(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message . com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message . com...
-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message ...
From: (Isidor Gunsberg)
Date: 25/11/03 05:02 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message
.com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message
. com...
(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message
. com...
"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message
...
This picture summarizes the entire topic:

http://empire.tau.ac.il/peculiar/child.gif

Judge for yourself.

This contribution of yours is truly astonishing. It represents a gross
oversimplification of a highly complex geopolitical question.

It's certainly *not* about soldiers on both sides hiding behind
perambulators.

You misinterpret the image: The Israeli soldier is clearly **in
front** of "his " perambulator, in an effort to do all that he can to
protect it. The Palestinian terrorist IS indeed hinding behind his
pram, and pushing it forward towards the Israeli soldier, even as he
is shooting at the Israelis. The Palestinian pram may have a baby, or
it may be used to smuggle weapons, or it may have a bomb. It may even
have a baby bomb....

No, I don't "misinterpret the image" as you put it, you misinterpret
my interpretation. I could see *clearly* that in that *drawing*, which
is pure, indeed, puerile Zionist *propaganda*, the Israeli soldier is
in front of the perambulator. My point was that it is an image as
risible as equally distorted anti-Israeli propaganda, which might look
the same, but with the insignia on the soldiers' respective uniforms
reversed.

Your "interpretation" is not in accordance with the facts.

My interpretation *takes account of the fact that it is a propaganda
DRAWING*... DUH!!!!!

The cartoon "propaganda" is effective precisely because it is in
accordance with the facts. Therefore, it would be much more "risible"
to create an image that "might look the same, but with the insignia on
the soldiers' respective uniforms reversed."
snip

Ok, it's now obvious that you have an idiosyncratic view of what the
word: "propaganda" actually means. You believe that the propaganda
image to which Roman posted a link is a *reflection of reality*, and
further, that an image which looked identical except for the insignia
on the soldiers' uniforms being reversed would be "risible". In other
words, when it's biased in favour of Israel, you believe that it's
accurate, when it's biased against Israel, you believe it's
propaganda. Right?


Propaganda CAN be accurate. Indeed, it is often most effective
when it IS accurate. Think of the power of video or film images in In
the case of the cartoon, it is accurate to depict the Palestinian
soldiers as exploiting innocent Palestinians (symbolized by the pram),
in endeavors to gain tactical advantages against the Israeli soldiers.
This actually happens. However, to reverse the image would not
accurately depict the conflict between the Palestinians and the
Israelis. The Israelis assiduously try to avoid putting their children
in harm's way, and have soldiers out in the vanguard as the 1st line
of defense. Thus, your hypothetical cartoon featuring a role-reversed
Israeli is indeed risible.

Does it follow, then, that you would believe that an Israeli
historian's view of Israel's situation would be *more accurate* (or,
if you prefer, *less biased*) than a Palenstinian historian's view
would be?

Does it follow logically?? No--theoretically, it is possible for a
Palestinian Historian's view of Israel's situation to be more accurate
and less biased than an Israeli counterpart. However, in practice, it
is precisely the case that Israeli historians **usually** ARE more
accurate/less biased.

Let me give an example: a Palestinian Arab and an Israeli were
invited to be part of a panel discussion on the conflict. At one
point, the Palestinian academic mentioned the Sabra and Shatila
massacres of the Palestinians and in a matter of fact manner accused
Ariel Sharon of being a war criminal. It was left up to the Israeli to
point out that the massacre was perpetrated by the Lebanese Christian
militias. He said that Sharon was guilty of scandalously poor
judgement in allowing the Christian forces to enter the camp. He also
provided context that the militia force was known as the "Orphans'
Brigade" because many of the Christian soldiers were survivors of the
notorious Damour massacre, in 1976, when Palestinian militants had
killed about 600 Christians when they took over the town (during the
height of the Lebanese Civil War). Sharon was remiss in not realizing
the potential that the Christians would try to take revenge.

If somebody who knew nothing about the history of the Middle East
(somebody such as yourself, for instance), they could easily be misled
and manipulated into believing that Sharon personally led Israeli
forces into the camps, where they performed a Srebenica style Ethnic
Cleansing.

The Israeli gave a nuanced rendition of the event, and was willing
to mete blame out to Sharon. He gave context to the event, and pointed
out that the christians didn't just massacre the Palestinians out of
the blue. Rather, it was part of a long sequence of events that
started with the advent of the Lebanese Civil War, which itself began
when the PLO tried to take over power in Lebanon.

(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message . com...
(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message . com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message . com...
-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message ...
From: (Isidor Gunsberg)
Date: 25/11/03 05:02 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message
.com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message
. com...
(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message
. com...
"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message
...
This picture summarizes the entire topic:

http://empire.tau.ac.il/peculiar/child.gif

Judge for yourself.

This contribution of yours is truly astonishing. It represents a gross
oversimplification of a highly complex geopolitical question.

It's certainly *not* about soldiers on both sides hiding behind
perambulators.

You misinterpret the image: The Israeli soldier is clearly **in
front** of "his " perambulator, in an effort to do all that he can to
protect it. The Palestinian terrorist IS indeed hinding behind his
pram, and pushing it forward towards the Israeli soldier, even as he
is shooting at the Israelis. The Palestinian pram may have a baby, or
it may be used to smuggle weapons, or it may have a bomb. It may even
have a baby bomb....

No, I don't "misinterpret the image" as you put it, you misinterpret
my interpretation. I could see *clearly* that in that *drawing*, which
is pure, indeed, puerile Zionist *propaganda*, the Israeli soldier is
in front of the perambulator. My point was that it is an image as
risible as equally distorted anti-Israeli propaganda, which might look
the same, but with the insignia on the soldiers' respective uniforms
reversed.

Your "interpretation" is not in accordance with the facts.

My interpretation *takes account of the fact that it is a propaganda
DRAWING*... DUH!!!!!

The cartoon "propaganda" is effective precisely because it is in
accordance with the facts. Therefore, it would be much more "risible"
to create an image that "might look the same, but with the insignia on
the soldiers' respective uniforms reversed."
snip

Ok, it's now obvious that you have an idiosyncratic view of what the
word: "propaganda" actually means. You believe that the propaganda
image to which Roman posted a link is a *reflection of reality*, and
further, that an image which looked identical except for the insignia
on the soldiers' uniforms being reversed would be "risible". In other
words, when it's biased in favour of Israel, you believe that it's
accurate, when it's biased against Israel, you believe it's
propaganda. Right?


Propaganda CAN be accurate.

True.

Indeed, it is often most effective
when it IS accurate.

False.

Think of the power of video or film images in In
the case of the cartoon, it is accurate to depict the Palestinian
soldiers as exploiting innocent Palestinians (symbolized by the pram),

They're *not* soldiers, however, so it *is* inaccurate.

in endeavors to gain tactical advantages against the Israeli soldiers.
This actually happens.

Wrong. See above.

However, to reverse the image would not
accurately depict the conflict between the Palestinians and the
Israelis.

Just as the image *as it stands* does not. It's hardly helpful, then,
wouldn't you agree?

