december, this statement is so unutterably fallacious that I can scarcely believe you typed it in.
In saying this you have confirmed something about yourself that I had hitherto suspected, but wasn’t sure. More I cannot say within the rules of this forum.
December,
I am Pro Palestinian. I am also Pro Israel. I want to se a peaceful resolution to the situations. I believe that Violence will only lead to More Violence, on both sides.
Point out to me how I am intolerant.
You are clearly intolerant to violence. 
However, few people make that simple connection that violence breeds violence not peace.
I have a hard time believing that the majority of either side really wants peace, if they did want peace, if they really wanted to stop the bloodshed. Nothing could stop peace from comming, not even God/Allah himself.
But they are used to it, the hate and the violence.
OK, let’s move on. I also think that for Arabs to get what they want, Israelis must die, becasue what they want is Israel’s destruction.
The conclusion is that one cannot be tolerant of both sides in the real world.
One can think tolerant thoughts, based on scenarios that one wishes would happen. I guess that’s a sort of tolerance.
Howver, actions that favor Israelis also favor the death of Arabs, and vice versa. That’s why the Arabs and their allies in the General Assembly refused to pass a resolution condeming the suicide bombings.
This is true. So, does Teach Tolerance turn out to mean Practice Ignorance and Apathy? Is that OK with you?
However, in reality, the ignorance and apathy generally extend one direction or the other. E.g., Collounsbury was concered about threatening phone calls to the parents of a Jew who helped Arafat. However, he didn’t focus on the many, many Palestinians who have been killed (not must threatened) by Arafat for allegedly helping Israel.
I do think we’re obliged to tolerate his doing so! 
Well, first december it’s nice to see that you show the same ability to understand and distinguish between Arabs that Hamas shows in re Jews.
Wonderful. So let’s just bring on the apocalypse right now, eh?
Well, december, as the subject on hand was not Palestinian’s killing accused collabos in the West Bank or even other violence in the but some Jews in Brookyln threatening the mother and father of a Jew who, as you put it, helped Arafat, I’m not sure what your fucking point is.
Other than to illustrate precisely my point. That some people are mistaking a critical attitude towards Likoud/Sharon’s policies for anti-Israel and have been moved to the point of adopting the same world view that drives people like those in Hamas. Insofar as I don’t see that as being particularly productive…
In re the fellow who entered Arafat’s compound, I might argue that he really saved Sharon from himself since the execution or arrest and expulsion of Arafat would have simply been another step down Sharon’s failed policy path of trying to put in place a docile Palestinian leadership. He tried such things in Lebanon, it turned the occupation into a killing ground and failed. He tried it in the past in the occupied terrirtories. It failed then too. The French tried such policies in Vietnam, in Algeria etc. They failed.
Sharon’s approach buys nothing but blood. We now have bizarrely a fellow like Baghrouti who is on the record recognizing Israel and saying he would deal with Israel in jail while the leadership of Hamas is untouched. Untouched. But of course in your mind they’re all the same. Oddly so to in Sheikh Yassine’s mind, in re the Jews.
Oddly december I get the sinking feeling you would have been a member of OAS had you been French in Algeria.
I’m just over here dining on the delicious irony of **december ** posting this:
in response to some one else having the audacity to post an op ed piece.
What type of whine do you suggest? 
Certainly violence breeds violence, but that does not exclude the possibility that a solid peace may also be the result. Two nuclear bombs on Japan has resulted in one of the most peaceful and prosperous countries in the world. A worldwide military alliance and massive bombing campaign on German cities has resulted in one of the most peaceful countries in the world. Both presently peaceful countries were violently forced into unconditional surrender, and they as well as the rest of the world is a better place for it.
That is what brings the media cameras out, and helps project their ugly message. But at least the taunters get to feel righteous about themselves.
Dear december I thank you for candidness on re your view of the Arabic world. How long it only took and how many electrons wasted I care not to imagine. I deplore that it be so, but I will tolerate your opinion… while continuing to smash it to the ground in open debate due to the moral obligation I feel to curtail intolerance before it takes more tangible form than opinion, whereupon along the axioms here laid by tom and Polycarp I musts become intolerant myself.
