I think the problem is that you assume that stories you hear about Israel or Jews are "factual".

What's so hard is that what is right and what is wrong apparently changes when it comes to Israel.

You made a claim, you didn't back it up.

There is nothing wrong about demolishing houses that were built without a permit or that were used to plan or execute attacks.

But the way you retell those stories is as if Israel was simply destroying family homes for no reason. And that's a lie.

No, actually you do.

What you don't do is USE your home to plan attacks.

That's what you don't do.

I'm afraid that is what happens if one goes after the terrorists. One find's them and destroys their houses.

I think you want Israel to go after the terrorists without finding them.

Israel did give land for peace, several times. It didn't work.

They tried it with Hitler too, they gave him land. It didn't work.

You cannot make peace with the "death to the Jews" crowd by giving them land.

The PLO rejected offers of land.

What do you want Israel to do?

(Some people demand a compromise. What is a compromise between no dead Jews and six million dead Jews? Three million dead Jews?)

Anyway, I think we went through another urban legends about Israel.

As the sources given tell us, Israel did NOT destroy the homes of innocent people.

But that won't stop people from repeating the lie. And if it is repeated often enough, even those who think critically will accept it as true. And the war continues.

Dude, Israel has gone in and systematically leveled houses. Do they check to see which ones were actually terrorists houses? Hmm?

Here: "In April 2002, during Operation Defensive Shield, the Israeli army surrounded Palestinian towns and
refugee camps in the West Bank, and entered them in force, systematically demolishing homes in
many areas."

So you destroy innocent people's homes, people who had nothing to do with the terrorism. If that's your opinion on it, then I truly feel sorry for you.

You didn't answer my question Leauki.

Take the higher road, and stop the fighting. If they're so wonderful and noble and what not  - then take the friggin high road. Stop the battle and be proactive in providing places for the innocent palestinians to live. Then deal with the terrorists.

Because, Israel is the one that has the true capability to do such things. The palestinian gov't most likely won't do it.

I never said they did it for no reason, I said the fact that they did it is wrong when it comes to destroying some persons home who had nothing to do with it.

I'm taking a break from this article as my stress is through the roof because either: A) I am just not getting my point across, which is likely. One of my instructors did tell me that I often argue like a shotgun to the side of a barn. -OR- I will never get my point across and will just be lambasted as an apparent Jew hater, which is ridiculous.

That was in a battle during a war, you joker.

It was the humane alternative to bombing the area.

Other armies just bomb the area in these situations. Israel uses bulldozers because it allowed for the destruction of installations without hurting or, G-d forbid, killing too many innocent civilians.

Incidentally, "refugee camp" is newspeak for "Arab village". The word is supposed to trigger sympathy for the Arabs. Jewish villages made up of people who fled 60 years ago are not called "refugee camps" because that would trigger similar sympathy for Jews. (Jewish refugees also don't get any money from the UN, not even if they are half Arab.)

I'll show you how this works:

Village or town founded after 1948 and populated by refugees from then:

Arab: "refugee camp"

Jewish: "town"

Jewish village or town in the West-Bank or Arab village or town in Israel:

Arab settlement in Israel: "town" or "village"

Jewish settlement in the West-Bank: "outpost" or "settlement"

It didn't occur to the UN (or the media) to treat Jews and Arabs the same. Arabs live in towns and refugee camps, Jews live in settlements and towns.

There is a 3000-year old Jewish "settlement" in Hevron, surrounded by an Arab town settled 1000 years ago.

That's one of the "settlements" Obama wants destroyed, I think.

Anyway, I find it interesting that "Israel uses bulldozers in a battle even though bombing the area would be easier" transformed into "Israel bulldozes innocent families' homes for no reason".

And you don't think this is anti-Semitism???

Let me rephrase your quote, without changing its truth value:

In April 2002, during Operation Defensive Shield, the Israeli army surrounded Arab towns in the West Bank, and entered them in force, systematically demolishing buildings manually instead of bombing the area."

The changes I made to remove the propaganda:

1. "Palestinian" became "Arab". (I refuse to acknowledge that only Arabs are "Palestinians". If the land is called "Palestine", then certainly both Jewish and Arab inhabitants would be "Palestinians".)

2. "towns and refugee camps" became "towns". (The UN and the media do not differentiate between Jewish towns settled by Jewish refugees and others, I don't see why this has to be done with Arab towns.)