The Israelis assiduously try to avoid putting their children
in harm's way,

The Israeli government's Settlement Policy does *precisely the
opposite*. Discuss.

and have soldiers out in the vanguard as the 1st line
of defense. Thus, your hypothetical cartoon featuring a role-reversed
Israeli is indeed risible.

....as risible, in fact, as the cartoon as it stands, since it depicts
an Israeli *soldier* fighting a Palestinian *soldier*....


Does it follow, then, that you would believe that an Israeli
historian's view of Israel's situation would be *more accurate* (or,
if you prefer, *less biased*) than a Palenstinian historian's view
would be?

Does it follow logically?? No--theoretically, it is possible for a
Palestinian Historian's view of Israel's situation to be more accurate
and less biased than an Israeli counterpart. However, in practice, it
is precisely the case that Israeli historians **usually** ARE more
accurate/less biased.


Perhaps, then, you'd be interested to read what one Israeli historian
said in an interview last year:

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer223/223_...interview.html

snips pro-Israeli example

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message . com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message . com...
(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message . com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message . com...
-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message ...
From: (Isidor Gunsberg)
Date: 25/11/03 05:02 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message
.com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message
. com...
(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message
. com...
"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message
...
This picture summarizes the entire topic:

http://empire.tau.ac.il/peculiar/child.gif

Judge for yourself.

This contribution of yours is truly astonishing. It represents a gross
oversimplification of a highly complex geopolitical question.

It's certainly *not* about soldiers on both sides hiding behind
perambulators.

You misinterpret the image: The Israeli soldier is clearly **in
front** of "his " perambulator, in an effort to do all that he can to
protect it. The Palestinian terrorist IS indeed hinding behind his
pram, and pushing it forward towards the Israeli soldier, even as he
is shooting at the Israelis. The Palestinian pram may have a baby, or
it may be used to smuggle weapons, or it may have a bomb. It may even
have a baby bomb....

No, I don't "misinterpret the image" as you put it, you misinterpret
my interpretation. I could see *clearly* that in that *drawing*, which
is pure, indeed, puerile Zionist *propaganda*, the Israeli soldier is
in front of the perambulator. My point was that it is an image as
risible as equally distorted anti-Israeli propaganda, which might look
the same, but with the insignia on the soldiers' respective uniforms
reversed.

Your "interpretation" is not in accordance with the facts.

My interpretation *takes account of the fact that it is a propaganda
DRAWING*... DUH!!!!!

The cartoon "propaganda" is effective precisely because it is in
accordance with the facts. Therefore, it would be much more "risible"
to create an image that "might look the same, but with the insignia on
the soldiers' respective uniforms reversed."
snip

Ok, it's now obvious that you have an idiosyncratic view of what the
word: "propaganda" actually means. You believe that the propaganda
image to which Roman posted a link is a *reflection of reality*, and
further, that an image which looked identical except for the insignia
on the soldiers' uniforms being reversed would be "risible". In other
words, when it's biased in favour of Israel, you believe that it's
accurate, when it's biased against Israel, you believe it's
propaganda. Right?


Propaganda CAN be accurate.

True.

Indeed, it is often most effective
when it IS accurate.

False.

Think of the power of video or film images in In
the case of the cartoon, it is accurate to depict the Palestinian
soldiers as exploiting innocent Palestinians (symbolized by the pram),

They're *not* soldiers, however, so it *is* inaccurate.

So?? The Palestinian fighters like to think of themselves as
soldiers. They certainly fit within the rubric of (unlawful)
combatants. There are certainly plenty of Palestinian militants armed
with guns (and RPGs, and mortars, and rockets, and bombs, etc).

Your trifling quibble does not serve to refute the image.

[it is accurate to depict the Palestinian "soldiers" as exploiting
innocent Palestinians (symbolized by the pram)]

See? By adding quotation marks, the statement suggests that the
cartoon image of the Palestinian "soldier" is **figurative**

Shocking that one would find figurative images...in a cartoon.


in endeavors to gain tactical advantages against the Israeli soldiers.
This actually happens.

Wrong. See above.

Tchsk!! You are really grasping at straws.

However, to reverse the image would not
accurately depict the conflict between the Palestinians and the
Israelis.

Just as the image *as it stands* does not.

But the point is that to reverse the image to show the Israeli
soldier hiding behind the pram would be much less accurate than the
way the image is currently constructed.


It's hardly helpful, then,
wouldn't you agree?

Helpful to whom? The cartoon helps to get a point across to the
viewer

The Israelis assiduously try to avoid putting their children
in harm's way,

The Israeli government's Settlement Policy does *precisely the
opposite*. Discuss.

The Israeli government puts bombs around the waist of Israeli
children? Gives them a rifle, and tells them to arrest or fight Hamas
members?

No, the Israeli government expends a lot of resources to defend the
Settlements, and the children in them. They build security fences
around the settlements, and run patrols, etc. The Israeli children are
not present when the IDF engage the militants.

You'd probably be surprised to learn that more Israeli kids are
killed within the "Green Line" (pre-1967 armistice lines) than are
killed in the West Bank/Gaza.

and have soldiers out in the vanguard as the 1st line
of defense. Thus, your hypothetical cartoon featuring a role-reversed
Israeli is indeed risible.

...as risible, in fact, as the cartoon as it stands, since it depicts
an Israeli *soldier* fighting a Palestinian *soldier*....

I think that we've been there, done that


Does it follow, then, that you would believe that an Israeli
historian's view of Israel's situation would be *more accurate* (or,
if you prefer, *less biased*) than a Palenstinian historian's view
would be?

Does it follow logically?? No--theoretically, it is possible for a
Palestinian Historian's view of Israel's situation to be more accurate
and less biased than an Israeli counterpart. However, in practice, it
is precisely the case that Israeli historians **usually** ARE more
accurate/less biased.


Perhaps, then, you'd be interested to read what one Israeli historian
said in an interview last year:

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer223/223_...interview.html

snips pro-Israeli example

Israel is a country where there is free speech, and a diversity of
political views. In my opinion, this is a positive attribute of the
country, especially compared to other countries in the region.
Likewise for historians.
They can have their opinions and interpretations of history. It is up
to me to decide of them I will accept.

Now, try to find a dissonant voice among the Palestinian
historians.

From: (Isidor Gunsberg)
Date: 01/12/03 17:49 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message
.com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message
.com...
(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message
.com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message
.com...
-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message
...
From: (Isidor Gunsberg)
Date: 25/11/03 05:02 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message
.com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message
. com...
(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message
. com...
"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message
...
This picture summarizes the entire topic:

http://empire.tau.ac.il/peculiar/child.gif

Judge for yourself.

This contribution of yours is truly astonishing. It
represents a gross
oversimplification of a highly complex geopolitical
question.

It's certainly *not* about soldiers on both sides hiding
behind
perambulators.

You misinterpret the image: The Israeli soldier is
clearly **in
front** of "his " perambulator, in an effort to do all that he
can to
protect it. The Palestinian terrorist IS indeed hinding behind
his
pram, and pushing it forward towards the Israeli soldier, even
as he
is shooting at the Israelis. The Palestinian pram may have a
baby, or
it may be used to smuggle weapons, or it may have a bomb. It
may even
have a baby bomb....

