1. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175363 by ofir on May 5, 2008 at 10:07 am

Describing the crusades as a response to islam is simplifying things in my opinion.

Europe at the time was home to a type of christianity that is not that far removed from the fascist face of islam we are seeing today.

2. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175011 by ofir on May 4, 2008 at 5:45 am

You can not even begin to absolve yourself from the responsibility of seeking some kind of unbiased source. For example are you not interested to know what the other guest had to say in response to comments made by Wafa Sultan? MEMRI snipped it off.

I don't consider memri an unbiased source. I think it's there to make a point and to expose a problem.

Your comparison to indoctrination by imams is not serious. I have access to information. I watched the FULL Wafa Sultan video. I watch Al-Jazeera, I watch Israeli media, I watch Egyptian parliamentary 'debates'.

Note that muslims have removed the Wafa Sultan video from youtube.

I also know that in the UK you will not be able to broadcast such racist propaganda on national TV.

3. The Neanderthal Debate

Comment #175009 by ofir on May 4, 2008 at 5:34 am

lievemebe - From what I understand the black squirrel is a local mutation.

4. The Neanderthal Debate

Comment #174915 by ofir on May 3, 2008 at 8:17 pm

A new black squirrel is replacing the grey squirrel (itself an import) in England. No warfare is involved.

5. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #174803 by ofir on May 3, 2008 at 3:04 pm

As a foreigner living in the UK I don't feel that Condell is racist or xenophobic at all. His fears are totally rational. He is also correct in saying that debate with 'islam' is pointless.

I think xians think of islam as just another religion, which is where they miss a trick or two. Unlike xianity, and more like judaism, islam is a law based religion that tells you how to act in every aspect of life. This leads to a completely different mindset if you allow it to run for a few centuries.

To get an idea just look to Europe in the middle ages around 1200.

6. Truly Bizarre : Indians Throw Babies 50ft From Roof To Thank God.

Comment #174749 by ofir on May 3, 2008 at 12:08 pm

The claim that this ritual actually helps the health of the infant is one that could and I think should be scientifically investigated.

I agree. Why don't you jump off a building and report back on the medical benefits?

7. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174730 by ofir on May 3, 2008 at 11:15 am

As far as I can tell jihad means "strive" or "struggle".

In any case, this was not the central point, it was said in ( )

The similarity of the propaganda is at least as alarming as the similarity in the words.

8. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174692 by ofir on May 3, 2008 at 9:16 am

kaiserkriss - dictionary says it's Struggle too - as far as I know Jihad also translates the same into english - Struggle or Fight.

9. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #174691 by ofir on May 3, 2008 at 9:12 am

The holocaust is the product of centuries of church based anti-jewish propaganda. This is why it's difficult for jews to oppose this Stein nonsense without sounding controversial and anti-christian.

10. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174678 by ofir on May 3, 2008 at 8:07 am

vinelectric - memritv doesn't even begin to demonstrate the kind of thinking that is prevalent in the middle-east. memritv is there to expose a phenomena - not to produce even-handed analysis.

I'm always fascinated by how much denial is applied by the liberal west when its faced with fascism.

Why not get some stats on how many copies of Mein Kampf (Kampf is German for Jihad by the way) - are sold in the middle east.

memritv merely demonstrates how popular and acceptable fascism is in the muslim world, thinly disguised as a religious ideology.

Spelink corrected - thanks to Fanusi :-)

11. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #173610 by ofir on April 30, 2008 at 11:57 pm

I like Condell. I don't think he's simplistic, he's straight-forward.

He's very popular on youtube because he's able to point out the ridiculousness of religion in a way most people can understand.

I think it takes different people to get the message across to different audiences. It's always funny to watch islam-bashing xians get pounded by atheists on the comments section.

12. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171845 by ofir on April 28, 2008 at 11:42 pm

truthid - religion has been up against this many times before, Galileo is one famous example.

I think you should start there in your attempts to understand how science works and more importantly what makes a scientific theory.

