I've been meaning to mention that. For too long, we the readers, have said nothing about the haphazard use of your opinions on your blog. I recommend that to correct this your promptly begin posting an article from http://www.answersingenesis.com for every post about evolution. As it is, rationality holds too firm a grip on your blog – you need to balance that out with a fair share of ignorance, fecklessness, and general fatuousness.

This is another reason why I love this site. On a completely unrelated note, I think Richard Nixon (gasp!) had it right when he pointed out that being anti-Israeli doesn't necessarily mean you're an anti-Semite. Both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have gotten themselves into a mucky mess, and its really just about who can pump the PR down the western world's throat. Israel has had the advantage as of late, and it looks like the Palestinians have given up on trying to get some Yankees on their side and instead are tryign to get some Arab and Muslim fervor under their cause.

If this was a completely secular land dispute, I wonder how things would turn out?

Israelis and their Israel-first Lobby don't want to discuss the real issues in Palestine.

A good example is Abraham Foxman and the ADL who label anyone hinting at criticism of Israel, particularly its crimes against humanity, as "anti-semite". Foxman may have invented the term "the new anti-semitism". A while ago he repeated such slurs against Walt and Mearsheimer on C-span. Of course he denies that he thinks any and all criticism of Israel is beyond the pale, but his real actions speak louder than his denials.

The other tactic they use is to try to change the subject by saying, "why do you not say anything about Darfur or Burma or wherever?" But the subject is Palestine, not something else.

Foxman is just an egregious example. He is someone who was given protection and a home by the U.S. and now he has turned against it to support a foreign government. How is that for being grateful?

Why is this a debate? Why is this even controversial? Why are we having issues talking about a country we have forgiven loans for the last 30 years? As a taxpayer, I think this is a no brainer. As an American, its in the Bill-Of-Rights.

Right on, bro. It's your blog and if you want to post fifty-eleven articles about the inner workings of ear-wax, then fill your damn boots. I'm sure some people would still stick around to read it. As it is, there's a lot of us out here who read your stuff every day.
Love it.

Why must there be "balance?" That's my question.

The Israeli invasion and occupation of Palestine is simply wrong, as is the American commitment to financially and militarily support it.

It's really only a touchy issue becasue we're talking about the Jews.

To be fair, they atrocities the Jewish people have suffered throughout history are horrendous. But does that warrant the displacement of the Palestinian people? Because my house was burglarized, I should be allowed to burglarize yours?

As for the Hamasian strategy of suicide bombing, what would you do in their place?

Whenever I ask this question, the response I typically receive is "Well, I wouldn't kill innocent civilians!"

Really? If a foreign power invaded your state, took your property and business, and sent your family off to a refugee camp to rot and die, would you make such distinctions? Are the people living in your former home "civilians?"

Kudos for making no apologies for your stance on this issue.

The reality is unbalanced, so follows the telling of it.

I do disagree, however, with your position that "Ahmadinejad is a nutcase."

On the contrary, he seems to be the sole voice of reason in that region, so long as you listen to him and not the "interpretations" of his speech by either the Western or Arabic media.

President Ahmadinejad does not deny the Holocaust, as no reasonable person would (although he does question its scale). As he told Mike Wallace, he simply feels that if the creation of a Jewish state is in response to the Holocaust, then why is it not in Europe, where the atrocities took place? Why must the Palestinians be made to suffer for the actions of the Nazis?

Also, while frequently characterized as being anti-American, he is in actuality anti-American Foreign Policy.

And who can blame him, really? It was, after all, the U.S. that overthrew the democratically-elected prime minister and installed the Shah in 1953.

If only th effects of our blunders were as short-lived as our memories.

But that's another example of why it isn't necessary to be balanced. We are everything he says we are, in relation to his country: A noble people that must learn to stand against the oppresion of our government against the rest of the world.

Perhaps then, there will be a balance in reality, and then the telling will follow.

Perhaps the critique aims for this blog to seek more parity and substance? Why one would look to onegoodmove for substance on an issue as intractable and frustrating as the Israel/Palestinian question is beyond me. Are blogs not simply a form of superficial political venting? Last time I posted on Israel here I was lambasted with vitriol and scorn. I have learned, as we all should, to take these forums with a grain of salt.

"Ahmadinejad is a nutcase" - I think you assume your opinion is correct. I, and a sizeable majority of those who dispute the partisan media might disagree with you.

Read the text of his UN address.