No, I don't "misinterpret the image" as you put it, you
misinterpret
my interpretation. I could see *clearly* that in that *drawing*,
which
is pure, indeed, puerile Zionist *propaganda*, the Israeli
soldier is
in front of the perambulator. My point was that it is an image
as
risible as equally distorted anti-Israeli propaganda, which
might look
the same, but with the insignia on the soldiers' respective
uniforms
reversed.

Your "interpretation" is not in accordance with the facts.

My interpretation *takes account of the fact that it is a
propaganda
DRAWING*... DUH!!!!!

The cartoon "propaganda" is effective precisely because it is in
accordance with the facts. Therefore, it would be much more "risible"
to create an image that "might look the same, but with the insignia
on
the soldiers' respective uniforms reversed."
snip

Ok, it's now obvious that you have an idiosyncratic view of what the
word: "propaganda" actually means. You believe that the propaganda
image to which Roman posted a link is a *reflection of reality*, and
further, that an image which looked identical except for the insignia
on the soldiers' uniforms being reversed would be "risible". In other
words, when it's biased in favour of Israel, you believe that it's
accurate, when it's biased against Israel, you believe it's
propaganda. Right?


Propaganda CAN be accurate.

True.

Indeed, it is often most effective
when it IS accurate.

False.

Think of the power of video or film images in In
the case of the cartoon, it is accurate to depict the Palestinian
soldiers as exploiting innocent Palestinians (symbolized by the pram),

They're *not* soldiers, however, so it *is* inaccurate.

So?? The Palestinian fighters like to think of themselves as
soldiers.

Yet the Israelis do not. So what is the justification for making the
Palestinians seem more legitimate than evidently many Israelis and Israeli
supporters believe? Why distort the truth? What purpose does it serve?

They certainly fit within the rubric of (unlawful)
combatants.

So why depict them as *lawful* army combatants? Where's the logic in that?

There are certainly plenty of Palestinian militants armed
with guns (and RPGs, and mortars, and rockets, and bombs, etc).


Yes, certainly, but legitimate soldiers?

Do you see why I am objecting?

Your trifling quibble does not serve to refute the image.


Sure it does. It's a clear demonstration that the image is distorted on *both
sides* and may therefore--paradoxically--serve as a recruiting poster for
Hamas.

Would that be good or bad, do you think?


[it is accurate to depict the Palestinian "soldiers" as exploiting
innocent Palestinians (symbolized by the pram)]

See? By adding quotation marks, the statement suggests that the
cartoon image of the Palestinian "soldier" is **figurative**


Yes. Hamas recruitment is looking good.

Shocking that one would find figurative images...in a cartoon.


Yes. I'm really shocked. The leaders of Hamas, by contrast, are celebrating,
since they know that for as long as the Israeli government continues to act as
it is, there will be a steady stream of recruits to Hamas.


in endeavors to gain tactical advantages against the Israeli soldiers.
This actually happens.

Wrong. See above.

Tchsk!! You are really grasping at straws.

Justify thia.


However, to reverse the image would not
accurately depict the conflict between the Palestinians and the
Israelis.

Just as the image *as it stands* does not.

But the point is that to reverse the image to show the Israeli
soldier hiding behind the pram would be much less accurate than the
way the image is currently constructed.


How would it be "much less accurate" since the image is equally distorted in
its depictions of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides?




It's hardly helpful, then,
wouldn't you agree?

Helpful to whom? The cartoon helps to get a point across to the
viewer

Yes. The viewer thinks: "The Israeli government's Settlement policy and its
anti-Palestinian propaganda have persuaded me to join Hamas."


The Israelis assiduously try to avoid putting their children
in harm's way,

The Israeli government's Settlement Policy does *precisely the
opposite*. Discuss.

The Israeli government puts bombs around the waist of Israeli
children?

No, but it bombs Palestinians.

Gives them a rifle, and tells them to arrest or fight Hamas
members?


No. Israelis are drafted into the army, and many are killed. Needlessly.

No, the Israeli government expends a lot of resources to defend the
Settlements, and the children in them.
Right. Is this wise? Is it justified? Rememer those Hamas leaders and their
recruits.

They build security fences
around the settlements, and run patrols, etc. The Israeli children are
not present when the IDF engage the militants.


Right. This will afford some protection to ordinary Israelis, but it will not
stop Hamas. Quite the contrary. All this reminds me of South Africa in the days
of apartheid. The whites built security fences to keep out the blacks.

You'd probably be surprised to learn that more Israeli kids are
killed within the "Green Line" (pre-1967 armistice lines) than are
killed in the West Bank/Gaza.


Would I, indeed? Patronising jackass, I already knew that.


and have soldiers out in the vanguard as the 1st line
of defense. Thus, your hypothetical cartoon featuring a role-reversed
Israeli is indeed risible.

...as risible, in fact, as the cartoon as it stands, since it depicts
an Israeli *soldier* fighting a Palestinian *soldier*....

I think that we've been there, done that

.....and got some recruits for Hamas. Yes.



Does it follow, then, that you would believe that an Israeli
historian's view of Israel's situation would be *more accurate* (or,
if you prefer, *less biased*) than a Palenstinian historian's view
would be?

Does it follow logically?? No--theoretically, it is possible for a
Palestinian Historian's view of Israel's situation to be more accurate
and less biased than an Israeli counterpart. However, in practice, it
is precisely the case that Israeli historians **usually** ARE more
accurate/less biased.


Perhaps, then, you'd be interested to read what one Israeli historian
said in an interview last year:

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer223/223_...interview.html

snips pro-Israeli example

Israel is a country where there is free speech, and a diversity of
political views. In my opinion, this is a positive attribute of the
country, especially compared to other countries in the region.
Likewise for historians.
They can have their opinions and interpretations of history. It is up
to me to decide of them I will accept.

Now, try to find a dissonant voice among the Palestinian
historians.


Oh, right! All Palestinian historians are useless. That makes perfect sense.

Not.

Is Shlaim lying, or is his assessment accurate?

"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message
...
This picture summarizes the entire topic:

http://empire.tau.ac.il/peculiar/child.gif

Judge for yourself.

This contribution of yours is truly astonishing. It
represents a gross
oversimplification of a highly complex geopolitical
question.

It's certainly *not* about soldiers on both sides hiding
behind
perambulators.

You misinterpret the image: The Israeli soldier is
clearly **in
front** of "his " perambulator, in an effort to do all that he
can to
protect it. The Palestinian terrorist IS indeed hinding behind
his
pram, and pushing it forward towards the Israeli soldier, even
as he
is shooting at the Israelis. The Palestinian pram may have a
baby, or
it may be used to smuggle weapons, or it may have a bomb. It
may even
have a baby bomb....

No, I don't "misinterpret the image" as you put it, you
misinterpret
my interpretation. I could see *clearly* that in that *drawing*,
which
is pure, indeed, puerile Zionist *propaganda*, the Israeli
soldier is
in front of the perambulator. My point was that it is an image
as
risible as equally distorted anti-Israeli propaganda, which
might look
the same, but with the insignia on the soldiers' respective
uniforms
reversed.

Your "interpretation" is not in accordance with the facts.