You have as of yet not come out as crystal clear on your view as re EU and Europeans, but I am sure that we will be privy to this as well, sooner or later.
Before I get into this any deeper I should maybe state my views on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I am pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, while I am for instance anti-Sharon and anti-Hamas. Others have explained this stand to you, and you have maintained a knuckleheaded obstinacy in not understanding it, so I refrain. Not that my specific view is relevant in this, but just so you know what moves behind the cool stare that is just now typing this reply to you.
I did warn you at one point that I care not to be accused of things like condoning murder.
So you think that by not mentioning me, and the rest of the EU I’d let it go? You should know better by now one would imagine.
Let’s examine this once and for all. The base for your accusation is that we have condemned Israel but not Palestine. I think, nay highly suspect that this comes from an op Ed article somewhere. I would be fairly certain that the author of the same would be more than aware of the effect it seems to have had on you and other readers, all the while knowing that some pieces of information were left out of the story.
Let’s start with the UN resolution that you implicitly make reference to, namely Resolution on Illegal Israeli Actions Adopted By Vote of 74 in Favour, 4 Against, with 54 Abstaining from May 7, 2002. There is no question that this resolution directs itself towards the Israeli government and hence by extension Israel at large. Although it might be hard to read for a layman, the resolution is mainly a reaction and a political pressure tool to coerce the Israeli government to let the fact finding team on the alleged Jenin massacre proceed. It does not intend to display bias in regards the complete situation and conflict. The fear that this might occur was grounds for the US to vote nay, as clarified in the resolution:
On a side note I might agree with the US, but my opinion is as earlier stated not of importance. Note that here is spoken of rhetoric and mutual causes. Note also that the US chooses to discretely emphasize the bilateral and equilateral guilt in this conflict. Note further that the US nowhere in this opposes the content of the resolution itself, which BTW is a rather grim reading on alleged breaches of international law and human rights.
In re the efficiency of this resolution others felt differently on the matter, or for political reasons beyond the scope of this thread needed to vote or abstain in a different direction.
The representative from Spain speaking on behalf of the European Union and applicant states expressed the varying opinion as follows:
Yours and other’s complete lack of understanding of the resolution seems to indicate that the US representative had a point. But these guys are concerned with human lives in Israel and I think that they would all give your thoughts and opinions about as little regard as they actually deserve, if it would save only a few eternally valuable lives. The US argued differently, because they were afraid of inflammation and that those thoughts and opinions in the wrong places could be arms of equal force as the actual bombs and guns that execute the murder.
I’ll go over it again more clearly, in a wildly simplified manner:
A majority of the world including the US has rallied to call for an immediate cessation of violence from both parties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the creation of an independent Palestine state. They have not been heard on any side.
Just prior to this resolution, allegations of crimes against international charters of war and human rights have been levied against a UN member state on credible grounds, namely Israel. The accused party has refused to cooperate in no little way by actively blocking access by UN observers to materials and locations pertinent to the accusations. The other UN states have agreed that this is not acceptable and called for an emergency session to bring their sister state to order. The measure they bring about is this resolution. It restates previous demands of cessation of violence and occupation, forcefully states the demand that observation be reinstated and demands the reinstatement of certain humanitarian efforts interrupted by Israeli forces. It is in the viewpoint of the US representative not the best way to achieve the goal at hand the goal that most of them agree upon namely a stable and lasting peace and autonomy for the peoples of Israel and Palestine, hence the US and two affiliated states vote against, while Israel votes against for other rather obvious reasons. The others do feel that this is the best way to go on or mark their non-alliance by abstaining their vote. Now, what went on behind closed doors and who decided to be bad guy and good guy or take whatever strategic role in that day’s world political games, debates and condemnations is a little beyond us I think. I’ll only say that given the intense diplomatic cooperation between the EU and the US to resolve this crisis I’d be surprised if they were not pretty clear on who would do what, even to the point of agreeing beforehand. Get it?
Goddamn-it this is not kindergarten december it’s the UN. These guys bandy dogma and big words around that might come across as simple-headed opinions to you. It’s a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Anyone with half a brain cell interested in understanding the world better should realize how subtle, lethal and very, very much too important this is to be dismissed according to the blanket statements used to rally the masses as part of the debate. Or are you not with me here? Not interested? Eh? ‘cause no matter what I say or show, you just know that ‘they’ are the threat and ‘they’ should be destroyed? Is that it?