If you are looking for a nutcase, Bush clearly has perfected that routine and killed 100,000+ iraqis, a few thousand Americans in the process. And he leads a democracy.

Maybe you better wipe the Utah mist from your spectacles if you are trying to look overseas for support in your personal analysis of a middle east that you clearly know very little about.

A blog does not make one authoritative.

I suppose nutcase was not the best choice of words. I mean nutcase in the same sense that I view Tony Snow as a nutcase, not stupid, but nuts if he thinks he's fooling anyone other than those he's already fooled.

I just wonder at what point does common sense make us recognize that Israel is a real state that has existed for nearly 60 years and shouldn't be expected to disolve into nothingness. The Israelis living in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv have been there for multiple generations and have roots there. I think we would be hard-pressed to find a single nation on earth that did not come to be by some group taking over and forcing other people out. Should we expect suicide bombers to be coming from the unacceptably impoverished conditions on Indian reservations? Maybe we should... I just think that, at some point, we have to look forward to making peace instead of backwards to why somebody got unfairly short-changed several generations ago. That being said, Israel should stop with these nutty settlements. Israel must be held accountable for its actions now, before we worry about arbitrary borders set up by European powers when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled.

I'm tired of "balance" - I just want the truth. Thank you for providing us with that. (Even if it is in the sugar-coated embrace of your often humourous and usually dead-on critiques).

I also agree that you should keep doing what you're doing. If people want a more "balanced" view, they could go elsewhere. I really wish they'd stay here and try to understand that, as others have pointed out, the situation is not balanced.

Israel is the aggressor vis-a-vis Palestine. The US has backed Israel through every violation of UN resolutions and international law it's committed. I don't agree with suicide attacks on civilians. But I think it's indicative of the enormous pressure the Palestinian people are feeling that some of them would even think to carry out such attacks. Israel routinely targets civilians in its attacks on Palestine, but the pro-Israeli crowd never call it such. My take is, if you know innocents are in a crowded area, and you target that area for a missile attack, then you are targeting civilians. It's not enough to simply say 'we knew civilians would die, but we weren't technically targeting them.'

And as far as critiquing Israel being equated with antisemitism, any reasonable person knows it's hogwash. When this country and it's media sycophants attack, mock, and ridicule Castro's Cuba, are these people being anti-Cuban? The media always talks about the corruption, repression, and genocide that goes on in some African nations, but no ever accuses such critics of being racist towards blacks. So this double standard where you can vilify any nation on the earth except Israel, without being considered racist, has to cease.

Tony Snow isn't a nutcase, he's just a liar.

There is a difference. He knows the truth. He just makes a choice to say something else.

Is Ahmadinejad a liar? I don't really know.

I was in school and then the Army during the Cold War, and nearly every single thing I was taught about the Russians turned out to be false.

So when I hear the same old claims being made about Ahmadinejad, Chavez or any other leader who has issues with the United States, I am suspect.

The difference now is that the internet allows these people to speak directly to us.

Here's what I look for: When the person in question cites an event or policy that I know to be a fact as a basis for their grievances.

Unfortunately, that criteria also applies to Osama bin Laden, but to be fair, we are not exactly innocent in that conflict, either.

The maddening part of it all is that some idiot will label me as "part of the hate America first crowd," simly because I choose to listen to opposing viewpoints.

But then, that's why we are we are, isn't it?

You are my hero for today. All news contains an argument. I am sick of the mainstream media's ideal of objectivity. They aren't objective. They're presentation contains an argument, even if it is implicit. Honest argument is explicit.

Coverage of warware is the worst. Warware is not taught 'for freedom' or some such verbage. War is power-politics. So where is the analysis in terms of power politics? Instead of analysis and argument we get point vs counterpoint (see below).

wiki on Media bias One technique used to avoid bias is the "point/counterpoint" or "round table," an adversarial format in which representatives of opposing views comment on an issue. This approach theoretically allows diverse views to appear in the media. However, the person organizing the report still has the responsibility to choose people who really represent the breadth of opinion, to ask them non-prejudicial questions, and to edit or arbitrate their comments fairly. When done carelessly, a point/counterpoint can be as unfair as a simple biased report, by suggesting that the "losing" side lost on its merits.

The Skeptics Society has accused reporters of misusing the point/counterpoint format by giving more time to superstitions than to their scientific rebuttals.