My interpretation *takes account of the fact that it is a
propaganda
DRAWING*... DUH!!!!!

The cartoon "propaganda" is effective precisely because it is in
accordance with the facts. Therefore, it would be much more "risible"
to create an image that "might look the same, but with the insignia
on
the soldiers' respective uniforms reversed."
snip

Ok, it's now obvious that you have an idiosyncratic view of what the
word: "propaganda" actually means. You believe that the propaganda
image to which Roman posted a link is a *reflection of reality*, and
further, that an image which looked identical except for the insignia
on the soldiers' uniforms being reversed would be "risible". In other
words, when it's biased in favour of Israel, you believe that it's
accurate, when it's biased against Israel, you believe it's
propaganda. Right?


Propaganda CAN be accurate.

True.

Indeed, it is often most effective
when it IS accurate.

False.

Think of the power of video or film images in In
the case of the cartoon, it is accurate to depict the Palestinian
soldiers as exploiting innocent Palestinians (symbolized by the pram),

They're *not* soldiers, however, so it *is* inaccurate.

So?? The Palestinian fighters like to think of themselves as
soldiers.

Yet the Israelis do not. So what is the justification for making the
Palestinians seem more legitimate than evidently many Israelis and Israeli
supporters believe? Why distort the truth? What purpose does it serve?

They certainly fit within the rubric of (unlawful)
combatants.

So why depict them as *lawful* army combatants?

But the cartoon doesn't do that--quite the opposite. The
Palestinian figure is committing a war crime.

More to the point, the artistic style of the cartoon is
deliberately simple and minimalistic. The figures representing the
soldiers are generic in nature. Yet the Palestinian is wearing a hood,
which futher suggests the artist's intent to depict the Palestinian
combatant as an irregular fighter who does not adhere to international
norms in the conduct of war.

The lawfulness of a soldier is based on his actions, not on whether
he wears a uniform.

What is lawful about using civilians as human shields?

Where's the logic in that?

There are certainly plenty of Palestinian militants armed
with guns (and RPGs, and mortars, and rockets, and bombs, etc).


Yes, certainly, but legitimate soldiers?

Nothing in the cartoon suggests that the sysmbolic Palestinian
soldier is "legitimate". Irrespective of legitimacy, the Palestinian
militants are a potent, organized force.

Do you see why I am objecting?

Your trifling quibble does not serve to refute the image.


Sure it does. It's a clear demonstration that the image is distorted on *both
sides* and may therefore--paradoxically--serve as a recruiting poster for
Hamas.

Sure, it would be good to recruit those Arabs who don't have qualms
about
sacrificing Paletinian children, and enjoy murdering Israeli ones.



Would that be good or bad, do you think?


[it is accurate to depict the Palestinian "soldiers" as exploiting
innocent Palestinians (symbolized by the pram)]

See? By adding quotation marks, the statement suggests that the
cartoon image of the Palestinian "soldier" is **figurative**





Yes. Hamas recruitment is looking good.

Shocking that one would find figurative images...in a cartoon.


Yes. I'm really shocked. The leaders of Hamas, by contrast, are celebrating,
since they know that for as long as the Israeli government continues to act as
it is, there will be a steady stream of recruits to Hamas.


The leaders of HAMAS are crapping their pants, because they know
that their life expectancy is measured in months.


in endeavors to gain tactical advantages against the Israeli soldiers.
This actually happens.

Wrong. See above.

Tchsk!! You are really grasping at straws.

Justify thia.

Ahh....This again. When you resort to "justify" blah blah, you
are REALLY grasping at straws. Well, do try to hang on, old boy.


However, to reverse the image would not
accurately depict the conflict between the Palestinians and the
Israelis.

Just as the image *as it stands* does not.

But the point is that to reverse the image to show the Israeli
soldier hiding behind the pram would be much less accurate than the
way the image is currently constructed.


How would it be "much less accurate" since the image is equally distorted in
its depictions of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides?

There is no meaningful answer to your question since it is not the
"equality" of distortion that matters, but the **degree** of
distortion.




It's hardly helpful, then,
wouldn't you agree?

Helpful to whom? The cartoon helps to get a point across to the
viewer

Yes. The viewer thinks: "The Israeli government's Settlement policy and its
anti-Palestinian propaganda have persuaded me to join Hamas."



Only if that viewer is completely prejudiced, as you are.

First, the image is not generated by the Israeli Government.

Second, there is nothing in the image that refers to Israel's
settlement policy.

Not one person in a thousand would interpret the image as you do.


The Israelis assiduously try to avoid putting their children
in harm's way,

The Israeli government's Settlement Policy does *precisely the
opposite*. Discuss.

The Israeli government puts bombs around the waist of Israeli
children?

No, but it bombs Palestinians.

Right, the Israeli **Military** bombs the Palestinians, **NOT**
her children.

Gives them a rifle, and tells them to arrest or fight Hamas
members?


No. Israelis are drafted into the army, and many are killed. Needlessly.

Actually, far more Israeli civilians than soldiers have died in the
recent terror campaign. If it weren't for the IDF, the death toll of
Israeli civilians would be much higher.

No, the Israeli government expends a lot of resources to defend the
Settlements, and the children in them.
Right. Is this wise? Is it justified? Rememer those Hamas leaders and their
recruits.

I believe that Israel should withdraw from the settlements in
Gaza, and in the isolated areas of the West Bank. Almost all of the
settlements to the east of the security fence will end up being
abandoned.


They build security fences
around the settlements, and run patrols, etc. The Israeli children are
not present when the IDF engage the militants.


Right. This will afford some protection to ordinary Israelis, but it will not
stop Hamas. Quite the contrary. All this reminds me of South Africa in the days
of apartheid. The whites built security fences to keep out the blacks.

Have you seen the security fence? Multiple kill zones, automatic
sensors, enfilading fire....this barrier will not be easy for the
Palestinian terrorist to breach.


You'd probably be surprised to learn that more Israeli kids are
killed within the "Green Line" (pre-1967 armistice lines) than are
killed in the West Bank/Gaza.


Would I, indeed? Patronising jackass, I already knew that.

Don't get snippy!


and have soldiers out in the vanguard as the 1st line
of defense. Thus, your hypothetical cartoon featuring a role-reversed
Israeli is indeed risible.

...as risible, in fact, as the cartoon as it stands, since it depicts
an Israeli *soldier* fighting a Palestinian *soldier*....

I think that we've been there, done that

....and got some recruits for Hamas. Yes.



Does it follow, then, that you would believe that an Israeli
historian's view of Israel's situation would be *more accurate* (or,
if you prefer, *less biased*) than a Palenstinian historian's view
would be?

Does it follow logically?? No--theoretically, it is possible for a
Palestinian Historian's view of Israel's situation to be more accurate
and less biased than an Israeli counterpart. However, in practice, it
is precisely the case that Israeli historians **usually** ARE more
accurate/less biased.


Perhaps, then, you'd be interested to read what one Israeli historian
said in an interview last year:

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer223/223_...interview.html

snips pro-Israeli example

Israel is a country where there is free speech, and a diversity of
political views. In my opinion, this is a positive attribute of the
country, especially compared to other countries in the region.
Likewise for historians.
They can have their opinions and interpretations of history. It is up
to me to decide of them I will accept.