3. "systematically demolishing homes in many areas" became "systematically demolishing buildings manually instead of bombing the area". (I added the logical explanation for why one side decides to use bulldozers to destroy buildings in a battle. I also figure that "buildings" is more correct, since Israel destroyed mainly police stations and other non-civilian buildings and "homes" really is a word used for "house" when one wants to draw attention to the idea that families live there. It is more honest to say "buildings" when the target were buildings in general rather than homes specifically.)

You can change any news story to add your propaganda.

Take this example:

"Traffic police were attacked by drunk car driver. The armed drunk wounded a police officer and then walked into incoming traffic where he was hit by a car and died before the ambulance arrived."

(I made this up.)

This can be rephrased, without changing the truth value:

"Armed government units were involved in a fight with a civilian attending a social event. The civilian died on the spot. One officer was wounded."

It's the same story, but the focus is on different aspects of it. Both versions are true.

It becomes a lie when I retell the same story as:

"Armed governments units generally kill innocent civilians coming home from parties."

And that's what became of this story about the destruction of buildings during a battle.

The truth: Israel had once decided to use bulldozers to destroy buildings instead of bombs.

The other true version: Israel bulldozed "homes" during a battle with terrorists.

the lie: Israel bulldozes the homes of innocent people for no reason.

(Note that Israel doesn't do this any more. It proved too good a propaganda fodder for the terrorists. I still think it was an excellent idea. Note that I think that WHAT REALLY HAPPENED was the excellent idea. I do NOT think that the lie about destroying the homes of innocent people is true and that that was the right thing to do.)

I am sorry, I might not have made myself clear enough.

I do NOT BELIEVE that Israel was destroying innocent people's homes. If I at any point implied that I think it was OK for Israel to do something instead of telling people repeatedly that it was a lie that Israel did this, I apologise. I meant to make it perfectly clear that I considered it a lie.

(And I thought I had totally exaggerated it with my many replies explaining the same thing over and over again. And yet here we are and some people still think that I believe the lie and support Israel perpetrating what the lie says Israel did.)

That's what the Jews did when the Germans screamed "death to the Jews". Since then we know that the world will simply watch.

It will NEVER happen again. The high road is, for non-Jews, something the Jews can take on their way to death.

I found the article I wrote about this some time ago:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/313428/Lies_about_Israel_and_why_People_tell_them

Wow, 52 responses and only a couple have anything whatsover to do with Adventure-dudes point!

It's a legitimate question... why does Obama respect the right of every nation no earth to use nuclear power... except the US?

Nuclear power is the only "alternative" source that can possibly keep up with what oil does for us.. yet to Obama, it's off the table.

Palistinians are welcome to move and live freely in Israel.  The reverse is NOT true.

How AJ, do you propose they 'stop the battle' when they aren't the one's throwing the first grenade, rocket, killing, etc?  That's like me telling you to stop your feud with your neighbor when your neighbor keeps throwing rocks at you, your family, and your house.  Not to mention that your neighbor calls for the destruction of you and your house. 

So you decide to give them a bit of your back yard in the name of peace. Now they are closer to you, your family, and your house to take better aim. 

Please AJ, tell me what the 'high road' is here?

I guess their nuclear waste is ok because it isn't here?

Which brings us back to my theory that western liberals simply don't see Iranians (and middle-easterners in general) as human beings completely like Americans or Europeans.

"Without going into specifics, what I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region," Obama said.

A nuclear arms race IN THE REGION... aka, a nuclear arms race between... israel and iran?

So he is saying he SUPPORTS irans ASPIRATIONS to nuclear might, but is against any races of nuclear tech, which sound to me like he is saying he wishes to see israel disarmed and iran armed.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/06/02/obama_iran_has_legitimate_aspirations_for_nuclear_power.html

It doesn't matter who did what first, it's the peace that could be that matters.As for the high road, at least they didn't broadly fire into the yard, possibly killing said neighbor's family/children who likely had nothing to do with the specific neighbor.

Here's an idea:

1. Offer to move any and all Palestinians to camps outside of, say, the WB and Gaza. Tell them that if they won't leave, then they are considered fair game. (Offer incentives; food, water, etc.) As they are transitioning, establish security measures (i.e. my thought is an ID system)

2. Blow the hell out of those who are left.

It isn't fool proof, but it could be a start. I'm not saying that Israel is entirely to blame - I'm not dense; however, they do share a part of the blame.

P.S. Anyone know a good mexican dish to prepare for a date? I'm gonna ask this girl out here at school and thought about fixing something.

You confuse first with "all the time"

There are countless cease fire agreements, terrorist organizations keep on breaking them, israel does not.