The Middle East part 2

[theavonlady 2]

The Talmud, written 1000 years later, similar (but not exactly) to the Hadiths, is the book that defines how a jew lives his life day to day, as a member of another society (i.e. europe, russia, or the middle east.)  One purpose of the talmud was to bridge the gap between the ancient texts of the Torah (written by god) and the laws of "modern" life (created by man).

This is either false or obscure. See this article, regarding the Torah's Oral Law, which is the main purpose of enscribing the Talmud (made up of the oral Mishnah and the more descriptive Gemarah sections) into print.

[Guest]

The Talmud, written 1000 years later, similar (but not exactly) to the Hadiths, is the book that defines how a jew lives his life day to day, as a member of another society (i.e. europe, russia, or the middle east.)  One purpose of the talmud was to bridge the gap between the ancient texts of the Torah (written by god) and the laws of "modern" life (created by man).

This is either false or obscure. See this article, regarding the Torah's Oral Law, which is the main purpose of enscribing the Talmud (made up of the oral Mishnah and the more descriptive Gemarah sections) into print.

maybe poorly explained. I'm not reffering to the difference between torah she b'chtav and b'al peh, im explaining how tractactes are books of law, that proscribe specific actions or duties, which are elaborations and interpretations of the torah.

lol, I haven't really gotten into such a machlokes since yeshiva (10 yrs ago!)

[theavonlady 2]

im explaining how tractactes are books of law, that proscribe specific actions or duties, which are elaborations and interpretations of the torah.

Well, why didn't you say that in the first place!

[denoir 0]

Ok. Have you been doing this for a long time?

About 2 years.

Well, that would explain a lot of things about your political opinions. Seeing the agony and pain of families to the victims and the survivors must leave a very strong impression.

I must say that I'm a bit surprised as I always thought that your political opinons were strictly ideological. Helping out victims of terrorist attacks certainly gives you credit in my eyes. However, while it certainly is honorable work, it will also twist your perspective and give a subjective picture of the situation, rather than a detached objective one.

[theavonlady 2]

Ok. Have you been doing this for a long time?

About 2 years.

Well, that would explain a lot of things about your political opinions. Seeing the agony and pain of families to the victims and the survivors must leave a very strong impression.

My opinion has not changed from prior to that. My expreiences only confirm what many people, myslef included, warned would happen.

Quote[/b] ]I must say that I'm a bit surprised as I always thought that your political opinons were strictly ideological. Helping out victims of terrorist attacks certainly gives you credit in my eyes. However, while it certainly is honorable work, it will also twist your perspective and give a subjective picture of the situation, rather than a detached objective one.

It's simple. Oslo was a failure. Land for peace was a bluff setup. The Palestinians were given guns by a bufoon named Rabin so that they could start a "police force". Terrorism went up - not down - from the start. The Palestinians are constantly proclaiming that their goal is the eradication of Israel and its Jews. Israel allowed terrorists to come in from abroad (such as from Tunis) on condition that they signed a piece of paper promising to be good boys forever. The Palestinians started the Oslo war in September 2000 - not Israel. Unfortunately, Israel responds on a tit-for-tat basis, rather than handling it as an all-out war, which it is.

Call it subjective. Call it objective. I don't care. That's what there is.

[denoir 0]

My opinion has not changed from prior to that.

I have a difficult time believing that, unless of course you are helping out because of your political opinions, rather than humanitarian compassion. If that's the case, then I withdraw anything nice I might ever have said to you.

If it is out of a humanitarian desire to help, then you have little choice but to be affected. If you had been helping Palestinian civilian victims then you'd have quite a different view.

It's a perfectly normal human way to build views of the world based on own experience. It's very difficult, near impossible to be part of a system and to objectivly judge it. Also, it's very dangerous to take personal experiences and try to pass them off as the universal truth. But that's what we tend to do. Our brain is wired that way. It's therefor good to be aware of your bisases and limitation of objectivity.

I have a friend who was with the UN in 1993 in Bosnia. He was stationed by a village where on a rare occasion the Muslims had killed the Serb population, rather than vice-versa. He got to know the people there and saw the suffering. As a result he also got a completely twisted view of the situation. Because of his personal experience he saw the Serbs as the poor victims of the war while the Muslims were the brutal oppressors. In '95/'96 when the Dayton pace plan came in action, he was transfered to Sarajevo as a liaison officer for the transitional Muslim/Croat government. He couldn't do it due to his skewed perceptions and resigned his comission.

Last time I talked to him, he tried to convince me how the Albanians in Kosovo were the bad guys persecuting the Serbs and not vice versa.

People view the world through their personal experiences. There is no guarantee however that those experiences are representative of a more general reality.

Quote[/b] ]It's simple. Oslo was a failure. Land for peace was a bluff setup. The Palestinians were given guns by a bufoon named Rabin so that they could start a "police force". Terrorism went up - not down - from the start. The Palestinians are constantly proclaiming that their goal is the eradication of Israel and its Jews. Israel allowed terrorists to come in from abroad (such as from Tunis) on condition that they signed a piece of paper promising to be good boys forever. The Palestinians started the Oslo war in September 2000 - not Israel. Unfortunately, Israel responds on a tit-for-tat basis, rather than handling it as an all-out war, which it is.

As I don't feel that I'm knowledgable enough about the history of the situation, I'd rather not comment on that or form a theory of my own. I do want to point out a few things though. First of all you are talking like all the Palestinians in the region are terrorists and suicide bombers. I have a difficult time believing that. At the same time, they are paying the consequences of what a small percentage does.