Now, try to find a dissonant voice among the Palestinian
historians.


Oh, right! All Palestinian historians are useless. That makes perfect sense.

Not.

Well, if you find a dissonant voice among the Palestinian
historians, do show me. On the other hand, there are more than a few
Arab historians who have done their dissertations on the
Holocaust....I'm sure that even you might have a hard time stomaching
the denial and revisionism.


Is Shlaim lying, or is his assessment accurate?

Or is he simply mistaken?

(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message . com...
huge snip

Propaganda CAN be accurate.

True.

Indeed, it is often most effective
when it IS accurate.

False.

Think of the power of video or film images in In
the case of the cartoon, it is accurate to depict the Palestinian
soldiers as exploiting innocent Palestinians (symbolized by the pram),

They're *not* soldiers, however, so it *is* inaccurate.

So?? The Palestinian fighters like to think of themselves as
soldiers.

Yet the Israelis do not. So what is the justification for making the
Palestinians seem more legitimate than evidently many Israelis and Israeli
supporters believe? Why distort the truth? What purpose does it serve?

They certainly fit within the rubric of (unlawful)
combatants.

So why depict them as *lawful* army combatants?

But the cartoon doesn't do that--quite the opposite.

ROTFLMAO!!!!! NOT! Depicting the Palestinian as a *lawful* army
combatant is ******EXACTLY****** what the image does. Have you even
looked at it? You're clutching at straws now, IG....

The
Palestinian figure is committing a war crime.


Then so is the Israeli, since they're both lawful army combatants. IN
REALITY, NEITHER OF THEM WOULD HAVE A PERAMBULATOR ANYWHERE NEAR TO
THEM. DUH!!!!!!!

More to the point, the artistic style of the cartoon is
deliberately simple and minimalistic.

........and FALSE!!!!!! Yes.

The figures representing the
soldiers are generic in nature.

Generically FALSE, yes.

Yet the Palestinian is wearing a hood,
which futher suggests the artist's intent to depict the Palestinian
combatant as an irregular fighter who does not adhere to international
norms in the conduct of war.


So regular armies never wear hoods, is that the clincher?
MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!

The lawfulness of a soldier is based on his actions, not on whether
he wears a uniform.


Right! So the image *is* BS!! I WIN!!

What is lawful about using civilians as human shields?

Where's the logic in that?

There is none. Both sides are wrong. I've already said this.


There are certainly plenty of Palestinian militants armed
with guns (and RPGs, and mortars, and rockets, and bombs, etc).


Yes, certainly, but legitimate soldiers?

Nothing in the cartoon suggests that the sysmbolic Palestinian
soldier is "legitimate".

Wrong! He's wearing a UNIFORM very similar to the Israeli soldier's
UNIFORM.

What is so hard to grasp?

Irrespective of legitimacy, the Palestinian
militants are a potent, organized force.

True. So why give them more power? Where's the logic in that?


Do you see why I am objecting?

Your trifling quibble does not serve to refute the image.


Sure it does. It's a clear demonstration that the image is distorted on *both
sides* and may therefore--paradoxically--serve as a recruiting poster for
Hamas.

Sure, it would be good to recruit those Arabs who don't have qualms
about
sacrificing Paletinian children, and enjoy murdering Israeli ones.


You've got it all wrong. BOTH sides are engaged in murder. Talking is
better than killing. This is Shlaim's argument. What is wrong with
Shlaim's argument?

Read this article posted by Mickey Adams:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?S28E517B6




Would that be good or bad, do you think?


[it is accurate to depict the Palestinian "soldiers" as exploiting
innocent Palestinians (symbolized by the pram)]

See? By adding quotation marks, the statement suggests that the
cartoon image of the Palestinian "soldier" is **figurative**





Yes. Hamas recruitment is looking good.

Shocking that one would find figurative images...in a cartoon.


Yes. I'm really shocked. The leaders of Hamas, by contrast, are celebrating,
since they know that for as long as the Israeli government continues to act as
it is, there will be a steady stream of recruits to Hamas.


The leaders of HAMAS are crapping their pants, because they know
that their life expectancy is measured in months.

On the contrary--that's the POINT--as long as Hamas' members' life
expectancies can be measured in months, PARADOXICALLY that makes them
seem heroic. Have you not seen the huge paintings and posters of
suicide bombers, who are HEROES in the occupied territories? They are
heroes because ISRAELI GOVERNMENT POLICY creates the conditions
necessary for them to become heroes.



in endeavors to gain tactical advantages against the Israeli soldiers.
This actually happens.

Wrong. See above.

Tchsk!! You are really grasping at straws.

Justify thia.

Ahh....This again. When you resort to "justify" blah blah, you
are REALLY grasping at straws. Well, do try to hang on, old boy.

No. You have made an UNSUPPORTED argument. Bourbaki made a SUPPORTED
argument, which Holsztynski (unjustifiably) dismissed as anti-Semitic.
You jumped in to defend Holsztynski, without providing any
justification for his outrageous comments. In *every case* I have
justified my argument. I have cited reputable sources to explain
*clearly* why your argument is nonsensical. All you do is to act
dismissively when you've been made to look like an idiot. Again.




However, to reverse the image would not
accurately depict the conflict between the Palestinians and the
Israelis.

Just as the image *as it stands* does not.

But the point is that to reverse the image to show the Israeli
soldier hiding behind the pram would be much less accurate than the
way the image is currently constructed.


How would it be "much less accurate" since the image is equally distorted in
its depictions of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides?

There is no meaningful answer to your question since it is not the
"equality" of distortion that matters, but the **degree** of
distortion.

Nonsense. THIS PARTICULAR IMAGE (the one we're discussing, remember)
IS EQUALLY DISTORTED ON BOTH SIDES. It's BS. Drop it, dude. The more
you do this, the more like an idiot you make yourself seem.





It's hardly helpful, then,
wouldn't you agree?

Helpful to whom? The cartoon helps to get a point across to the
viewer

Yes. The viewer thinks: "The Israeli government's Settlement policy and its
anti-Palestinian propaganda have persuaded me to join Hamas."



Only if that viewer is completely prejudiced, as you are.


Wrong. First of all, if by conceding that there is fault on both
sides, that many Israeli soldiers and civilians die unnecessarily is
being prejudiced, then I'm glad to BE prejudiced. Secondly NOBODY in
Hamas would agree with me, since if they did, Hamas would not exist.
Hamas' recruits *are* prejudiced by the policies of the Israeli
government. If the Israeli government did not act *against* the
interests of the state of Israel and the Israeli people, MAYBE a
negotiated settlement could be reached. It's necessary to START
talking, however.

First, the image is not generated by the Israeli Government.


No, not by the government, by its *policies*.

Second, there is nothing in the image that refers to Israel's
settlement policy.


No, but the conflict to which the image alludes is *caused*, in large
measure, by Israel's settlement policy.

Not one person in a thousand would interpret the image as you do.

Quite right! The proportion would be MUCH greater!



The Israelis assiduously try to avoid putting their children
in harm's way,

The Israeli government's Settlement Policy does *precisely the
opposite*. Discuss.