You realise that the computer you are using now is working thanks to quantum theory? That theory makes no sense at all, yet it works very well. In comparison, evolution seems pretty intuitive.

13. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170735 by ofir on April 27, 2008 at 11:17 pm

As I said much earlier - the only way to replace a scientific theory is to come up with a better one. It's useful to know what a scientific theory is before embarking on such a project.

Evolution, unlike religion, is not a mind set - it's a scientific explanation of the evidence we have. So far, evidence suggests that evolution by natural selection works.

14. Mount Vernon schools to hire investigator in Bible case

Comment #169680 by ofir on April 26, 2008 at 2:35 pm

He's lucky he wasn't my teacher. Serious car problems, stained clothes, broken chair legs and constant ridicule would have made him quit.

If he did this to one of my children I will be in court in a second sorting out a mortgage-free future for my family at the school's expense.

15. Interview with Dan Dennett

Comment #168191 by ofir on April 24, 2008 at 5:35 pm

And why do they insist on the one God theory which they automatically assume is superior to the multi-god theory.

After all one god is just one of infinite possibilities.

16. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167309 by ofir on April 23, 2008 at 9:51 pm

Lord Winston did more question asking than belief professing. And yet, the replies to his intellectual argument are, for the most part, angry and derogatory. A weird thing for enlightened, rational, unbiased people to do. For a group so certain in their beliefs, there seems to be a strong need for reassurance in the posts.

I think the problem is the lack of intellectual arguments from Winston, that is truly baffling. He resorted to tired old clichés that have been answered well in literature and debates. Very disappointing.

You would think a man of his intellect has gone past these simplistic notions.

17. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167086 by ofir on April 23, 2008 at 3:46 pm

I claim far, far less knowledge than any priest.

And obviously even less scientific knowledge.

18. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166964 by ofir on April 23, 2008 at 2:11 pm

No one wants to defend one of your own. You keep asking me for reasons why I beleive in ID, and when I quote one of your own, no response.

Because it was a partial quote - the guy talks about some evidence, but how can I dispute this if I have no idea what he's talking about?

Obviously you are pulling random quotes from some ID site - which you don't understand yourself.

Also, you never answer any questions, which is why ID is not a science. Science provides some answers, you can't answer even one basic question. You have nothing I'm afraid. Ignorance is not science.

Why don't you go advising pilots how to fly and architects how to build bridges based on your faith? How about advising NASA who have naively been using scientific calculations?

19. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166932 by ofir on April 23, 2008 at 1:50 pm

epeeist,

Boy are you misguided.

And your evidence is?

20. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166748 by ofir on April 23, 2008 at 12:09 pm

You all are so funny. Almost every response you give includes some personal attack or insult. Why is this? Say what you want, but you know deep down what causes you to respond in this way.

Nonsense. You are just avoiding questions. You are calling to question people's education and professions. What do you expect?

If you provide some serious theory then people will attack the theory instead of you. So far you have just claimed that your 'faith' is better without any merit.

Finally, you seem to 'know' so much. Even why people you never met are saying and thinking things 'deep down'. If that's not arrogant - I don't know what is.

21. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166715 by ofir on April 23, 2008 at 11:48 am

TheTruthID-

Why would I try to harm you? I'm trying to help and educate you.

This is not a genuine reply. Education? That's normally done by demonstrating new information and ideas and then attempting to explain the process. You have done none of this.

Would you say that human standards of moralty are universal?

A quick scan of history shows that they are not universal.

You seem to think science is decided by debate or majority voting. Not so.

If you think evolution by natural selection is a flawed theory it's really easy to replace it. All you have to do is produce a better theory. But before you even start - I think you need to understand what a scientific theory is.

22. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166571 by ofir on April 23, 2008 at 10:03 am

Are you kidding. Evolutionist start with their close minded belief of no alternative ideas that do not adhere to natural laws even if the scientific evidence leads elsewhere. The only conclusion science evidence draws is a designed universe and life. Open your eyes.