The second thing is that a significant part of the people living within your borders aren't too happy about their situation. That makes it a much larger problem than a couple of thousand of terrorists. Unless you are planning to kill all Palestinans, an "all-out war" won't solve anything for you. You'll have a new crop of terrorists before you've killed the first batch of the current one. The more you squeeze, the more popular will it be to become a terrorist.

[theavonlady 2]

My opinion has not changed from prior to that.

I have a difficult time believing that, unless of course you are helping out because of your political opinions, rather than humanitarian compassion. If that's the case, then I withdraw anything nice I might ever have said to you.

I'm helping out because people need help.

I don't do it for your complements.

Quote[/b] ]If it is out of a humanitarian desire to help, then you have little choice but to be affected. If you had been helping Palestinian civilian victims then you'd have quite a different view.

I'm sure I would have had a different view had I been a Berlin Civilian in early 1945, too.

Quote[/b] ]It's a perfectly normal human way to build views of the world based on own experience. It's very difficult, near impossible to be part of a system and to objectivly judge it.

Also, it's very dangerous to take personal experiences and try to pass them off as the universal truth. But that's what we tend to do. Our brain is wired that way. It's therefor good to be aware of your bisases and limitation of objectivity.

Try not to patronize from thousands of miles away. You have no idea how your biases come across.

Quote[/b] ]People view the world through their personal experiences. There is no guarantee however that those experiences are representative of a more general reality.

Let's see you point out the fantasy in what I've mentioned.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]It's simple. Oslo was a failure. Land for peace was a bluff setup. The Palestinians were given guns by a bufoon named Rabin so that they could start a "police force". Terrorism went up - not down - from the start. The Palestinians are constantly proclaiming that their goal is the eradication of Israel and its Jews. Israel allowed terrorists to come in from abroad (such as from Tunis) on condition that they signed a piece of paper promising to be good boys forever. The Palestinians started the Oslo war in September 2000 - not Israel. Unfortunately, Israel responds on a tit-for-tat basis, rather than handling it as an all-out war, which it is.

As I don't feel that I'm knowledgable enough about the history of the situation, I'd rather not comment on that or form a theory of my own. I do want to point out a few things though. First of all you are talking like all the Palestinians in the region are terrorists and suicide bombers.

Does this sound familar:

Well, for what it is worth it's always difficult with generalizations. When you start stereo-typing you're bound to treat some people unfairly. On the other hand if you don't generalize then there are no patterns to see, no conclusions to be made and no discussion possible.

I'm writing this as sort of a disclamer as I'm perfectly aware that the generalizations that I make don't fit in on all Americans or even all Americans posting here.

For instance when I stated that American knowledge of European history wasn't that good, I was for instance perfectly aware that Tex indeed has a solid knowledge of it. I believe that the claim is correct in the relative statistical sense.

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't feel personally attacked when I say "Americans this", "Americans that" etc

The only possibility of highlighting differences is by making generalizations, so I hope you'll cut me some slack when it comes to that.

Quote[/b] ]I have a difficult time believing that. At the same time, they are paying the consequences of what a small percentage does.

You know for a fact that it's a small percentage and that they do not have the overall support of the general populace?

Sources, please?

Quote[/b] ]The second thing is that a significant part of the people living within your borders aren't too happy about their situation.

That's why they signed a peace agreement, long ago broken by them.

Quote[/b] ]That makes it a much larger problem than a couple of thousand of terrorists. Unless you are planning to kill all Palestinans, an "all-out war" won't solve anything for you.

I disagree. A war and the recapture of Judea and Samaria will prevent the levels of terrorism that were allowed until now.

Quote[/b] ]You'll have a new crop of terrorists before you've killed the first batch of the current one.

It only got worse when we left.

Quote[/b] ]The more you squeeze, the more popular will it be to become a terrorist.

1. What makes you think Israel hasn't been "squeezed" all these years.

2. I'll place my bets on it being better in the long run.

[denoir 0]

Try not to patronize from thousands of miles away. You have no idea how your biases come across.

Oh I'm perfectly aware that I have my biases. The Israel-Palestine conflict is not one of those areas where I have any foundation to have a bias. The reason for that is that I simply don't care enough. Apart from an abstract humanitarian feeling that it would be nice with peace, I could not care less if you both blew yourself up. Coincidentally that seems to be exactly what you are doing. Don't let me interrupt.

I don't have any interested vested in the conflict. I have no relatives or friends on either side. I'm fairly ignorant about the history of the conflict. Overall, my interest in it is very limited.

You can accuse me of not knowing what the hell I'm talking about, but hardly bias.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]People view the world through their personal experiences. There is no guarantee however that those experiences are representative of a more general reality.

Let's see you point out the fantasy in what I've mentioned.

What I meant was that your opinion is colored by your experiences. Had you been helping Palestinian civilian victims of the conflict, your opinion would have been different.

Quote[/b] ]Does this sound familar:

There is quite a difference between generalizations like "Americans like to eat hamburgers" and "Palestinans are terrorists who want to kill my children". If you can't spot the difference, then there's no pont in me wasting my time explaining it to you.

Quote[/b] ]You know for a fact that it's a small percentage and that they do not have the overall support of the general populace?

Lady, if they had support of the general population, there would be no Israel today. If every man, woman and child was a potential suicide-bomber then you would have been blown away a long time ago.

Quote[/b] ]That's why they signed a peace agreement, long ago broken by them.

Who signed it? Who broke it?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]That makes it a much larger problem than a couple of thousand of terrorists. Unless you are planning to kill all Palestinans, an "all-out war" won't solve anything for you.