The Israeli government puts bombs around the waist of Israeli
children?

No, but it bombs Palestinians.

Right, the Israeli **Military** bombs the Palestinians, **NOT**
her children.

Not quite... the Israeli **Military** bombs the Palestinians
**INCLUDING** children. The bombing is completely indiscriminate. Many
children are killed.


Gives them a rifle, and tells them to arrest or fight Hamas
members?


No. Israelis are drafted into the army, and many are killed. Needlessly.

Actually, far more Israeli civilians than soldiers have died in the
recent terror campaign. If it weren't for the IDF, the death toll of
Israeli civilians would be much higher.

Ok, since you know about this, give figures for:

The number of Israeli soldiers killed.

The number of Israeli civilians killed.

The number of Palestinians killed.

Cite your source, or I'll assume you're just talking out of your hat,
as usual.

SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT!


No, the Israeli government expends a lot of resources to defend the
Settlements, and the children in them.
Right. Is this wise? Is it justified? Rememer those Hamas leaders and their
recruits.

I believe that Israel should withdraw from the settlements in
Gaza, and in the isolated areas of the West Bank. Almost all of the
settlements to the east of the security fence will end up being
abandoned.


Oh, well that's alright then. If *you believe that stuff* then *nobody
in the area will be hurt or killed*. What a relief!


They build security fences
around the settlements, and run patrols, etc. The Israeli children are
not present when the IDF engage the militants.


Right. This will afford some protection to ordinary Israelis, but it will not
stop Hamas. Quite the contrary. All this reminds me of South Africa in the days
of apartheid. The whites built security fences to keep out the blacks.

Have you seen the security fence? Multiple kill zones, automatic
sensors, enfilading fire....this barrier will not be easy for the
Palestinian terrorist to breach.


Yes, I've seen it, on TV. I've never visited Israel. You're missing
the point that ALL security measures can be breached if an individual
is sufficiently motivated to do it. The Israeli government's
settlement policy provides such motivation.


You'd probably be surprised to learn that more Israeli kids are
killed within the "Green Line" (pre-1967 armistice lines) than are
killed in the West Bank/Gaza.


Would I, indeed? Patronising jackass, I already knew that.

Don't get snippy!

Then don't patronise me, jerk.



and have soldiers out in the vanguard as the 1st line
of defense. Thus, your hypothetical cartoon featuring a role-reversed
Israeli is indeed risible.

...as risible, in fact, as the cartoon as it stands, since it depicts
an Israeli *soldier* fighting a Palestinian *soldier*....

I think that we've been there, done that

....and got some recruits for Hamas. Yes.



Does it follow, then, that you would believe that an Israeli
historian's view of Israel's situation would be *more accurate* (or,
if you prefer, *less biased*) than a Palenstinian historian's view
would be?

Does it follow logically?? No--theoretically, it is possible for a
Palestinian Historian's view of Israel's situation to be more accurate
and less biased than an Israeli counterpart. However, in practice, it
is precisely the case that Israeli historians **usually** ARE more
accurate/less biased.


Perhaps, then, you'd be interested to read what one Israeli historian
said in an interview last year:

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer223/223_...interview.html

snips pro-Israeli example

Israel is a country where there is free speech, and a diversity of
political views. In my opinion, this is a positive attribute of the
country, especially compared to other countries in the region.
Likewise for historians.
They can have their opinions and interpretations of history. It is up
to me to decide of them I will accept.

Now, try to find a dissonant voice among the Palestinian
historians.


Oh, right! All Palestinian historians are useless. That makes perfect sense.

Not.

Well, if you find a dissonant voice among the Palestinian
historians, do show me.

Ok.

Edward Said was a Palestinian historian and accomplished pianist. Not
only was he regarded as a pre-eminent scholar, respected on all sides,
he was responsible for all manner of peaceful initiatives. For
example, with the Israeli pianist Daniel Barenboim, he created an
orchestra to enable young Israeli and Palestinian musicians to play
together.

See:

http://www.uchicago.edu/research/jnl...idarticle.html



On the other hand, there are more than a few
Arab historians who have done their dissertations on the
Holocaust....I'm sure that even you might have a hard time stomaching
the denial and revisionism.


Oh, I'm dead against holocaust deniers. One of them, whose real name
is Jason Repa, has posted to these groups under several pseudonyms.
Probably the most offensive pseudonym he has chosen to date is: "Dr
Robert Faurisson".

Many of us: Matt Nemmers, Randy Bauer, John Macnab, Nick Bourbaki,
"Looney",....
....did our bit in running the guy out of town.

Yeah, we hate holocaust deniers.

I hate it when anyone deliberately clings to an obviously distorted
and discredited view of anything. I hate it especially when *my* view
is distorted, so much so, that when my distorted view has been
discredited, I *change* it.

There are many such examples on these groups.


Is Shlaim lying, or is his assessment accurate?

Or is he simply mistaken?

How is he mistaken? SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT, OR LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT.

AGAIN.

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message om...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message . com...
huge snip

Propaganda CAN be accurate.

True.

Indeed, it is often most effective
when it IS accurate.

False.

Think of the power of video or film images in In
the case of the cartoon, it is accurate to depict the Palestinian
soldiers as exploiting innocent Palestinians (symbolized by the pram),

They're *not* soldiers, however, so it *is* inaccurate.

So?? The Palestinian fighters like to think of themselves as
soldiers.

Yet the Israelis do not. So what is the justification for making the
Palestinians seem more legitimate than evidently many Israelis and Israeli
supporters believe? Why distort the truth? What purpose does it serve?

They certainly fit within the rubric of (unlawful)
combatants.

So why depict them as *lawful* army combatants?

But the cartoon doesn't do that--quite the opposite.

ROTFLMAO!!!!! NOT! Depicting the Palestinian as a *lawful* army
combatant is ******EXACTLY****** what the image does. Have you even
looked at it? You're clutching at straws now, IG....

The lawfulness has to do with the nature of the combat actions.
The Palestinian combatant is using Palestinian youth (as symbolized by
the Pram) to shield himself; he is also attacking the Isreali youth
(Pram).

Do you even have any idea what words mean anymore, or are you just
so desperate to avoid losing an argument?

The
Palestinian figure is committing a war crime.


Then so is the Israeli, since they're both lawful army combatants.

This is your claim, not mine.

IN
REALITY, NEITHER OF THEM WOULD HAVE A PERAMBULATOR ANYWHERE NEAR TO
THEM. DUH!!!!!!!

Oh, but that doesn't explain why the Palestinian terrorist
infiltrated into a Kibbutz, and killed an Israeli mother, and her two
children, in her home. Clearly, the terrorist militant deliberately
sought out the softest of targets.
In fact many Palestinian attacks have been specifically and directly
targeted against Israeli youth.

This ever present threat means that armed Israeli soldiers must
guard Israeli families (including families with bablies in prams) from
Palestinian attacks

More to the point, the artistic style of the cartoon is
deliberately simple and minimalistic.

.......and FALSE!!!!!! Yes.

Ah, but in your world of absolute truth and relativistic morality,
everything is false....More truth is represented by the amage than
anything that you would say.

The figures representing the
soldiers are generic in nature.