Ah hell leave it, what do I care what you think. In any case I’m only writing all this because some impressionable souls with an unhealthy capacity to assimilate hogwash and utter crock might also have the patience to read through my remedying ramblings and be saved from ignorance and intolerance.
So let’s march on and see a little more what I did to condone murder or rather what you alleged that I didn’t do.
In one portion the resolution attempts to address the bilateral nature of the conflict, and actually condemns all violence on both sides:
On may 8 The UN uses this nice impasse in the condemnation to publicly decry their outrage and the ’Assembly condemns Israeli attacks on Palestinians, terror against civilians on both sides’
Note that they say ‘on both sides’.
Further, in reaction to previous atrocities by Palestinian extremists they have amongst other missives chosen to issue this: ‘UN officials condemn suicide bombing in Israel’.
I could go on. The EU, the UN, the US and more or less every other blistering fucking sensible democratic nation on this fucking planet, including some with predominant Muslim populations have time and again condemned the suicide bombings against Israelis.
We (I think you know why I say we) didn’t unilaterally condemn Arafat, many of us think he is rather powerless and insignificant in this, and if he wasn’t already Sharon has made him so. Collounsbury et al have already tried to knock that one through your impenetrable information shield… so I refrain.
We have decried and condemned the Hamas, the Al Ahksa brigades and all other violent organizations amongst the Palestinians.
We have strongly noted and decried the lack of order in the Palestinian administration, as long as this made sense.
We have not condemned Palestine… Palestine doesn’t exist.
We have all, again and again condemned and called for cessation of violence from Israel and the Sharon government.
Fercryinoutloud december we are asking for peace, we want peace for the Palestinians, peace for the Israelis and we want all this horror from both sides to be desisted with. And you know what? It doesn’t matter whose fault it is. People are dying every day on both sides and that is what fucks us over, because there is neither right or wrong nor opinions or feelings that are worth the loss of human lives and millions living in fear. That is what tolerance is about. Get it?
Now if you ever again feel that you need to say what you said about me condoning murder, please do it in a forum were I can rip you a proper verbal one instead so that I don’t have to hold back so fucking much. I am outraged.
Sparc
I was just reminded by an old friend of many of us, in her post on another board, of a line quite applicable to the situation here:
No, but I was merely pointing out the flaw in your OP, not advocating apathy as something to be taught.
If I were teaching tolerance, I’d suggest something closer to the quote, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.” As I see it, true tolerance would be “I may not agree with your position, but I will defend your right to hold it.” But then, I’m sure you’ll disagree, since I didn’t get that out of any conservative op/ed column.
I suppose that it would be rather much to expect the differences between Japan and Germany, 1945 and the situation in the occupied territories to be discernable but what can one expect.
But perhaps a bit of enlightenment as to the differences.
1945, Japan and Germany were resetup as independent, sovereign entities immediately after conquest. No question as to annexing their territory, no question as to rapidly reestablishing institutions for and by Germans or Japanese. Further the conquerors invested heavily in getting both back on their economic feet.
Occupied Territories have been occupied since at least 1967. No work towards establishing an independent sovereign state. Rather official policy waffled between annexation and some kind of permanent occupation, or ‘giving’ the territories over to Jordan and Egypt at some point. Settlement policy rather made annexation look the real, on the ground policy, and indeed settlements went all the way into the Sinai, where Israel made substantial capital investments for its settlers.
Fairly little of this capital in either occupied territories, for better or worse, was directed towards the occupied Arab populations, whose very identity was denied. None of this is to deny the revanchist feelings in the occupied populations nor the real concerns of the Israelis in re their security, nor the problematic nature of trying to establish a sovereign Palestinian entity at that time. Nonetheless, it should be clear that the present situation in the Occupied Territories is not analogical to 1945 but rather to a colonial situation, like Algeria, like Vietnam etc.