I disagree. A war and the recapture of Judea and Samaria will prevent the levels of terrorism that were allowed until now.

And how exactly did you come to that brilliant conclusion? Already today you build walls because you can't control the influx from Gaza and the West Bank. How exactly will taking two more provinces help anything?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]You'll have a new crop of terrorists before you've killed the first batch of the current one.

It only got worse when we left.

Then come up with something new. You condemn Oslo, but are you sure that it's not more a question of Arafat than of the general Pal. population?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]The more you squeeze, the more popular will it be to become a terrorist.

1. What makes you think Israel hasn't been "squeezed" all these years.

It goes both ways. I think you might have heard the expression "cycle of violence".

Quote[/b] ]2. I'll place my bets on it being better in the long run.

So will I. Better for the Palestinian terrorists and the Israeli militants. People who like to blow up other people have a bright future in the region indeed.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Lady, if they had support of the general population, there would be no Israel today. If every man, woman and child was a potential suicide-bomber then you would have been blown away a long time ago.

I think she meant that suicide bombers have general acceptance of the Palestinian population, not that everybody would turn out to be bombers...

[theavonlady 2]

There is quite a difference between generalizations like "Americans like to eat hamburgers" and "Palestinans are terrorists who want to kill my children". If you can't spot the difference, then there's no pont in me wasting my time explaining it to you.

Quote[/b] ]You know for a fact that it's a small percentage and that they do not have the overall support of the general populace?

Lady, if they had support of the general population, there would be no Israel today. If every man, woman and child was a potential suicide-bomber then you would have been blown away a long time ago.

I must be going but I'll leave you with this excerpt from a Palestinian Center For Public Opinion (PCPO) poll, taken in mid December:

16. Some people in the west bank and gaza strip support suicidal attacks in

Israel , while others support a halt to such attacks now . which is closer

to your opinion :

1.Such attacks must halt 35.6%

2.Such attacks must continue 49.5%

3.Refuse to answer /do not know 14.9%

Before you get all excited pointing out that a whopping 1 out of 3 persons polled say the attacks should halt, go look up previous polls that were taken at around the time that the Park Hotel in Netanya was bombed a year and a half ago.

Then start to analyze whether it's possible that even more Palestinians would support suicide attacks had it not been for Israel's major offensives and clampdowns since then and for building the security fence - all this a response to Palestinian Terrorism.

I'll say it again: the Palestinians are their own worst enemy, not Israel.

I do not have time to respond further now.

[Balschoiw 0]

While Avon takes a breath I have some info from germany:

Middle East foes swap prisoners

All say thank you to germany who arranged the deal.

Quote[/b] ]Germany has long played a leading part in discreet diplomatic moves concerning Middle East prisoners and hostages. Back as 1995, it was reported that a secret summit of Israeli and Iranian diplomats took place in Bonn, with a key German intelligence service official mediating on an exchange of information about Ron Arad.

A year later, the former head of Germany's powerful intelligence agency, BND, Bernd Schmidbauer, successfully arranged a body and prisoner swap between Hezbollah and Israel.

This week, Germany offered to free three prisoners, one Lebanese and two Iranians, in exchange for information on Mr Arad. Mr Uhrlau has also said that information about the airman could surface in the next two to three months.

This has led to speculation that there is likely to be a second phase of negotiations, in which Israel will receive concrete information about Mr Arad.

Germany´s leading role in negotiations

[Acecombat 0]

There is quite a difference between generalizations like "Americans like to eat hamburgers" and "Palestinans are terrorists who want to kill my children". If you can't spot the difference, then there's no pont in me wasting my time explaining it to you.

Quote[/b] ]You know for a fact that it's a small percentage and that they do not have the overall support of the general populace?

Lady, if they had support of the general population, there would be no Israel today. If every man, woman and child was a potential suicide-bomber then you would have been blown away a long time ago.

I must be going but I'll leave you with this excerpt from a Palestinian Center For Public Opinion (PCPO) poll, taken in mid December:

16. Some people in the west bank and gaza strip support suicidal attacks in

Israel , while others support a halt to such attacks now . which is closer

to your opinion :

1.Such attacks must halt 35.6%

2.Such attacks must continue 49.5%

3.Refuse to answer /do not know 14.9%

Before you get all excited pointing out that a whopping 1 out of 3 persons polled say the attacks should halt, go look up previous polls that were taken at around the time that the Park Hotel in Netanya was bombed a year and a half ago.

Then start to analyze whether it's possible that even more Palestinians would support suicide attacks had it not been for Israel's major offensives and clampdowns since then and for building the security fence - all this a response to Palestinian Terrorism.

I'll say it again: the Palestinians are their own worst enemy, not Israel.

I do not have time to respond further now.

Wow

And i didnt even knew that EACH and EVERY palestinian had access to the internet and was involved in polling so fervently ,and thye even had the time to log-on while dodging bullets to wage war on the bad bad Israelis via the net.

Even if they dosupport it doesnt make them any different then the Israelis who also support IDF incursions its a very devious cycle of violence.

[theavonlady 2]

Wow  

And i didnt even knew that EACH and EVERY palestinian had access to the internet and was involved in polling so fervently ,and thye even had the time to log-on while dodging bullets to wage war on the bad bad Israelis via the net.

Did you take stupid pills this morning?

Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR), in Ramallah.

Quote[/b] ]Even if they dosupport it doesnt make them any different then the Israelis who also support IDF incursions its a very devious cycle of violence.

We support incursions to stop the suicide bombers and other terrorists - not to blow up buses, pizzarias, nightclubs and hotels.

No terrorism - no incursions.

