war is necessary, peace is still possible. Therein lies a problem.

Beast, fwiw I appreciate our conversation and presuming you maintain a level head which you apparently do, I will leave you to respond in your own time and summarise your views further if you like and I would like to take a hiatus from the subject, if that is OK.