Everytime I read one of your messages I get a strong feeling that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I think the process is the reverse, it's the desire to understand that brought about evolution theory.

What you are describing is religion which starts with the assumption that god created everything and then tries to fit everything to that idea. Science is exactly the opposite of this process.

23. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165864 by ofir on April 22, 2008 at 1:37 pm

When I love someone, I want to feel divine authority in doing so. This is a belief that is based purely in the unknown, I admit it entirely.

What you want to feel has absolutely no effect on the (non)existence of god.

Your belief is not based purely on the unknown, it is despite what is known. That's a big difference. Your reasoning would have made sense 3000 years ago, but with the understanding we have today of life and the universe I just can't see where gd actually gets a chance to make a decision. It all just seems to run along without intervention. Indeed, there's no sign of any intervention - which would require a break from the laws of nature.

And why isn't that possible? Ask and I (or someone else) will answer. It's to do with cause and effect and the impossibility of a border region where the laws of nature change as you travel through it.

24. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165431 by ofir on April 21, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Your question of the Bird Flu. I agree, I want the scientists to use their ideas of MICRO-evolution to try and trace the origin of the infection, not Macro-evolution. I assume you know the difference?

Scientists use whatever knowledge they have when faced with a problem. The chances of finding cures for diseases will be reduced if school students waste science time learning about false religious presumptions.

25. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165421 by ofir on April 21, 2008 at 1:02 pm

How can you begin to explain evolution when you can't even begin to explain where life came from in the first place?

Admitting you don't fully understand something is a lot better than making up a dubious explanation which is what ID is. It's also honest and truthful - which is always the best policy for education.

26. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165416 by ofir on April 21, 2008 at 1:00 pm

So Steve - comment 210 - I take it from your post that you think it is perfectly legit for Dawkins to accuse the makers of Expelled of doing a 'wicked evil thing' for trying to dupe J, but when I use exactly the same words about what Dawkins is trying to do, this is an example of 'one of the nastiest people you have ever found on the net'. So RD uses this language - he is a hero. I use his language - I am nasty. Go figure!

By the way - what does an atheist mean when they speak of wickedness and evil? Does evil exist in the materialist world? Can it?

An atheist is just a person who doesn't believe in silly desert nomadic myths. They can still use the English language as described pretty well in the dictionary. Religion is a poor source of morality anyway.

The evil thing here is to manipulate and lie. Throwing back an unfounded accusation is simply doubling the insult - that is what you are doing.

27. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165410 by ofir on April 21, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Sorry, but my thoughts are from my brain and my brain only. I'm not stuck in a protected little circle of influence.

Let me see, something I learned from these two screenings. Oh yes, the affable Mr. Dawkins believes in Intelligent Design!

Maybe you should provide your brain some food for thought. You simply misunderstand what's being said due to self-denial and possibly ignorance.

28. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164092 by ofir on April 19, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I don't think that monotheism existed in Israel before the Babylonian exile. Would Moses or David for that matter have even understood the concept of monotheism?

Moses is the messenger of monotheism according to jewish myth. Also monotheism existed in some form in Egypt, most likely predating Moses - Akhenaton and his followers who believed in one Sun God - Aton.

Interestingly, one of the Jewish names for God is Adonai and similar god names in other ancient religions suggest that the idea of monotheism has its own evolution rather than a clear point in time when it was invented.

As far as one can tell from the jewish bible, the key message is that of monotheism taking the place of polytheism. Of course, much of it was written after the 'event' so it's not conclusive by any means.

EDIT: In fact some have speculated that Akhenaton=Moses and the evidence is interesting, but far from conclusive. A bit like the Jesus=Horus speculations.

29. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163969 by ofir on April 19, 2008 at 11:41 am

The book is very interesting to read and says that in original Hebrew bible you can't find a word God but Elohim wich is a plural and means "those who came from the sky".

This is incorrect on several grounds. First the root for the Hebrew "El" (God) comes from earlier Canannite religion and doesn't seem to mean much more than "Father" although this is not 100% clear AFAIK.