The "cycle of violence" in the Middle East

'Cycle of violence' is a Middle East lie

Yes, WWII was also a cycle of violence, I suppose.

I'm sick of cliches. Babble on, if you enjoy it.

Excuse me. We have a funeral to attend to shorty. Yes. One of the bus bombing victims.

[Bernadotte 0]

The Sharon government has released the following statement:

Quote[/b] ]The anti-terrorist fence could have prevented this massacre. The sheer absurdity cannot be ignored. While Palestinian terrorists continue to murder Israelis, the pro-Arab majority at the UN is forcing Israel into the dock at the International Court of Justice over the fence. Thus, the supporters of terrorism condemn the victims of terrorism for simply trying to protect themselves. All those who criticize Israel for building the fence should take a good look at this morning's pictures from Jerusalem.

The sheer absurdity is that a security fence on the West Bank border could have been finished by now.  Building it many times longer  than necessary and on a route that cuts deep into Palestinian territory has:

1.)  Caused the fence to take longer to complete;

2.)  Caused the fence to be held up pending an International Court hearing about its controversial routing; and

3.)  Caused additional Palestinian suffering that has most likely lead to more terrorism.

[Longinius 1]

The US recently released three more prisoners from the Guantanamo camp. Whats so strange about it you might ask. Well, it was three kids between 13 and 15. The only reason they were released was because Amnesty and various other Child Rights groups had pushed for their release.

I am sure these three children posed a great threat to national security. They were probably hiding nukes in their tree houses...

And, to clarify to those who might not get it. Yes, I am fully aware that even a 13 year old can use a weapon and fire at US soldiers. But no, I dont think that warrants them being locked up in a camp like this. Especially since it goes against all international laws (which the camp in itself also does, but never mind this. Its hard times, after all).

[Guest]

lol, wrong thread?

[shinRaiden 0]

Maybe in maintanence mode...

Says here that Al-Aksa stated that their bomber was a PA Policeman.

News report on recent bombing

Also, for perspective...

The chief editor lived across the street too.

My 2yen:

I've been to the mall on the west side of Jerusalem, down towards the Tisch zoo. (Walked from the zoo too, as I totally misread the map and wouldn't ask for directions) How many malls in the US have armed checkpoints and military-base security? I got a pizza once at the Sbarro's in Eilat, and wandered through the plaza there. There was a hummer with a either a .50cal or a mk-19, I forget which, and it wasn't on display.

A major part of the problem is the same difficulty that screwed up Vietnam and North Korea, in that the US for political reasons refused to deal with the suppliers and staging sites in China. Here in the middle east's case, you have Arafat shipping in boatloads of automatic small and medium arms, anti-tank weaponry, explosives material, and for what good purpose? What average palestinian has a spare T-54 in his garage that the PA police could be worried about? Saddam Hussein paid $25000 to the family of every palestinian suicide bomber, and I think I heard he upped it to $35000 just before we put an end to that.

The syrians have been passing off all their old surplus equipment to Hezbollah, which stages out of Lebanon. Egypt's not allowed to really put any equipment other than border patrol in the whole Sinai east of the suez under UN monitoring. Even Jordan was caught up in '48. Who did the Israeli's sieze the land from in '67? Not the palestinians, it was the Jordanians. The Jordanians were so commitied to it that King Hussein started building his 'palace' just north of Jerusalem.

Since the arab nations are still united in opposing the existance of the state (and people?) of israel, and are openly aiding and abetting her enemies in levying war, would any of the pro-palestinian supporters care to venture any reasonable suggestions as to where Israel could safely obtain asylum? The UN did partition at least part of the land for a Jewish state. The arab nations have unilaterally attempted to prevent that directly and indirectly. As for the boundry/fence disputes, you'd have to go walk the line to understand the issues involved. Even a good topographical map doesn't readliy explain line of sight, not that that matters for a katyusha. Basicly, the israelis want the fence on the arab down-slope of the hills, and the palestinians want it on the israeli down-slope, and everything is hills.

-- edit - added below --

I normally have sigs turned off as I'm on dialup. Just noticed your comment a few pages back Avon, thank you so much for what you do. BTW, where can I find more information about the volunteer squads that assist in cleanup, the guys that work alongside the police and firefighters to ensure that last rites / any religious needs are done properly? Um, english if possible plz. Also, I'm looking for an online egged bus map. References anyone?

Thanks.

[theavonlady 2]

BTW, where can I find more information about the volunteer squads that assist in cleanup, the guys that work alongside the police and firefighters to ensure that last rites / any religious needs are done properly? Um, english if possible plz.

The organization's name is ZAKA.

Zaka information (US address at the bottom of the page)

Can't find Zaka UK page but I assume donations in the UK may be made via the UJIA.

Zaka's Israeli site (Hebrew only).

Zaka US (site currently offline).

BTW, there are no "last rites" per se in Jewish law.

Quote[/b] ]Also, I'm looking for an online egged bus map.

I bet few here think you're scrambled. "Egged", pronounced "Eh-Ged", is Israel's major public bus company. Their site is here. Site is Hebrew only. Maps page is here. The 4 maps on that page are Tel Aviv (divided into 2 maps - north and south, Jerusalem, Haifa and Eilat.

[shinRaiden 0]

Yeah, I prefer scrambled over fried. Thanks. I just pulled the 'last rites' phrase out of the air, as I'm only speaking japanese with the vendors here at work all day, so my engrish is really muddled. Thanks again.

-- edit - added --

Whoa, I knew the buses were nice, but I didn't know that they were 1337! (see the url string)

[Bernadotte 0]

Here is the actual interview in English.  I'd really like to get rufusmac's and Avon's opinions on it.