The occupied populations have been long under the boot of the army, and now they are biting back. Of course, the army’s boot was there for a number of good (the feckless, untrustworthy nature of the PLO leadership, the refusal to come to any terms resembling a peaceful settlement on say 1967 basis, indiscriminate use of violence, etc.) – as well as bad reasons such as the annexation dreams of the Greater Israel faction which to this day would like to engage in ethnic cleansing.
december: *Howver, actions that favor Israelis also favor the death of Arabs, and vice versa. *
Well, now we know where you stand on this issue. You are completely committed to a “conflict dualism” where the two sides are intrinsically mutually inimical, and you do not believe in the possibility of a mutually advantageous resolution. We are so far apart on this question that I doubt there’s any point in debating it.
However, I will just comment on your previous remark that “Muslims routinely kill homosexuals”, which you attempted to justify on the grounds that homosexuality is a capital crime in some (unspecified) Muslim countries. By that logic, the fact that thirteen US states still officially criminalize various homosexual acts implies that “Americans routinely imprison homosexuals”.
If you believe that supporting Israel necessarily implies favoring the death of Arabs, I can see why cherishing anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments might help reconcile you to that grim conviction. However, on this board at least, you cannot make irrational and unsupported arguments for such sentiments and expect to get away with it unchallenged.
Sparc, we seem to have very different world views. Not just differing on Israelis and Palestinians, but disagreeing on how the world works. For this reason, I believe, it’s hard for us to understand one another. I shall make one more effort.
Note in passing that Sharon is a moderate compared to Netanyahu and to the Likud party. Sharon favors an eventual Palestinian state; Likud and Netanyahu came out today against a Palestinian state ever. Israel has moved far to the right in the last two years, due to the suicide bombings.
In short, you would like to believe that you support the Israeli people and oppose only Sharon. However, the Israeli people by and large hold the same positions that Sharon does.
Let us suppose that the Palestinian people, not just Hamas, want to destroy Israel. Then, would you not agree, it would be impossible to simultaneously support Israel and the Palestinian people? Israel could not both survive and be destroyed.
Based on statements and actions by the Palestinian people, I believe that the majority do seek the destruction of Israel. Do you think the Palestinians want to allow Israel to survive and to live in peace with Israel? If so, what’s your evidence?
Well, yes. In fact, by the literal definition of “condone,” the UN has condoned the suicide bombings, regardless of any other resolution, because they “disregarded [the bombings] without protest or censure.” That’s what the word means.
But, note the bad faith on the part of the UN. By now, everyone knows there was no massacre in Jenin. Various reporters have counted the dead bodies. There were about 45 or 50 dead Palestinians, including people fighting. So, the Palestinians have been flat-out lying to the UN and the rest of the world. And, yet, the UN still wants to make an inspection, based on a claim that is known to be false. OTOH, Israel’s claim of one civilian bombing after another are known to be true. Yet the UN has never asked to investigate these bombings. The conclusion is obvious: The UN, as presently constituted, is an enemy of Israel. Any valid discussion must take that fact into account.
It certainly is grim reading. Note that this resolution condemned Israel for the “Jenin massacre,” which the UN had not yet investigated, and which turned out to be a lie. So, the wording of this resolution helps prove the UN’s anti-Israel leaning.
Well, it’s not beyond me. The Arab countries are against Israel, regardless of who’s morally correct. They have many voting allies among 3rd world nations.
There’s the nub. You have a lot more faith in the UN than I do.
I was 3 years old when the UN was formed, and spent most of my life believing in its innate goodness. However, in more recent years, I’ve come to believe that the UN isn’t automatically good guys. Where’s its moral stature, when decisions are made by Sudan, where slavery still exists, and Iraq and Syria, which have butchered their own citizens.
“both sides”? But, Palestinians were making unprovoked murderous attacks against Israeli civilians for a year, until Israel finally responded. Both sides, indeed.
That’s UN officials, not the General Assembly or Human Rights commission. Let’s be clear. Palestinians committed massacres against Israeli civilians for a year. During all that time, no UN committee condemned the attacks.
In light of all the money the US, the UN and the EU have given to Arafat, he ought not to be powerless, but perhaps he is… ,
The al Aksa brigades are led by Arafat. While the EU has made statements against al Aksa, they have increased their payments to their leader, Arafat. This is a mixed message.