Using this format can also lead to accusations that the reporter has created a misleading appearance that viewpoints have equal validity (sometimes called "false balance"[14]). This may happen when a taboo exists around one of the viewpoints, or when one of the representatives habitually makes claims that are easily shown to be inaccurate.

and wiki on False balance

False balance can sometimes originate from similar motives as sensationalism, where producers and editors may feel that a story portrayed as a contentious debate will be more commercially successful to pursue than a more accurate account of the issue. However, unlike most other media biases, false balance may actually stem from an attempt to avoid bias; producers and editors may confuse treating competing views fairly -- i.e., in proportion to their actual merits and significance -- with treating them equally, giving them equal time to present their views even when those views may be known beforehand to be based on false information.

I find it interesting that Americans have such a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of Israel. It's strange that the issues of Palestinian human rights and freedoms are more openly discussed in the Israeli media than in ours. What's wrong with us?

I agree that some of the statements of Ahmadinejad have been twisted, but I still do think that he is a bit nutty. The guy has an apocayliptic political worldview that is as disturbing as that of the so-called 'Christian Zionists' in America.

I also don't see the point in engaging in minimizing or making fun of the Holocaust. He says that it was exaggerated like a lot of things in war are exaggerated. That's a form of Holocaust denial. There have been other genocides but not on that scale and with that level of wide-ranging complicity.

I don't think that the Holocaust is an excuse for any wrong that the government of Israel commits, but at the same time acknowledging the Holocaust helps us understand that a lot of those post-WWII migrants to Israel were fleeing a fate that was very terrible; they weren't imperialist colonizers. It may be somewhat unfortunate, but not the fault of Holocaust awareness-raisers, that the country of the Jews in Palestine turned out to be a partitioned Jewish state rather than a multi-ethnic Palestinian state.

I should also say that I really do think that this site gives a good presentation of a left perspective on Israel (and on many other things), without condoning or linking to anti-Jewish critiques of Israel.

How about eliminating bias in the MSM. One example is senior correspondent and commentator on CNN, Wolf Blitzer, who is an Israeli sycophant and propagandist. Here is a guy that got started in Israel working for the Jerusalem Post, aka Voice of Israel.

Here is a video of Blitzer on a panel with Norman Finkelstein. Blitzer lays out his racist ideology quite clearly. The discussion begins with the same question Ahmadinejad posed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-8aTGnjHnI

For a detailed presentation of the media bias towards Israel, see this documentary, "Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=Fqi2GTxB7SE

This is my favourite site.

I don't always agree with Norm, but over the long term he is as close to balanced as one can get for an American ;-) And he permits others to air their views on his site ... it is so subjective; who am I to judge what balanced is? Maybe Fox and O'Reilly are The Truth and John Stewart is a shrewd liberal manipulator?

US's unwavering blind support for Israel is as puzzling as Tony Blair's unwavering blind support for Bush. Something stinks, perhaps it's the illuminati

Norm, it is your site and you can do as you damn well please. My beef is not that I expect balance, but that I expect a modicum of fairness. There's a difference. I don't expect you to post a pro-Israeli article for every pro-Palestinian one. What I do wish you 'd do is call people on bullshit when bullshit is being spewed. I don't expect you to post a creationist article for every Dawkins article. But if Dawkins said for example, all theists should be slaughtered, I'm guessing you wouldn't give him a free pass.

No, Norm, two wrongs don't make a right, but to by continually posting articles that portray Israel as an aggressor and Palestine as a victim, you leave the impression that there's only one wrongdoer here. You and others have accused me of being a radical right-wing defender of Israel. As I've said time and again, if I am anything, I'm a peacenik, who wants to see Israel out of the territories and an end to all this lunacy. But I'm not an idiot. Israel is still a democracy with Western values. Muslim and Arab countries, rich or poor, "occupied" or not, are not. Not one.

All of you went ballistic when Israel invaded Lebanon following Hezbollah's kidnapping of soldiers, demanding Hezbollah disarm, as is required by UN resolutions (that you're all so fond of reciting). You all demanded Israel withdraw because "two wrongs don't make a right." Israel has since withdrawn. Update: Israel's soldiers (if they're still alive) are still in captivity and, lo and behold, Hezbollah has not disarmed. Where is your outrage now? Where is your two wrongs dont make a right credo now? Nowhere to be seen. When Israel plays by Western rules, it's fucked in the ass. When Israel plays by Arab/Muslim rules, it's condemned by the same Westerners who remained silent when they acted in good faith.