Well, a week has passed and there's still no comments on this article from rufusmac or Avon.  Maybe it's because the link to the article has been broken.

Fortunately I saved it:  

Quote[/b] ]<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Survival of the fittest</span>  By Ari Shavit

Benny Morris says he was always a Zionist. People were mistaken when they labeled him a post-Zionist, when they thought that his historical study on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem was intended to undercut the Zionist enterprise. Nonsense, Morris says, that's completely unfounded. Some readers simply misread the book. They didn't read it with the same detachment, the same moral neutrality, with which it was written. So they came to the mistaken conclusion that when Morris describes the cruelest deeds that the Zionist movement perpetrated in 1948 he is actually being condemnatory, that when he describes the large-scale expulsion operations he is being denunciatory. They did not conceive that the great documenter of the sins of Zionism in fact identifies with those sins. That he thinks some of them, at least, were unavoidable.

Two years ago, different voices began to be heard. The historian who was considered a radical leftist suddenly maintained that Israel had no one to talk to. The researcher who was accused of being an Israel hater (and was boycotted by the Israeli academic establishment) began to publish articles in favor of Israel in the British paper The Guardian.

Whereas citizen Morris turned out to be a not completely snow-white dove, historian Morris continued to work on the Hebrew translation of his massive work "Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001," which was written in the old, peace-pursuing style. And at the same time historian Morris completed the new version of his book on the refugee problem, which is going to strengthen the hands of those who abominate Israel. So that in the past two years citizen Morris and historian Morris worked as though there is no connection between them, as though one was trying to save what the other insists on eradicating.

Both books will appear in the coming month. The book on the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict will be published in Hebrew by Am Oved in Tel Aviv, while the Cambridge University Press will publish "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited" (it originally appeared, under the CUP imprint, in 1987). That book describes in chilling detail the atrocities of the Nakba. Isn't Morris ever frightened at the present-day political implications of his historical study? Isn't he fearful that he has contributed to Israel becoming almost a pariah state? After a few moments of evasion, Morris admits that he is. Sometimes he really is frightened. Sometimes he asks himself what he has wrought.

He is short, plump, and very intense. The son of immigrants from England, he was born in Kibbutz Ein Hahoresh and was a member of the left-wing Hashomer Hatza'ir youth movement. In the past, he was a reporter for the Jerusalem Post and refused to do military service in the territories. He is now a professor of history at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Be'er Sheva. But sitting in his armchair in his Jerusalem apartment, he does not don the mantle of the cautious academic. Far from it: Morris spews out his words, rapidly and energetically, sometimes spilling over into English. He doesn't think twice before firing off the sharpest, most shocking statements, which are anything but politically correct. He describes horrific war crimes offhandedly, paints apocalyptic visions with a smile on his lips. He gives the observer the feeling that this agitated individual, who with his own hands opened the Zionist Pandora's box, is still having difficulty coping with what he found in it, still finding it hard to deal with the internal contradictions that are his lot and the lot of us all.

Rape, massacre, transfer

Benny Morris, in the month ahead the new version of your book on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem is due to be published. Who will be less pleased with the book - the Israelis or the Palestinians?

"The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based on many documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.

"At the same time, it turns out that there was a series of orders issued by the Arab Higher Committee and by the Palestinian intermediate levels to remove children, women and the elderly from the villages. So that on the one hand, the book reinforces the accusation against the Zionist side, but on the other hand it also proves that many of those who left the villages did so with the encouragement of the Palestinian leadership itself."

According to your new findings, how many cases of Israeli rape were there in 1948?

"About a dozen. In Acre four soldiers raped a girl and murdered her and her father. In Jaffa, soldiers of the Kiryati Brigade raped one girl and tried to rape several more. At Hunin, which is in the Galilee, two girls were raped and then murdered. There were one or two cases of rape at Tantura, south of Haifa. There was one case of rape at Qula, in the center of the country. At the village of Abu Shusha, near Kibbutz Gezer [in the Ramle area] there were four female prisoners, one of whom was raped a number of times. And there were other cases. Usually more than one soldier was involved. Usually there were one or two Palestinian girls. In a large proportion of the cases the event ended with murder. Because neither the victims nor the rapists liked to report these events, we have to assume that the dozen cases of rape that were reported, which I found, are not the whole story. They are just the tip of the iceberg."

According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?

"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.

"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.

"That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres."

What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?

"Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948]."

Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created."

Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?

"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."

I don't hear you condemning him.

"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."

When ethnic cleansing is justified

Benny Morris, for decades you have been researching the dark side of Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of 1948?

"There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands."

We are talking about the killing of thousands of people, the destruction of an entire society.

"A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it's better to destroy."

There is something chilling about the quiet way in which you say that.

"If you expected me to burst into tears, I'm sorry to disappoint you. I will not do that."

So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

"I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don't think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn't have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being."

You do not condemn them morally?

"No."

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing."

And that was the situation in 1948?

"That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on."

The term `to cleanse' is terrible.

"I know it doesn't sound nice but that's the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed."

What you are saying is hard to listen to and hard to digest. You sound hard-hearted.

"I feel sympathy for the Palestinian people, which truly underwent a hard tragedy. I feel sympathy for the refugees themselves. But if the desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the country. From the moment the Yishuv [pre-1948 Jewish community in Palestine] was attacked by the Palestinians and afterward by the Arab states, there was no choice but to expel the Palestinian population. To uproot it in the course of war.