Secondly, God has many names in the Hebrew bible, most are singular such as the well known "Jehova" or "Yahweh" which is a very interesting word, but does not imply plurality.

Thirdly, the Hebrew god insists that it is ONE god repeatedly in the Jewish bible. Monotheism is preached throughout with polytheist presented as the deniers of Yahweh.

Another possibility is that Elohim is a typo for Elokim which also appears in the Jewish bible and looks very similar. H & K chars are almost identical in Hebrew. Either way, it does not automatically imply plurality. In Hebrew the words Sky and Water also take this plural form.

Finally, the use of plural form for god in various religions (Allah is singular but talks in plural form - "We" for example, or "Elohim") is explained in terms of overwhelming presence. I have heard this explained away as poetic license.

All in all, it seems that the various names for God in the bible and probably in many other religious texts are just mutation of names and words already in use and don't contain any hint to some divine or extra terrestrial intervention.

30. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #163195 by ofir on April 18, 2008 at 4:08 am

It isn't a matter of opinion. You said that the military consensus agreed with you. Then this same military establishment signed off on the exact converse as a peace treaty. There is something amiss. You may call this an difference in opinion I do not.

What a bully!

Luckily Israelis don't depend on idiots like you to make their decisions. You are dishonest too. YOu think that if you know a few anecdotes you understand the problem.

You have no idea what you are talking about, everything I said is true. You are the one who lost this 'debate'.

31. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #162853 by ofir on April 17, 2008 at 2:59 pm

whatever al rawandi

You make no sense

32. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #162318 by ofir on April 16, 2008 at 3:09 pm

As I said, we still have this issue of the 1967 borders that remains unresolved which is the foundation of my original claim of dishonesty. You said there is no way Israel could defend these, and that this was the consensus of the military, and at the same time Israel claims to have offered 1967 borders as a peace deal.

You are a disgusting bully.

I am not a liar if my opinions differ from the apparent opinions of some Israeli governments. Furthermore, you will find many people who agree with me. We could be wrong in our opinion, but we are not liars.

Are we clear about this?

In fact it is you who's constantly misquoting me - honesty is on my side. You are very dishonest and anyone who will bother to read your long and pompous one sided propaganda will know this.

33. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #162315 by ofir on April 16, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Which is what I said, from square one, which you have managed to make into a 40 post ordeal.

No it isn't - liar.

The Philistines dwelt in cities and controlled much of the coast, and the term 'Palestine' is cognate with the word Philistine

A classic partial quote. You learned well from Chomsky.

Maybe you could tell us what the Philistines called themselves....

Not sure of exact pronounciation but they were called very similar names by all surrounding nations - Pleshet, Phlistin, etc. They were a Greek clan as far as we know today.

34. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #162307 by ofir on April 16, 2008 at 2:38 pm

That is precisely what I said from the very beginning about the name "Palestine". It comes from the word Philistine. That is exactly what the link I posted said. Maybe you need to brush up on your English.

And the English comes from French from Greek all the way back Hebrew and the Bible. I think it's obvious who is a manipulative liar here.

If you actually bother to check I was responding to someone else who used the word Judea and several of my subsequent references go "Judea/Palestine" out of respect to all sides.

But hey, don't let facts get in your way.

When you finish demonising Israel and Israelis there will be peace. All you have done is attack me, call me a liar when I haven't uttered a single lie, repeatedly twisted my words, accused me of racism and refused to apologise.

You are a pompous bully - ever thought of running an Arab dictatorship? You have what it takes, you lose but you claim victory. You lie but you call other liars.

35. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #162282 by ofir on April 16, 2008 at 1:47 pm

So you were wrong on the name issue as well. It absolutely comes from "Philistine". As does the Arabic term Falasteen. So if you are going to tell me anything that is true, now would be a good time.


I wouldn't want to debate if I were you either, such a flimsy grasp of facts must be cumbersome.