Israel has shown it can be a responsible neighbour -- with Egypt, with Jordan, even with Syria, as long as Syria stays put. But when Israel withdraws from Gaza or offers peace to the Palestinians and still gets suicide bombers and calls for its destructions from psychos like Ahmenidejad, give me a fucking break. Israel's government again said recently it is ready to live with a Palestinians state in the West Bank and Gaza. Palestine's hamas-led government still refuses to say the same.

"Israel's government again said recently it is ready to live with a Palestinians state in the West Bank and Gaza. Palestine's hamas-led government still refuses to say the same."

For the record I don't think that Norm has ever denied any of this.

If one wanted to truely make much of the Arab world happy, one would have to disolve Israel completely. Underlying all of the tension is not that Israel is aggressive to the Palestinian Territories,but that all of Israel (especially Jerusalem) is not in Arab control. So, my question to those who feel that their view is the most balanced is what should Israel do? Untill they leave Jerusalem (which will never happen) or cease to exist, they will be an 'occupying force' to the arabs and there will be bloodshed.

I never said he denied it. I said that he's quick to post articles that portray Israel as the aggressor, even when those "aggressions" are the direct result of Arab violence or intransigence. When the "aggressor" has called for peace for 60 years, has offered to return land it captured to the people who attacked it to begin with (and has done so in the case of Egypt and Gaza), when the "victim" still straps bombs to its youth and sends them to gloriously kill Israelis on commuter buses, and still refuses to recognize Israel's existence, it's hardly fair to call Israel the aggressor. It's his right, but don't tell me it's a fair look at the situation.

Certainly both sides have been aggressors and both victims in a variety of circumstances, but when one repeatedly calls out Israel as the aggressor and Palestine as the victim, regardless of history and context, it's difficult to interpret that as anything other than anti-Israel.

Yes, two wrongs don't make a right. But it's not fair to handcuff one side with this and let the other side continue to throw punches. We may want peace, but that doesn't mean we're chumps.

Hey, FWIW, I think you're doing just fine.

Every now and then, there'll be some article or some point of view that you have up here that I disagree with, but that doesn't happen very often, and anyway like you say--yours is an opinion site. It does have the nice advantage of being an opinion that's frequently defensible by facts and stuff though--that's what makes it cool.

Anyway, keep on keepin on. thumbs-up sign

-- Furry cows moo and decompress.

Zak, are you suggesting that I think suicide bombings are okay? I don't. Are you suggesting that I don't think Israel has a right to exist? I do. Are you suggesting that Israeli settlements don't victimize Palestinians? They do. They are victims in the same way Israeli's are victims of suicide bombings. There are victims on both sides. If I only pointed to Palestinian misdeeds would I not be painting Israelis as victims in the same sense that you complain I paint Palestinians, would you criticize me for that? As I've explained there is plenty of deserved criticism of Palestinians in the media. I view my criticism of Israel as a balance to that. People form their opinions by reading opposing viewpoints each source of information places its emphasis differently. I choose emphasize Israel's contribution to the problem. I acknowledge both sides of the issue and I think anyone reading this blog has a reasonable understanding of my view. Your argument I think is with the emphasis, not the facts presented. Once again I ask if I emphasized the Israeli position would you be criticising me?

Certainly I'm concerned about the situation in Lebanon a situation that is worse as a result of Israel's invasion, and the United States' complicity in that enterprise. Our failure to provide support for the Lebanese contributed to the rise of Hezbollah. Hezbollah cannot be eliminated from the outside, only by the Lebanese themselves. Israel and the U.S. have made them heroes and the task more difficult. What do you suggest we do to solve the problem of Hezbollah? A military solution perhaps. One I suspect it would have similar results to our adventure in Iraq. The Lebanese government is at risk and is in no position to disarm Hezbollah. The U.S. and Israel share in the responsibility for that situation. What is the solution to the problem you're offering?

Whether you believe it or not, if you unjustly emphasized the Israeli position, I would criticize you. I've actually had very heated arguments with Jewish friends who support the radical-right point of view in Israel. I do not believe "God gave the Jews" anything, for example. Nor do I believe Israel should be building settlements in the territories. I've told Jewish friends off for such idiocy.

I'm a Jew and Zionist and unashamedly so. But I know my history, good and bad and am willing to admit wrongdoings -- and I've done so. I said repeatedly Israel should not have invaded Lebanon. My point in that whole debacle was the invasion was precipitated by something Hezbollah did, not something Israel did. That was often overlooked with the world's frighteningly short-term memory.