"Remember another thing: the Arab people gained a large slice of the planet. Not thanks to its skills or its great virtues, but because it conquered and murdered and forced those it conquered to convert during many generations. But in the end the Arabs have 22 states. The Jewish people did not have even one state. There was no reason in the world why it should not have one state. Therefore, from my point of view, the need to establish this state in this place overcame the injustice that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them."

And morally speaking, you have no problem with that deed?

"That is correct. Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history."

And in our case it effectively justifies a population transfer.

"That's what emerges."

And you take that in stride? War crimes? Massacres? The burning fields and the devastated villages of the Nakba?

"You have to put things in proportion. These are small war crimes. All told, if we take all the massacres and all the executions of 1948, we come to about 800 who were killed. In comparison to the massacres that were perpetrated in Bosnia, that's peanuts. In comparison to the massacres the Russians perpetrated against the Germans at Stalingrad, that's chicken feed. When you take into account that there was a bloody civil war here and that we lost an entire 1 percent of the population, you find that we behaved very well."

The next transfer

You went through an interesting process. You went to research Ben-Gurion and the Zionist establishment critically, but in the end you actually identify with them. You are as tough in your words as they were in their deeds.

"You may be right. Because I investigated the conflict in depth, I was forced to cope with the in-depth questions that those people coped with. I understood the problematic character of the situation they faced and maybe I adopted part of their universe of concepts. But I do not identify with Ben-Gurion. I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered."

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in expelling too few Arabs?

"If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."

I find it hard to believe what I am hearing.

"If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948. Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself."

In his place, would you have expelled them all? All the Arabs in the country?

"But I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The non-completion of the transfer was a mistake."

And today? Do you advocate a transfer today?

"If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential."

Including the expulsion of Israeli Arabs?

"The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in 1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified."

Cultural dementia

Besides being tough, you are also very gloomy. You weren't always like that, were you?

"My turning point began after 2000. I wasn't a great optimist even before that. True, I always voted Labor or Meretz or Sheli [a dovish party of the late 1970s], and in 1988 I refused to serve in the territories and was jailed for it, but I always doubted the intentions of the Palestinians. The events of Camp David and what followed in their wake turned the doubt into certainty. When the Palestinians rejected the proposal of [prime minister Ehud] Barak in July 2000 and the Clinton proposal in December 2000, I understood that they are unwilling to accept the two-state solution. They want it all. Lod and Acre and Jaffa."

If that's so, then the whole Oslo process was mistaken and there is a basic flaw in the entire worldview of the Israeli peace movement.

"Oslo had to be tried. But today it has to be clear that from the Palestinian point of view, Oslo was a deception. [Palestinian leader Yasser] Arafat did not change for the worse, Arafat simply defrauded us. He was never sincere in his readiness for compromise and conciliation."

Do you really believe Arafat wants to throw us into the sea?

"He wants to send us back to Europe, to the sea we came from. He truly sees us as a Crusader state and he thinks about the Crusader precedent and wishes us a Crusader end. I'm certain that Israeli intelligence has unequivocal information proving that in internal conversations Arafat talks seriously about the phased plan [which would eliminate Israel in stages]. But the problem is not just Arafat. The entire Palestinian national elite is prone to see us as Crusaders and is driven by the phased plan. That's why the Palestinians are not honestly ready to forgo the right of return. They are preserving it as an instrument with which they will destroy the Jewish state when the time comes. They can't tolerate the existence of a Jewish state - not in 80 percent of the country and not in 30 percent. From their point of view, the Palestinian state must cover the whole Land of Israel."

If so, the two-state solution is not viable; even if a peace treaty is signed, it will soon collapse.

"Ideologically, I support the two-state solution. It's the only alternative to the expulsion of the Jews or the expulsion of the Palestinians or total destruction. But in practice, in this generation, a settlement of that kind will not hold water. At least 30 to 40 percent of the Palestinian public and at least 30 to 40 percent of the heart of every Palestinian will not accept it. After a short break, terrorism will erupt again and the war will resume."

Your prognosis doesn't leave much room for hope, does it?

"It's hard for me, too. There is not going to be peace in the present generation. There will not be a solution. We are doomed to live by the sword. I'm already fairly old, but for my children that is especially bleak. I don't know if they will want to go on living in a place where there is no hope. Even if Israel is not destroyed, we won't see a good, normal life here in the decades ahead."

Aren't your harsh words an over-reaction to three hard years of terrorism?

"The bombing of the buses and restaurants really shook me. They made me understand the depth of the hatred for us. They made me understand that the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim hostility toward Jewish existence here is taking us to the brink of destruction. I don't see the suicide bombings as isolated acts. They express the deep will of the Palestinian people. That is what the majority of the Palestinians want. They want what happened to the bus to happen to all of us."

Yet we, too, bear responsibility for the violence and the hatred: the occupation, the roadblocks, the closures, maybe even the Nakba itself.

"You don't have to tell me that. I have researched Palestinian history. I understand the reasons for the hatred very well. The Palestinians are retaliating now not only for yesterday's closure but for the Nakba as well. But that is not a sufficient explanation. The peoples of Africa were oppressed by the European powers no less than the Palestinians were oppressed by us, but nevertheless I don't see African terrorism in London, Paris or Brussels. The Germans killed far more of us than we killed the Palestinians, but we aren't blowing up buses in Munich and Nuremberg. So there is something else here, something deeper, that has to do with Islam and Arab culture."

Are you trying to argue that Palestinian terrorism derives from some sort of deep cultural problem?