Your ignorance and arrogance is astounding and you have still not apologised fro calling me a liar when I have not lied once. Have you actually read the article you link to? You obviously don't even bother to check the links and info I provided earlier. Hey, let's not let facts get in your way.

Now back to reality which is uncontroversial and highly verifiable:

The word Philistine is at least 3200 years old and its modern use comes from the bible. It was the name of a nation that lived in the Gaza region that probably came from Greece. The Philistines arrived there around 1180BC have been a long standing enemy of the jews and have become part of the culture. The jews even borrowed a few words from them and the famous Samson and Delilah myth is based on them.

When the Romans conquered Judea around 100AD they renamed it after the old enemy of the jews. That name stuck and was later used by British writers of the 19th century and very early 20th century sometimes referring to the Arabs of Palestine as "Philistines". This was apparently not due to a belief in a strong connection with the ancient Philistines, but merely reflects the former convention that "Philistine" simply denotes "native of Palestine." The Arabic word for Palestine, فلسطين‎, which is pronounced "Falasṭīn," derives from the Latin term Palaestina.

All this is verifiable by 100s if not 1000s of sources, one of the earliest one being the jewish bible, many archeological discoveries have confirmed beyond doubt that the Philistines were not just a jewish myth, they actually existed. Indeed it is also mentioned in ancient Egyptian and akkadian docs.

The etymology of the word into English is from Old French Philistin, from Late Latin Philistinus, from Late Greek Philistinoi, from Hebrew P'lishtim, (See, e.g., 1 Samuel 17:26, 17:36; 2 Samuel 1:20; Judges 14:3), "people of P'lesheth" ("Philistia"); cf. Akkadian Palastu, Egyptian Palusata; the word probably is the people's name for itself.

See how wrong you are?

36. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #162233 by ofir on April 16, 2008 at 12:16 pm

al-rawandi

You called me a liar for no reason and you refuse to acknowledge it was unfounded and apologise.

I'm not a liar and everything I wrote can be verified.

Unlike many of your statements which are patently false, like your silly claim for re source of the name Palestine and many more.

So in fact it's you who's been spewing lies at a rate that I can't really match.

You ask why 'zionists' always give the same answers. That's because, unlike you, I restrict myself to the truth. It's easier to be orignal and interesting when you make up a history to suit your agenda - as you have.

Maybe you are not a muslim anymore, but you are a victim of exposure to hateful propaganda which you have not yet shaken.

Stop calling others liars when in fact it's you who is at fault.

I don't debate with liars or with people who call me a liar without justification.

37. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161952 by ofir on April 15, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Wait till you hear how they have renamed the planets... Absolutely disgusting! Literally begging for an alien invasion if you ask me.

38. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161882 by ofir on April 15, 2008 at 8:07 pm

JUDEA - What's in a name?

Israelis call France - Tsorfat. That's the official name. They also call a Frenchman Tsorfati. Again, those evil jews use a word that appears in the bible.

Maybe the French ambassador should put in a formal complaint.

They call Spain - Sepharad. They call Egypt - Mitzraim (as the Egyptians do) and these racist English people insist on calling them Egypt. All biblical names I'm afraid. Don't worry - the Egyptians are OK about both names.

The worst crime against humanity has to be Greece which they have renamed Yavan. Again, a biblical name for the region. The Greeks are planning a boycott demanding these nasty jews rename it on all their maps at once. The Greek army is on alert.

These jews are evil indeed, they have funny names for places. Such racist and war-like activities should be discouraged at all costs.

Watch out, there might be a Jew renaming your city right now. They have already renamed half the world. Do something before it's too late!

Maybe we should rename their country in return. Oh, I hear that's already been done. Shame.

39. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161832 by ofir on April 15, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Tough shit. Talk to the group that made Israel... the UN.

As you still babble half truths and make crucial and intended omissions, and as you have not apologised for calling me a liar when it's obvious I'm not, I don't think I should bother to debunk the nonsense you wrote.

You don't make sense, you argue against points I haven't made, you use ad-hominems at a rate of one per paragraph. You have lost.