Norm, it simply feels to me sometimes like you're the angry parent who walks into the room as your 7-year-old is slapping your 5 year-old, and punishing the 7 year-old without caring that the 5 year-old was torturing his older brother 30 seconds before you walked in. You'll dredge up your two wrongs argument again, but that only works, in my estimation, if you place that burden or expectation on both sides. You can't keep punishing the 7 year-old when the 5 year-old is instigating, without cultivating a lot of resentment.

For the record, I don't think you're anti-semitic or a bigot. But I do think you're used by anti-semites, like Kes for example, who use your open-mindedness as affirmation for their views. Has Israel done stupid, even criminal things? Yes, I'm ashamed to say. But at the end of the day, your worldview is shared by many more Israeli Jews than Arab Muslims. That doesnt mean Israel is always good and the Arabs are always bad. But it certainly doesn't mean the reverse either.

And for the record, I think we probably agree on most other issues. I still love your blog, read it every day and hope you understand my point of view just a little bit better.

One final note, to your last question: You write that the US and Israel share a responsibility for the rise of Hezbollah and the instability of the lebanese government. I think the first step in finding a solution to that problem is at least including Syria and Iran in your axis of complicity. There's a perfect example of your tendency to point the finger (rightfully so) at Israel, without addressing the other half of the story. Israel tried to solve this problem by itself and failed miserably. The only solution is one that involves all the power players.

Who determines what is just criticism and what is not, that's the problem isn't it? You can say that Palestianians precipitated such and such an incident, and I can equally argue that it was Israel. Take Lebanon, you point to the capture of the Israeli soldiers, certainly a provocation as are Israeli overflights of Lebanese territory. Who started it I don't know? All either side can do is weigh their responses and not make matters worse. Israel had a choice of how to respond to the Hezbollah's actions and picked a disasterous one. Certainly Syria and Iran share responsibility and need to be included. The United States seems to me to be a primary obstacle for that to happen in any meaningful way. Your analogy doesn't quite work for me. It's more like a dispute between my child and the neighbors. They will have to regin in their misbehaviors and I mine.

I really need somebody to explain to me why Israel has a right to exist. As an Indian-American I feel like saying that European Jews have a right to occupy Palestine and brutalize its people is equal to saying that the British should have continued to occupy India! And spare me the 'we lived here 2000 years ago' argument because that is pure insanity.

I agree with you Norm. Both sides have a responsibility to rein in their misbehavior. That's all I'm really saying. Both sides.

Acacia, you'll need to read your history for a complete answer to that question. After 2000 years of being told by every "nation" where the jews lived with that they were not part of that nation, and after 2000 years of being murdered in those nations in inquisitions, pogroms, blood libels and holocausts, Jews decided the only way to stop the madness was to get a nation of their own.

I'm sure your next question will be well, why did the Palestinians have to suffer so the Jews could have a state? Well they didn't have to. The British lopped off 2/3 of Palestine and renamed it Jordan in 1922 (still 65% Palestinian population, btw) and the UN voted to split the remaining 33% between Jews and Arabs in 1947. The Jews said yes, the Arabs (Palestinian, Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi, Lebanese, etc.) chose another violent course and lost.

With 20+ Arab and Muslim countries in the world, the Jews asked for 1/2 of one, where they, yes, had a homeland 2000 years ago. It beat asking for a homeland in Kenya or Newfoundland.

As someone who knows about Western brutalization against your people, you can appreciate I'm sure why after 2000 years of brutalization at least as bad, the Jews tried to take matters in their own hands. And as an Indian-American (presumably not Muslim), you no doubt have also learned that Muslims often have a problem with sharing "their" land with anyone -- they usually want it all for themselves (See: Lebanon, Palestine, India/Pakistan, Arabia, Egypt, etc.)

Zak,

I'm amazed that you don't see the hypocrisy in what you write.

WHY NOT KENYA? Christ, what a stupid idea to stick the Jews in the middle of a bunch of muslims? Of course it's going to be trouble! If Israel at it's fouding didn't realize they were wearing a short skirt into the wrong neighborhood, I'm not going to shed a tear when they finally get it in the end. And if they did realize, then they are not nearly as smart as the conspiracy theorists think and the same end would affect me just as much.

thanks zak for taking the time to give me the short history lesson. i completely agree with Stone. It's crazy to say that it's OK to dispossess people of land. And while I'm not Muslim I think that your 'sharing land' comment about Muslims was extremely racist. Did white settlers in America share their land? Also I know that after WWII it was governments like Iraq and Iran that were issuing citizenship to dispossesed Jews. Anyway I really think that your response ends any credibility that you hold on this subject. Exit acacia from this discussion.

actually one last thing :)

i agree with Stone about the Kenya part, not about not shedding a tear when they get it in the end because that implies that i don't care about more bloodshed and violence that this will lead to. also i don't like the short skirt analogy, stone :), but i agree with the idea that you were trying to convey.