"There is a deep problem in Islam. It's a world whose values are different. A world in which human life doesn't have the same value as it does in the West, in which freedom, democracy, openness and creativity are alien. A world that makes those who are not part of the camp of Islam fair game. Revenge is also important here. Revenge plays a central part in the Arab tribal culture. Therefore, the people we are fighting and the society that sends them have no moral inhibitions. If it obtains chemical or biological or atomic weapons, it will use them. If it is able, it will also commit genocide."

I want to insist on my point: A large part of the responsibility for the hatred of the Palestinians rests with us. After all, you yourself showed us that the Palestinians experienced a historical catastrophe.

"True. But when one has to deal with a serial killer, it's not so important to discover why he became a serial killer. What's important is to imprison the murderer or to execute him."

Explain the image: Who is the serial killer in the analogy?

"The barbarians who want to take our lives. The people the Palestinian society sends to carry out the terrorist attacks, and in some way the Palestinian society itself as well. At the moment, that society is in the state of being a serial killer. It is a very sick society. It should be treated the way we treat individuals who are serial killers."

What does that mean? What should we do tomorrow morning?

"We have to try to heal the Palestinians. Maybe over the years the establishment of a Palestinian state will help in the healing process. But in the meantime, until the medicine is found, they have to be contained so that they will not succeed in murdering us."

To fence them in? To place them under closure?

"Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another."

War of barbarians

Benny Morris, have you joined the right wing?

"No, no. I still think of myself as left-wing. I still support in principle two states for two peoples."

But you don't believe that this solution will last. You don't believe in peace.

"In my opinion, we will not have peace, no."

Then what is your solution?

"In this generation there is apparently no solution. To be vigilant, to defend the country as far as is possible."

The iron wall approach?

"Yes. An iron wall is a good image. An iron wall is the most reasonable policy for the coming generation. My colleague Avi Shlein described this well: What Jabotinsky proposed is what Ben-Gurion adopted. In the 1950s, there was a dispute between Ben-Gurion and Moshe Sharett. Ben-Gurion argued that the Arabs understand only force and that ultimate force is the one thing that will persuade them to accept our presence here. He was right. That's not to say that we don't need diplomacy. Both toward the West and for our own conscience, it's important that we strive for a political solution. But in the end, what will decide their readiness to accept us will be force alone. Only the recognition that they are not capable of defeating us."

For a left-winger, you sound very much like a right-winger, wouldn't you say?

"I'm trying to be realistic. I know it doesn't always sound politically correct, but I think that political correctness poisons history in any case. It impedes our ability to see the truth. And I also identify with Albert Camus. He was considered a left-winger and a person of high morals, but when he referred to the Algerian problem he placed his mother ahead of morality. Preserving my people is more important than universal moral concepts."

Are you a neo-conservative? Do you read the current historical reality in the terms of Samuel Huntington?

"I think there is a clash between civilizations here [as Huntington argues]. I think the West today resembles the Roman Empire of the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries: The barbarians are attacking it and they may also destroy it."

The Muslims are barbarians, then?

"I think the values I mentioned earlier are values of barbarians - the attitude toward democracy, freedom, openness; the attitude toward human life. In that sense they are barbarians. The Arab world as it is today is barbarian."

And in your view these new barbarians are truly threatening the Rome of our time?

"Yes. The West is stronger but it's not clear whether it knows how to repulse this wave of hatred. The phenomenon of the mass Muslim penetration into the West and their settlement there is creating a dangerous internal threat. A similar process took place in Rome. They let the barbarians in and they toppled the empire from within."

Is it really all that dramatic? Is the West truly in danger?

"Yes. I think that the war between the civilizations is the main characteristic of the 21st century. I think President Bush is wrong when he denies the very existence of that war. It's not only a matter of bin Laden. This is a struggle against a whole world that espouses different values. And we are on the front line. Exactly like the Crusaders, we are the vulnerable branch of Europe in this place."

The situation as you describe it is extremely harsh. You are not entirely convinced that we can survive here, are you?

"The possibility of annihilation exists."

Would you describe yourself as an apocalyptic person?

"The whole Zionist project is apocalyptic. It exists within hostile surroundings and in a certain sense its existence is unreasonable. It wasn't reasonable for it to succeed in 1881 and it wasn't reasonable for it to succeed in 1948 and it's not reasonable that it will succeed now. Nevertheless, it has come this far. In a certain way it is miraculous. I live the events of 1948, and 1948 projects itself on what could happen here. Yes, I think of Armageddon. It's possible. Within the next 20 years there could be an atomic war here."

If Zionism is so dangerous for the Jews and if Zionism makes the Arabs so wretched, maybe it's a mistake?

"No, Zionism was not a mistake. The desire to establish a Jewish state here was a legitimate one, a positive one. But given the character of Islam and given the character of the Arab nation, it was a mistake to think that it would be possible to establish a tranquil state here that lives in harmony with its surroundings."

Which leaves us, nevertheless, with two possibilities: either a cruel, tragic Zionism, or the forgoing of Zionism.

"Yes. That's so. You have pared it down, but that's correct."

Would you agree that this historical reality is intolerable, that there is something inhuman about it?

"Yes. But that's so for the Jewish people, not the Palestinians. A people that suffered for 2,000 years, that went through the Holocaust, arrives at its patrimony but is thrust into a renewed round of bloodshed, that is perhaps the road to annihilation. In terms of cosmic justice, that's terrible. It's far more shocking than what happened in 1948 to a small part of the Arab nation that was then in Palestine."

So what you are telling me is that you live the Palestinian Nakba of the past less than you live the possible Jewish Nakba of the future?

"Yes. Destruction could be the end of this process. It could be the end of the Zionist experiment. And that's what really depresses and scares me."