You are on Planet Chomsky. Your information is biased and your conclusions are hateful and destructive. Every single sentence you wrote is misguided and unfair - and I'm being generous here.

40. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161470 by ofir on April 15, 2008 at 10:26 am

I never said this. I said the Israelis should leave the West Bank. This is a totally false analogy. They have a country, and they continue to steal land from someone else. The Natives in North America and Australia were never seeking a national unity. They were not asserting self determination. They were fighting and scalping one another.

Sounds a bit like a description of Arabia. The Israelis are prepared to leave the west bank, in fact they would love to. The problem right now is that they can't leave it in the hands of Hammas and co.

Open Google Earth and start looking at the practicalities.

You said a return to the 1967 borders was impossible, yet it is what Israel claimed it offered several times. So either they are lying or you are lying. I was willing to accept either one. The willingness of Israel to manipulate history is unparalleled.

I don't see how the fact that my opinion differs from the opinions of some Israeli governments makes me a liar. It makes you manipulative, I remain honest. In my opinion, in the current climate Israel would be foolish to return to exact 67 borders. I don't see how that is a lie.

Israel has one of the top 10 strongest militaries in the world. I am sure they can secure any border they wish. And by strategic elements, you must mean... Palestinian aquifers. Which is in general how the wall and settlements are set up right now. So theft of water must have been what you meant.

No army in the world can defend the borders of 67 without a pre-emptive strike. Talk to any army strategist you care to choose.

As to the water rights - again - I believe that should be settled as fairly as possible with the Palestinians, so no I don't support such attempts to steal water.

So the debate has nothing to do with my approach to dealing with someone like you, it has everything to do with your willingness to be honest about what is happening. The 1967 border offer being paramount in this.

What are you talking about? "Someone like me"? You are simply arrogant and naive. You also constantly insult me and you have still not apologised for calling names and ridiculing me. In fact you continue your idiotic personal attacks and patronising tone.

That is a sure sign that your arguments are weak.

You must concede that either you are wrong in saying that Israel can't be safe within the 1967 borders or you must admit that Israel lied about offering such a deal to the Palestinians. These two positions are irreconcilable with one another.

No I won't concede. Military strategy and strength of borders is open to opinion and is not a simplistic matter as you like everything to be. The narrower Israel becomes, the harder it gets to defend. Is that simple enough for you? Where the exact border should be is a matter of great debate in Israel, within the army and govt.

41. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161404 by ofir on April 15, 2008 at 8:58 am

Is there a standard book of lies you guys use, or do you make it up as you go?

If you now accuse me of lying you really have stepped over the mark. I have no idea how to respond to such idiotic rubbish.

Here you cite the Bible. I am glad you honor the Bible as a foundation for current Israeli policy. Which is odd because you said Zionism is totally secular a few posts ago. Honesty is not your forte.

I only mentioned the bible in passing as one of many supporting claims for the name Judea. I stand by everything I said, but feel free to correct specifics. Childish ad-hominem is obviously your forte when you can't win an argument.

In English it is Palestine, as it has been for centuries, Palestine being a Romanization of the term Philistine

Philistines is a name of a people who used to live in the Gaza area 2000 years ago, there's lots of archeological evidence to support this and that's the source of the English word. The Roman chose that name to demoralise the jews. You are totally ignorant on this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines

Yet if the Israelis claim that they can secure themselves with a wall that cuts into parts of the West Bank, why can't they do the same along the 1967 border? Your logic doesn't add up at all

Yet it does to most Israelis. The way the wall has been constructed is to protect Israeli strategic interests as judged by people who are experts on the matter, of course they can be wrong, but you are not qualified to judge that. It also means that it infringes on the human rights of palestinians which is why it will have to be moved in some places.

You have no right to claim land inhabited by others as your own.

That's not true. Israel was created by the UN. Israel was attacked and won the territories as a result. Israel offered to return the territories to their original owners.

Using your markers all nations should evacuate immediately, especially Americans and Australians should go back to Europe.

It's simply isn't as simple as you think.