That’s fine for you to believe. In your imagination, Arafat could become a man of peace and the Palestinian people could live in peace and harmony next door to Israel. If only all sides saw things the reasonable way that you do. But, suppose the Palestinians don’t see things your way? Suppose they just want to destroy Israel. Then, if Israel practices the kind of peace that you want, they’ll just be destroyed.
As you probably know, European Jews were notably passive in the face of the Holocost. Israel has promised, Never Again.
I am pessimistic that you and I will ever reach agreement, Sparc. If you do wind up attacking me in the Pit, it will be appropriate to be flamed by someone whose name is pronounced spark. 
…and GODWIN!
Touche!
Are you really in Europe, awake at 4:30 or 5:30 in the morning? I am impressed.
Seriously… I respect and understand the fear you give voice to. You didn’t really invoke Godwin, but you are pretty close. It does not make sense to argue the way you do. Emotionally it might, but rationally it does not. We are all afraid; we are even terrified of what others could do against us. The Holocaust does provide an atrocious example of what we humans are capable of. Why do you think I react as strongly to your words as I do?
Well… same reason that you react to the words of Hamas. I don’ like, nay I am freaked out rather by anyone who expresses hatred towards me. Yes the Hamas has gone further and invoked what I will now dub ‘PolyTom’s law’ in as much as they have passed from words to action. This is not only condemnable and despicable but downright unacceptable. But please december recognize the facts. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has gone beyond reason. No side is prone to sensed and balanced debate. To say that one side is more justified due to previous atrocities committed towards them is denying the validity of the horror of present day.
I could arguably be guilty of the largest massacre in human history, larger even than the Holocaust, but forgotten. The Swedes of the 17th century killed more than 25% of central Europe’s population in the 30 years war. Am I guilty of that? I think not. Should therefore Sweden as nation state is banned forever from all maps? I think not. Even if you so argue; the Palestinians did not bring about the Holocaust. The suicide bombers of today might argue that they would have wanted to. Then again Likud might argue that they would have wished it were all directed towards the Arabs.
What am I trying to say? Well, maybe it is time for sensible minds to prevail. This was the case for a while and then true to our human nature we just left it behind and started bashing each other, with occupations and suicide bombings. I somehow think that most of us feel that this is unacceptable.
I don’t think that any Israeli citizen wants to live under the threat of being blown up at any given moment. I don’t think that Palestinian want to live under the threat of being shot at any given moment. I rather think that this is the reason why both parties are doing exactly that; they are afraid. The threat of terror is one of the most terrible forces in our world. It makes us desperate and irrational. I understand the people in the streets of Bethlehem and the cafes of Tel Aviv; they are freaked out and will not tolerate any more violence. Unfortunately they are too caught up in that very same violence to see rationally and calmly at a solution to their plight, that is why I am appalled at your opinions.
You and I are removed from this immediate threat. It is our responsibility as humans, independent of creed and origin to be measured in our views and supportive in our efforts in order to give both sides a chance to back down and try a more peaceful solutions. I can only beg you, my friend (and you are a friend in as much as you are willing to debate and take stand without violence and as long as this prevails you will so remain) please retake your stand on the Arabic peoples. They do not want your destruction. There are undoubtedly such movements of emotion due to the inflamed situation in Israel, but I think that most of the Arabic peoples are just like you and me; more concerned about how to bring home the bread tomorrow and make sure that they live and exist in peace and prosperity for this generation, rather than how to destroy another culture.
Right now they have been scared by the extreme take of the Likud and they are just as afraid as you are. We need to tone all of that down and start seeing things for what they are. We all want to live and prosper, we all want to be safe.
You and I as Westerners owe the world and especially the Middle East a chance to follow in our footsteps. It is time to stop the dogmatic intolerance and start helping the peoples of this region to reconcile.
This is after all the holy land, not because of religion, but because that this is the land of Abraham, the father of Jews, Christians and Muslims. Please december try to remember that the Semitic peoples are one and the differences that we throw at each other are constructs of evil. I am not a man of faith in as much as that I am an atheist, but I am of Semitic culture and upbringing and I feel akin to my brothers and sisters that share the same books of moral and ethics as I do, therefore I wish that we could just bury the axes and get beyond the tiny variances that so desperately divide us and instead celebrate the grand things that unite us. You and I can make that difference. The terrified citizens of the Middle East cannot, therefore we must, by the moral standards laid down in our holy books give them our levelheaded and calm, but sternly unforgiving support towards peace.