The title of the book you are now publishing in Hebrew is "Victims." In the end, then, your argument is that of the two victims of this conflict, we are the bigger one.

"Yes. Exactly. We are the greater victims in the course of history and we are also the greater potential victim. Even though we are oppressing the Palestinians, we are the weaker side here. We are a small minority in a large sea of hostile Arabs who want to eliminate us. So it's possible than when their desire is realized, everyone will understand what I am saying to you now. Everyone will understand we are the true victims. But by then it will be too late."

[Acecombat 0]

"Remember another thing: the Arab people gained a large slice of the planet. Not thanks to its skills or its great virtues, but because it conquered and murdered and forced those it conquered to convert during many generations.

What a ignorant f***  

Yeah right , someone throw a history book on his face we were faced with the similiar scenario your pasting over yourself you f*** but we had the decency to NOT to annihilate all those whom we lived with.

If we wanted we could have burned Arabia in to ashes along with Jerusalem with every non-muslim BUT we DIDNT we tried to make with peace with jews, christains ,persians byzantinians you name it  but we got hostility in return. We made peace with jews in medina and whatw as the result they decided to play smart and helped the pagans in Makkah and its ally tribes in their fights against medina a CLEAR CUT violation of the treaty signed by Muhammed with the jews of medina for which we later asked you politely pack up and leave [WE didnt start going ethnic cleansing on you]Persia5 times greater army's towards us to uproot us they got owned and we took over then Byzantine troubled us and they got the same treatment in return , Islam was a shining beacon of light in those ignorant days , we destroyed racism and slavery of blacks (only). Umar even took jerusalem without shedding any blood , your OWN patriarch gave the keys to the city to him.

As for the Indian subcontinent we went in their to protect our traders who were being looted and abducted by Indian pirates being operated by Raja Dahir of Sindh we took out Sindh then.

No where where Islam was spread were people forced to convert to IT , people themselves converted to Islam as it was the only religion of that time and still is to give its people enough freedom and equality like no other. THATS WHY ISLAM is the FASTEST growing religion on the planet EVEN NOW.

[EiZei 0]

No where where Islam was spread were people forced to convert to IT , people themselves converted to Islam as it was the only religion of that time and still is to give its people enough freedom and equality like no other. THATS WHY ISLAM is the FASTEST growing religion on the planet EVEN KNOW.

Does not have anything to do with the fact that islamist countries have high population growth rate, single religion and less "deserters"?

[Acecombat 0]

No where where Islam was spread were people forced to convert to IT , people themselves converted to Islam as it was the only religion of that time and still is to give its people enough freedom and equality like no other. THATS WHY ISLAM is the FASTEST growing religion on the planet EVEN KNOW.

Does not have anything to do with the fact that islamist countries have high population growth rate, single religion and less "deserters"?

Yes but i was talking about ISLAMS GROWTH in NON-MUSLIM countries

Last time i read America was had the fastest rate and after 9/11 that is

[Pipski 0]

Fastest growing religion in UK too.

[shinRaiden 0]

The finest scholarly work of the early middle ages, the translated preservation of classical greek texts, the establishment of law - order - and justice in the ME in a relatively peaceful fashion, the advancement of commerce, the protection of different religions (aside from paganism) -- all are thanks to the genius of Muhammad and the early caliphs.

As for military expansion, most governments at the time were despots with mercenary armies augmented by peasant militia. The fights were generally for protection of muslim minorities and protection of trade routes as Acecombat pointed out. In fact, the first military action was to reclaim aggrieved property in Mecca.

Unfortunately, the caliphate being theocratically despotic in nature (not perjorative, rather subjective) tended to frequently revert to traditional tribal bickering, corruption, and oppresion. After a particular bad egg like Abul-Abbas al-Saffah (ruled Baghdad from 750ad to 754ad, titled himself 'al-saffah' = 'the bloodletter'), the historical trend has been for a good lengthy chunk of general chaos, followed by the next strongman, whether it be Kemal Atturk, Anwar Sadat, Saddam Hussein, or Hafez al'Assad. Speaking of Assad, Tom Friedman [NY Times] has a joke he learned from the Lebanese.

Quote[/b] ]Reporter says "President Assad: You've just just won reelection by 99.7%. So only 3/10ths of 1% didn't vote for you. What more could you want?" Pres. Assad: "Their names."

Now with these guys, no matter how many villages they gas, somebody outside the country, er, a long ways away (saddam's sons got whacked in Amman for backtalking), is still going to complain and demand the despot's head.

HOWEVER, you didn't hear of a lot of back talk from people Khomeini or Taliban days. After all, what right do they have to question the fallibility of their divinely appointed leaders? While various local clergy in various places have fomented unrest and oppresion in western history, over time the people have forced the churches to correct their abuses. We do have a healthy history of fratricidal religious conflict here in the west, and I think it has helped to actually stablize relations.

I think what we westerners are getting fed up with and impatient at is the fundamental principle of 'Islam' equating to 'submission', in the negative sense. I know several people who view that more in an intrapersonal spiritual sense, and view islam as their personal way of life, not as the borg collective to be spread. Additionally, a concern is the independence of each mosque and its imams. There are many wonderful law abiding honorable muslims in this world, but why don't they pipe up when they see their religion abused for conquest, terror, and perversion?

On three flights on 9/11, folks sat in their seats and did as they were told. On the fourth, folks ignored the "DO NOT ENTER COCKPIT IN FLIGHT" signs and went and did something about the hijackers. That's what we're asking for I guess, basicly that you're on a runaway train and help is needed in the cab immediately.