I'm an 1st gen American, born of Palestinian (Christian) parents who ended up in the US many years ago. I don't think they have any reason to make up the story of how they left their homeland. Basically, a truck of Israeli soldiers came to their village and said 'leave, this isn't your home any more'. They travelled by foot for several days over to jordan. I can't believe that people like Zak would justify this cruelty. I raised my kids to know this story and hope that they won't be brainwashed being surrounded by the 'Israel first' propaganda machine in this country.

The reason I used the classic rape excuse as a metaphor is that it assumes the guilt of the victim, which is exactly what I'm doing. (I also wanted to be offensive.) States founded on religous grounds are inherently wrong. Religosity is wrong. Rape is wrong too, as is in part a stereotype of the rare "victim" who is pathologically disturbed and may "actually want it." In any case, they are victims of mental illness at the very least, as rape is violent by nature. And in a way religon is a mental illness too. It leads to very bad consequences for bystanders and for the religious themselves. So when I see two religous states at war, I have to restrain from rejoicing, and hope only that in the end the virus will deal itself a death blow. I'm afraid it may be a neccessary evil that the Jews go first. Nevertheless, peace is always preferable, perhaps just not acheivable.

I don't know why we bite our tongue for the sake of jewish people as if they were some poor abused disadvantaged poor immigrants. I think its fare to say they have done well for themselves as a religious/ethnic group. It is obvious that the Jewish influence in the media goes way beyond dispraportionante. The main stream media in America is dominated by a Jewish culture ideas through writers directors producers. If your willing to be honest about it, or at least read publications written for Jewish readers. Thus this minority wields great power. But with great power comes great responsibility. I am certian that power has been abused as with all ruling classes. The combined forces of the christain right and Jewish right made for a goliath of self rightious muslim hating racist nationlistic demons that made any thoughtful American shutter with fear of facism.

Being that the media is dominated by Jewish people and Americas racist past, we must rely on Jewish people to counteract the pro israel campaign that has been isolating America internationally for decades. On the left we have John Stewart and Bill Mahr VS William Kristoff, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle etc.... Well you get the idea. Essentially as a group Jewish people succefully do weild a lot of influence and maintain excellent group cohesian in collective defense. That dominace has allowed them to silence racist and bigots and unfortunetly now silience critics of crimes against humanity being commited in their name.

Israel is an expensive burden on the world at large. Zionism is a fundamentalist and racist principal that is out of place in modern society. A country built on seperation of church and state should not have to care the burden of others biblicaly based bigotry. To maintain the lie, the ruling elite is forced to feed us lies and distorted our reality. In that further power is taken and abused. If we are to acheive goodess and truthfulness or some ability to reason we have to come clean about the facts. The daily barrage of complaints about anti-semitism is ridicoulous. Black people are far more threatened by racism world wide than a random Jewish person whom cant be distinguished from a European without a DNA test. Jewish people playing VICTIM in America is irritating and distracting us all from serious issues. Israel is a burden America needs to free itself of. Jewish people need to be loyal to America first and the Israel second. The other minority groups of the America are not lobbying congress to send billions to their native lands. Instead they would be happy to just bring over their relatives and build a life here. America is lucky to host our 2.5% Jewish Population. But that population cannot let their proficiency for acheivment excuse disloyalty and outright manipulation of the masses. Its been done before, it always ends ugly. The truth will set us all free. Other than that some more REAL DIVERSITY in the media would be nice. I wish television in New York looked mroe like the streets of New York instead of yet another WHITE WASH OF REALITY.

I being black dont have cause to hate any ethnic group. I first hand have experienced racism worldwide, brown skin cant be concealed. Our problems are real and presistant. I only wish we had more jewish people in America and less in Israel.

Hi all, I agree that both sides must be provided, with the understanding that both sides must support their points with accurate facts and information, instead of baseless propaganda or whitewashing of history.