With due respect and apologies for any harsh words that might have passed,
Sparc
december: Based on statements and actions by the Palestinian people, I believe that the majority do seek the destruction of Israel. Do you think the Palestinians want to allow Israel to survive and to live in peace with Israel? If so, what’s your evidence?
Opinion polls among Palestinians still show a majority (though it’s been dwindling in the course of the recent military actions) favoring a compromise with a two-state solution. Establishing a Palestinian state, IMHO, is the best means of encouraging Palestinian willingness to compromise, because it gives them what they don’t have now: something to lose.
By now, everyone knows there was no massacre in Jenin. Various reporters have counted the dead bodies. There were about 45 or 50 dead Palestinians, including people fighting.
Well, if I can get an international investigative committee’s report verifying those numbers, I’ll be more than happy to believe them (though I’d be happier if the number was zero). However, I don’t see how that invalidates the use of the term “massacre”, unless you are attaching a specific numerical minimum to the term. We still speak of the “Boston massacre”, in which “only” five people died (and six were wounded), the “St. Valentine’s Day massacre” with seven deaths, and the “Kent State massacre” with four deaths. You yourself referred to Palestinian suicide bombers committing “massacres” against Israelis, even though many of the attacks had even fewer victims.
So if “massacre” simply means, as these examples indicate, the death of more than one unarmed and/or unsuspecting noncombatant wantonly and indiscriminately killed in a military, police, or guerrilla action, then it is not at all clear as yet that “there was no massacre in Jenin.”
Yet the UN has never asked to investigate these [Palestinian suicide] bombings.
Of course not, because there is no question about what took place in them. Israeli survivors and officials say “A Palestinian terrorist blew people up with a bomb!”, and Palestinian terrorist organizations say “Yup, that’s so.” Israel has complete access to the scene of the crime against its people, and the UN sees no cause to challenge its report. The case in Jenin is not at all parallel: the claims of the two sides as to what took place are strongly conflicting, and Israel initially shut out independent investigators as well as Palestinian survivors. That is when an investigation is called for, in order to determine what did happen.
The conclusion is obvious: The UN, as presently constituted, is an enemy of Israel. Any valid discussion must take that fact into account.
It can’t be a “fact” if, as I pointed out, it’s based on a totally invalid analogy.
*But, Palestinians were making unprovoked murderous attacks against Israeli civilians for a year, until Israel finally responded. *
Well, most Palestinians—as well as a number of Israelis—don’t see the 2000 intifada as “unprovoked”, although not all of them think the provocation warranted the atrocious suicide bombings of civilians. The Israeli government has continued to allow new settlements, and new Israeli infrastructure to support the settlements, in the Palestinian territories. This is land that the Palestinians believe should be part of their state, and the Israeli settlers obviously have no intention of ever giving it up. Many Palestinians think that only a bloody terrorism campaign will ever change Israel’s policy on the occupation of these territories. I completely reject such an approach, but I also reject Israel’s suicidal “perpetual colonizing” of the region. IMHO, Palestinians should immediately stop all violence against civilians, and Israelis should immediately dismantle all their settlements and withdraw their military occupation, and neither of them should wait for the other to begin first.
*But, suppose the Palestinians don’t see things your way? Suppose they just want to destroy Israel. Then, if Israel practices the kind of peace that you want, they’ll just be destroyed. *
This is assuming that (i) Israel would be incapable of protecting itself within its proposed 1967 borders, (ii) other countries, including the US, would see Israel destroyed without resistance. Why should we believe either of those, particularly the second? Heck, we all turned out the troops on behalf of little Kuwait, for heaven’s sake; why wouldn’t we do so for our close ally Israel, if need should arise? And frankly, I think that the need is much more likely to arise if Israel pursues this destabilizing policy of military repression than if it pulls out of Palestine so Palestinians can turn their attention to building their state.