Generically FALSE, yes.

snore

Even a 5 year old is able to utilize more sophisticated forms of
argument. I guess that you are arguing on the level of a 4 year old,
then


Yet the Palestinian is wearing a hood,
which futher suggests the artist's intent to depict the Palestinian
combatant as an irregular fighter who does not adhere to international
norms in the conduct of war.


So regular armies never wear hoods, is that the clincher?
MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Only Special Forces and Commando units. Moreover, the intent of
the Specail Force units, in wearing the maskes, is to avoid being
**seen**. They don't wear such hoods in the day, as that would make
them conspicuous.

However, terrorists, Palestinian militants, etc. use hoods to
conceal their identities. Thus, they wear hoods for the same purpose
that the common Bank Robber wears a hood (or, for that matter, a Ku
Klux Klansman)

The lawfulness of a soldier is based on his actions, not on whether
he wears a uniform.


Right! So the image *is* BS!! I WIN!!

The image is of a combatant wearing a Palestinian "uniform" that
has the Palestinian flag embalzoned on it. But the image also depicts
the Palestinian combatant in the midst of committing unlawful actions,
such as attacking youth, or using youth as Human shields.

What is lawful about using civilians as human shields?

Where's the logic in that?

There is none. Both sides are wrong. I've already said this.

But, BOTH sides are not using civilians as Human Shields. Only the
Palestinians do that. But sides might be wrong, but they are worng for
different reasons. Only the Palestinians are guilty of using Human
Shields.


There are certainly plenty of Palestinian militants armed
with guns (and RPGs, and mortars, and rockets, and bombs, etc).


Yes, certainly, but legitimate soldiers?

Nothing in the cartoon suggests that the sysmbolic Palestinian
soldier is "legitimate".

Wrong! He's wearing a UNIFORM very similar to the Israeli soldier's
UNIFORM.

What is so hard to grasp?

Grasping the appearance of the Palestinian fighter is easy. It is
even easy to discern the dissimilarities, such as the Palestinian
wearing the hood, and the Israeli lacking one.

It is understanding the symbolic meaning of the image that seems
to be beyond you.

Because many a Para-military trooper wears a "uniform". Yet, as is
the case in Central America (for instance), almost all of the fighting
was done against innocent civilians, rather than against the rebel
forces that were fighting the regime.

Irrespective of legitimacy, the Palestinian
militants are a potent, organized force.

True. So why give them more power? Where's the logic in that?

What are you talking about? The image depicts the morality of the
Paletinian combatants, not their fighting strength.


Do you see why I am objecting?

Your trifling quibble does not serve to refute the image.


Sure it does. It's a clear demonstration that the image is distorted on *both
sides* and may therefore--paradoxically--serve as a recruiting poster for
Hamas.

Sure, it would be good to recruit those Arabs who don't have qualms
about
sacrificing Paletinian children, and enjoy murdering Israeli ones.


You've got it all wrong. BOTH sides are engaged in murder.

Yet more moral relativism on your part.

The Palestinians are generally engaged in murder. The Israelis are
engaged in killing. Try as you might, you won't find any instances of
the IDF rounding up dozens of women and children, putting them into a
bus or room, and then systematically shooting or bombing them. Yet,
that is, in effect, what the Palestinians do when they bomb a
Restaurant or anight club, or a school.

Talking is
better than killing. This is Shlaim's argument. What is wrong with
Shlaim's argument?

Talk with some of the Palestinians, who will listen, and
negotiate in good faith. Kill other Palestinians, who seek to commit
acts of terrorism, and to destroy Israel. One single approach is
unlikely to be successful.

Read this article posted by Mickey Adams:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?S28E517B6




Would that be good or bad, do you think?


[it is accurate to depict the Palestinian "soldiers" as exploiting
innocent Palestinians (symbolized by the pram)]

See? By adding quotation marks, the statement suggests that the
cartoon image of the Palestinian "soldier" is **figurative**





Yes. Hamas recruitment is looking good.

Shocking that one would find figurative images...in a cartoon.


Yes. I'm really shocked. The leaders of Hamas, by contrast, are celebrating,
since they know that for as long as the Israeli government continues to act as
it is, there will be a steady stream of recruits to Hamas.


The leaders of HAMAS are crapping their pants, because they know
that their life expectancy is measured in months.

On the contrary--that's the POINT--as long as Hamas' members' life
expectancies can be measured in months, PARADOXICALLY that makes them
seem heroic. Have you not seen the huge paintings and posters of
suicide bombers, who are HEROES in the occupied territories?

Ah, the power of propaganda!

Actually, the terrorist organizations gain far more recruits
through "successful" operations (high profile terrorism that kills
many Israelis). To the extent that the "near miss" of the Hamas
leadership has led to a reduction in terrorist activity (and terrorist
activity by Hamas HAS been reduced since the Israeli strike), then
"heroic" or not, terrorist activity is reduced.

They are
heroes because ISRAELI GOVERNMENT POLICY creates the conditions
necessary for them to become heroes.

No, they are heroes because they kill Jews. The Iranians created a
postage stamp in honor of the Border Policeman who ran amok, and
killed Jews at the beach. Those terrorist who die, without killing any
Jews, are not considered to be heroes. The "heroic" nature of the
terrorist is directly related to the amount of casualties that are
caused.



in endeavors to gain tactical advantages against the Israeli soldiers.
This actually happens.

Wrong. See above.

Tchsk!! You are really grasping at straws.

Justify thia.

Ahh....This again. When you resort to "justify" blah blah, you
are REALLY grasping at straws. Well, do try to hang on, old boy.

No. You have made an UNSUPPORTED argument. Bourbaki made a SUPPORTED
argument, which Holsztynski (unjustifiably) dismissed as anti-Semitic.
You jumped in to defend Holsztynski, without providing any
justification for his outrageous comments.

I only wanted to reply to certain comments that were made in
response to Holsztynski. As such I only defended **some** of the
statements that he wrote. Only in your surrealty, do I have the
obligation to sytematically defend eveything that he wrote.


In *every case* I have
justified my argument.

Unbelievable. In almost no case have you justified your argument.
Mostly, you have been content to do ridiculus nit-picking, in some
peurile attempt to invalidate the many arguments I have proferred, in
an effort to engage in honest discourse

I have cited reputable sources to explain
*clearly* why your argument is nonsensical.


No, what you've done is merely cite a minority voice among the
Israelis. Then claim that this fellow's **opinion** is irrefutable,
merely because he is an Israeli, and presumeably, would have no vested
interest in attacking Israel.




All you do is to act
dismissively when you've been made to look like an idiot. Again.

See? Yet more unsupported claims on your part




However, to reverse the image would not
accurately depict the conflict between the Palestinians and the
Israelis.

Just as the image *as it stands* does not.

But the point is that to reverse the image to show the Israeli
soldier hiding behind the pram would be much less accurate than the
way the image is currently constructed.


How would it be "much less accurate" since the image is equally distorted in
its depictions of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides?

There is no meaningful answer to your question since it is not the
"equality" of distortion that matters, but the **degree** of
distortion.