Both sides should also be clear in condemning universal atrocities, instead of a one-sided defence of one side such as trying to reason away Israeli use of poison gas and white phosphorous, which are illegal chemical weapons instead of condemning the use of such weapons.

By the way, there are some points that need to be clarified.

1] Anti-Zionism, which drove the violent creation of Israel, is not anti-Semitism.

Zionists worked with the Nazis in the 1930s to put German Jews into Nazi hands. The book of Jewish law or Talmud, they say, teaches that believers may not use human force to create a Jewish state before the coming of the Messiah.

Most importantly, there are Jews opposing Israel and its creation as well as its methods.

2] There are very few Jews in the 1940s who are native to the Arab region of Palestine or Filastin. Most of the Jews in Palestine in the 1940s were illegal immigrants and colonialists from Europe and overseas who came to the region of Palestine against the wishes of the local Arab majority who owned most of the land. This largely Jewish immigrant minority formed only 14% of the total population in Palestine and owned 7% of the land. These Jews can live in Palestine as a minority group.

But whether they have the right to set up a Jewish state is debatable and totally ridiculous without the consent or needs of the local Arab majority as outlined clearly in the conditions set by 1917 Balfour Declaration.

Modern nation states, created in the 20th century, do not recognise the right of minorities to form a state within a state.

3] Gandhi in the late 1930s said that most of the Jewish immigrants into Palestine are colonisers unwelcome by the local Arab majority who is well-within their rights.

The Jewish immigrants who came to Palestine are not really JUST the poor pitiful Holocause victims that some pro-Israeli poster presents. Many were Zionists with imperialism and colonisation objectives in mind and they were willing do anything to set up a Jewish state, to the point of writing a economic treaty with Hitler in the 1930s to put 500,000 German Jews in Palestine. The Zionist Jews jumpstarted the Jewish Holocaust and the Zionists also spearheaded the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

4] Countries that gain independence in the 1940s onwards were mostly legitimate democracies with a true democratic majority, a true definition for a democratic state in modern times. Despite its assertions, Israel does not share the same legitimacy as these nation states even though it was also formed in the 1940s as it is formed by a minority group that has occupied the lands of the true democratic majority by military force.

5] Israel is not a good neighbour for the last 6 decades. It provoked 3 out of 4 major conflicts in the region, repeatedly attacked its neighbours, continued occupation and annexation of Arab lands against worldwide condemnation, developed a secret nuclear arsenal without international checks and balances and has received 22 UN resolutions against its rogue state activities.

6] Israel also provoked the Middle East conflicts in this year. Israel first kidnapped 2 Arab civilians from the West Bank, 1 day before the Hamas retaliated by kidnapping 2 soldiers and 1 month before the Hezbollah kidnapped the Israeli soldiers. Notice that Israeli activities targeted civilians while the Arabs kept to the soldiers?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5112846.stm

Before Israeli kidnapping, Israel holds at least 5000 Arab Palestinians hostage, along with 15 Lebanese hostages plus uncountable violations of Lebanese sovereignty such as flyovers in Lebanese air space, targeted assassinations of Lebanese civilians, as well as continued occupation of Shebaa Farms which Syria made clear was Lebanon’s territory.

8] Israel has continually been building new Jewish settements and infraastrcuture on Arab lands belonging to Palestinians and other Arab countries for the last 60 years, despite international agreements not to do so.

I will also wish that some people here will not try to justify the armed occupation of lands as a legitimate way to sdet up a modern democracy by quoting some anceitn obsolete examples.

Nation-states formed in the 1940s obtain their legitimacy in the 20th century by the local ethnic majority overthrowing the colonial yoke, establishing a popular democratic government with a democratic majority and in achieveing a membership in the UN as a sovereign nation.

Out of these 3 criteria, Israel, also formed in 1949, does not qualify, especially when Israel renged or went back on its word to abide by the 1947 UN Partition plan, that was the key condition for its UN membership.

Israel is still using its UN membership as its sole source of legitimacy despite the fact that it has not earned it.

TYPOS: set up, ancient obsolete examples.

Norm, you don’t have to provide a pro-Israeli article if you post one that criticises Israel actions based on democractics and humanitarian principles.

How do you find a positive article about any Israel atrocity? Such as building new Jewish settlements on West Bank, despite its promises to freeze settlement building, and when West Bank does to belong to Israel?

Reference: Over U.S. Objections, Israel Approves West Bank Homes September 5, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html?ref=middleeast

Israel has been violating international agreements and laws for the last 60 years without fear. It is not Norm’s job to put a positive sin on Israel’s universally and globally condemned atrocities.