Nonsense. THIS PARTICULAR IMAGE (the one we're discussing, remember)
IS EQUALLY DISTORTED ON BOTH SIDES. It's BS. Drop it, dude. The more
you do this, the more like an idiot you make yourself seem.

Did you even **read** what I wrote above?? Here, I'll repeat it,
so that you might actually deign to respond to it, rather than insult
me:

" It is not the "equality" o distortion that matters, but the
**degree** of distortion."





It's hardly helpful, then,
wouldn't you agree?

Helpful to whom? The cartoon helps to get a point across to the
viewer

Yes. The viewer thinks: "The Israeli government's Settlement policy and its
anti-Palestinian propaganda have persuaded me to join Hamas."



Only if that viewer is completely prejudiced, as you are.


Wrong. First of all, if by conceding that there is fault on both
sides, that many Israeli soldiers and civilians die unnecessarily is
being prejudiced, then I'm glad to BE prejudiced.

I'll bet you are. You really seem to gain fulfillment from your
prejudice.

Secondly NOBODY in
Hamas would agree with me, since if they did, Hamas would not exist.
Hamas' recruits *are* prejudiced by the policies of the Israeli
government.

The policies of the Israeli government are neither sufficient, nor
necessary, for Hamas to find new recruits.

If the Israeli government did not act *against* the
interests of the state of Israel and the Israeli people, MAYBE a
negotiated settlement could be reached.

If the Palestinian leaders (both of the PA, and the terror
organizations) did not act against the interests of the Israeli
people, then maybe a negotiated settlement could be reached. However,
I think that the decisive moment has not yet arrived.

It's necessary to START
talking, however.


Ummm...Just how many viewers do you think will actually be
persuaded to join Hamas by that image? My guess, is that the total is
Zero.

First, the image is not generated by the Israeli Government.


No, not by the government, by its *policies*.

Hold on: It is the policy of the Israeli Government to defend its
Youth from attack by Palestinian militants. However, it is the policy
of the Palestinian terror organizations to attack Israeli youth. It is
the policy of Palestinian leaders to utilize Palestinian youth as
human shields.

The Palestinians make the choice to be violent. Moreover, they make
the choice to be terroist who attack innicent Israeli civilians. They
aren't forced to become terrorists. They are seduced, induced, and
brainwashed into adopting the terrorist path.

Second, there is nothing in the image that refers to Israel's
settlement policy.


No,

Good, I'm glad that you agree with me.


but the conflict to which the image alludes is *caused*, in large
measure, by Israel's settlement policy.

Your assertion is dubious. The conflict to which the image alludes
is *caused*, entirely, by Israel's mere act of continuing to exist.

Even after a "Peace" treaty under which an independent Palestinian
state is formed, there will continue to be violence directed at Jews
in general,and israelis in particular, by Palestinians around the
world

Not one person in a thousand would interpret the image as you do.

Quite right! The proportion would be MUCH greater!

You really think that the image would evoke "Settlements" in the
untainted mind of an unbiased viewer???



The Israelis assiduously try to avoid putting their children
in harm's way,

The Israeli government's Settlement Policy does *precisely the
opposite*. Discuss.

The Israeli government puts bombs around the waist of Israeli
children?

No, but it bombs Palestinians.

Right, the Israeli **Military** bombs the Palestinians, **NOT**
her children.

Not quite... the Israeli **Military** bombs the Palestinians
**INCLUDING** children. The bombing is completely indiscriminate. Many
children are killed.

You misunderstand : the Israeli governement bombs the Palestinians;
the **Israeli Children** do NOT attack the Palestinians.

In any case, the bombing is far from indiscriminate. They are
targeted at apecific buildings, thought to house Palestinian terrorist
leadership.

Do you even know what the word indiscriminate means?


Gives them a rifle, and tells them to arrest or fight Hamas
members?


No. Israelis are drafted into the army, and many are killed. Needlessly.

Actually, far more Israeli civilians than soldiers have died in the
recent terror campaign. If it weren't for the IDF, the death toll of
Israeli civilians would be much higher.

Ok, since you know about this, give figures for:

The number of Israeli soldiers killed.

The statistics are given for combatants and non-combatants.
The number of combatants killed a 177

The number of Israeli civilians

Non-Combatants (Israelis) killed by Palestinians 679
No. of whom were female 269

killed.http://www.ict.org.il/articles/artic...?articleid=439

Or, if you prefer:

the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group givess 572 Israeli
civilians, and 255 members of "Israeli security Forces", as the number
of Israeli fatalities.
http://www.phrmg.org/

The number of Palestinians killed.

2,781 "Martyrs" (Palestinians) according to the Palestinian Central
Bureau of Statistics. Period from 29 September, 2000--28 November
2003http://www.pcbs.org/english/martyrs/table1_e.htm

This total probably does not include those Palestinians who were
killed by fellow Palestinians, for "collaborating".


The site http://www.womenspeacepalestine.org/statistics.htm gives
statistics from a variety of sources.

So, it looks like about 3 Palestinians are killed for every Israeli.

There is general consensus that between 70-80 % of the Israeli dead
were civilians/non-combatants.

Given the demographoc breakdown of Palestinian fatalities,(notably,
relatively few women and senior citizens) it looks like over half of
the fatalities were combatants.


Cite your source, or I'll assume you're just talking out of your hat,
as usual.

SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT!


No, the Israeli government expends a lot of resources to defend the
Settlements, and the children in them.
Right. Is this wise? Is it justified? Rememer those Hamas leaders and their
recruits.

I believe that Israel should withdraw from the settlements in
Gaza, and in the isolated areas of the West Bank. Almost all of the
settlements to the east of the security fence will end up being
abandoned.


Oh, well that's alright then. If *you believe that stuff* then *nobody
in the area will be hurt or killed*. What a relief!


They build security fences
around the settlements, and run patrols, etc. The Israeli children are
not present when the IDF engage the militants.


Right. This will afford some protection to ordinary Israelis, but it will not
stop Hamas. Quite the contrary. All this reminds me of South Africa in the days
of apartheid. The whites built security fences to keep out the blacks.

Have you seen the security fence? Multiple kill zones, automatic
sensors, enfilading fire....this barrier will not be easy for the
Palestinian terrorist to breach.


Yes, I've seen it, on TV. I've never visited Israel. You're missing
the point that ALL security measures can be breached if an individual
is sufficiently motivated to do it. The Israeli government's
settlement policy provides such motivation.

Of course, the barrier CAN be breached. However, it will be a
success if it serves to (greatly) reduce terrorist infiltrations into
Israel.


You'd probably be surprised to learn that more Israeli kids are
killed within the "Green Line" (pre-1967 armistice lines) than are
killed in the West Bank/Gaza.


Would I, indeed? Patronising jackass, I already knew that.

Don't get snippy!

Then don't patronise me, jerk.



and have soldiers out in the vanguard as the 1st line
of defense. Thus, your hypothetical cartoon featuring a role-reversed
Israeli is indeed risible.

...as risible, in fact, as the cartoon as it stands, since it depicts
an Israeli *soldier* fighting a Palestinian *soldier*....

I think that we've been there, done that

....and got some recruits for Hamas. Yes.



Does it follow, then, that you would believe that an Israeli
historian's view of Israel's si