It is a simple gambit by the pro-Israeli crowd here to make it more difficult for you to post any article critical of Israel. They think you won’t post it if you can’t find a pro-Israeli article to balance the negative article.

They want you to be a silent observer of the atrocities that we see inflicted on the Arabs over and over again that had caused hundreds of thousands dead and 8 million Arab refugees?

But why pamper the pro-Israeli crowd? It is a fact that this crowd shamelessly and continuously mislead people here in their defense of Israel without providing any facts or research. Many people here have refuted all their points with facts.

And since when it is Norm’s job to please anyone at this website? What about the religious fanatics and rabid evolution opponents? Why not give in to them as well?

Why not totally give up your right to an opinion and a voice in your very own blog, Norm?

Norm, even if you want to, most of the visitors to this thread won’t let you.

We came to onegoodmove because we like the way you manage your site.

We trust your taste in scientific research and religious issues.

We gladly defer to your opinion as a moderator and as a person who is guided by reason and common sense.

More importantly, we love the clips and surprising articles that you dig out for our viewing and reading pleasure, while providing a place for use to have a civilized discourse.

We probably won’t say thank you to you enough.

But it’s never too late to start.

Thank you.

Merry Christmas.

TYPO: "How do you find a positive article about any Israel atrocity? Such as building new Jewish settlements on West Bank, despite its promises to freeze settlement building, and when West Bank does NOT belong to Israel?

I was at onegoodmove since November 2005. I am thankful and happy to engage in discussions on religion, philosophy, atheism and science, as well on the environment.

Everyone at this website knows that.

I did not participate at any thread where Israel was discussed until July 2006 at the height of the Israeli invasion and air bombing of Lebanon this year.

Only then did I got sick of all the falsehoods by most of the pro-Israeli bloggers, who appeared out of nowhere, in an attempt to whitewash history to sweep the plight of millions of Arab refugees under the carpet.

This article explains it:

Israel backed by army of cyber soldiers. From Yonit Farago in Jerusalem. The Times July 28, 2006

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2289232,00.html

I'm sorry that I can't just be a silent observer to such atrocities any longer by not saying anything.

I really had to intervene because Norm's website is a place where people share credible research and findings with one another to further the gathering of knowledge on sciencem, politics, philosophy and religion.

The last thing I want is for Norm's website to be another platform for spreading Israeli propaganda, which is based on history and reality.

Or for Israeli supporters to play games with the rest of us here as I've stated in my previous post.

==========================

Here's the proof of GAME played by the pro-Israeli crowd to make it more difficult for the people here to post any article critical of Israel.

The pro-Israeli gambit is a GAME by challenging Israeli critics to support and prove pro-Israeli positions for the pro-Israeli crowd.

The pro-Israeli crowd wants to wear legitimate Israeli critics down, besides the relentless insults and name-calling i.e. devoting entire posts to attacking people, not the points they make.

Or they think that Israeli critics won’t post articles if they can’t find a pro-Israeli article to balance the negative article.

Why should we when the Israel's actions are globally and universally condemned by the global community based on democratic and humanitarian principles?

Just take a look at Zak from the pro-Israeli crowd playing the pro-Israeli gambit with his second post at December 28, 2006 7:56 AM in the following thread:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/12/linksfor20061_73.html

No game is worth playing when it involves whitewashing the hundreds of thousands Arab civilians slaughtered by Israelis nor the 8 million Arabs living in refugee camps.

Just to champion the cause of the 2580 Israeli civilians killed by Arab militarism from 1920-1999 when almost ten numbers the number of innocent Arab civilians were killed JUST in 1982 by Israel as noted by Richard Fisk.

Israel civilian death toll taken from Israel’s Ministry of Foreign affairs:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2000/1/Terrorism%20deaths%20in%20Israel%20-%201920-1999?556d482f

By the way, although I do not have any Arab or Jewish friends nor belong to Christianity, Judiasm or Islam, I have relatives living in Israel, whom I'm visited and lived with and I have been to parts of Palestine.

Unlike some people here, I have utterly no incentives to lie for any side in the Israeli-Arab conflict in the Middle East.

My only interest is to bring out the history and the facts about this subject, just like my interest in religion, philosophy, science and politics.

Just let the facts do the talking, not the pundits.

TYPO: The last thing I want is for Norm's website to be another platform for spreading Israeli propaganda, which is "NOT" based on history and reality.