It isn't what they offered, please actually read what I say, it is about what the claimed they offered. They claimed they offered exactly what I proposed to do. If they actually offered the Palestinians this, then they would have no problem implementing it.

What they actually offered Palestinians was 3 horizontal Israeli access roads, with checkpoints, to a border with Jordan leased to Israel for 999 years. They offered Israeli control of water, they offered Israeli control of airspace. In short, an open air prison. It would have been a Warsaw Ghetto in the 21st Century.

How come you know these details when no one else seems to agree on them?

All you have done so far is to constantly throw mud and hope it sticks and it doesn't, so you throw more mud. When that fails you call me a liar, accuse me of deceit, being someone I am not and ridicule me. Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem

Wake me up when you want to apologise and start a real debate.

42. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161338 by ofir on April 15, 2008 at 7:24 am

This is what Israel claims they have offered the Palestinians already. A return to the 1967 borders and an end to settlemenst. If I am naive, so are the Israelis. So either you are an idiot or the Israelis were lying about their 2000 Camp David offer. Both seem very very very probable.

OK I'm an idiot. But I'm still alive. I believe that had Israel acted differently it would have lost the 73 war.

I don't know what Israel offered, as there are many versions and everyone says the other side is lying and remember that both Barak and Arafat are very good at lying.

Israelis all serve in the army and most have seen war and so have an unusually informed knowledge of strategic issues. Keep that in mind.

How does securing your border, and keeping your citizens within these borders end in a "war zone"? Or is this more of your "Another Holocaust" scare tactics?

What do you know about securing borders? Go talk to any army strategist and ask him how this can be achieved when your country is that small. Around 10-20 miles wide in the key areas around Tel-Aviv.

You have justified Israeli expansionism on Biblical grounds. You have cited lying propagandists as evidence for your position on Arabs. You have absolutely zero credibility.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The bible is fairy tale mixed up with some history. It's an interesting document, but I certainly don't believe in Judaic mythology. I'm an Reformist Rabbi of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Church. I don't believe the noodles are literal.

I really feel that you are setting me up to simply use me to bounce your non-pragmatic agenda. You are not conducting a fair debate at all. You keep claiming I said things that I obviously haven't. You don't address specific points, instead you throw lots of shit and hope it sticks.

I will not sit here and defend every Israeli action and law because I don't agree with half of them. If you want to call Israel racist (which means the majority of Israelis are racist) then fine, but then USA and EU are also racist. Same goes for Russia and Australia and of course the muslim world wins the #1 award for racism and xenophobia.

Racism is just a label.

43. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161320 by ofir on April 15, 2008 at 6:56 am

memritv?


Are you kidding. They have been caught fabricating translations...

No they are not. If you can show me specifics, fine. You obviously have a bias which is tiring me.

I would unilatterally withdraw from the settlements. Pull all Israeli assets out of lands that weren't mine to administer. I would rectify the theft known as "Tax descrepency" in East Jerusalem. I would announce that the 1967 borders are now our official borders, no negotiation until there is an end to Palestinian attacks. I would seal these borders and only grant work permits to Palestinians with no links to any terrorist group. I would offer every neighborly benefit to any Palestinian who does not have links to violence or terror.

Obviously you have no clue. Israel would turn into a war zone according to your plan. You have no idea what you are talking about. Look at the map and tell me how you will convince the Israelis that your plan is sustainable.

You are more naive than chomsky. Thankfully Israelis know better than him and that's why I'm alive. Maybe one day you will understand you are dealing with Nazism (called Islam). Until then you can call me racist, but I will defend my life.

By the way, Hizzbullah didn't disarm, they have more weapons than ever. The muslims play the west like a violin.

44. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161105 by ofir on April 14, 2008 at 7:57 pm

ungodlystheist and al-rawandi

For a different perspective and some optimism after watching the horrors on memritv.org go to arabsforisrael.com

Especially this article: http://www.arabsforisrael.com/articles/whatilearnedfromjews.html

45. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161061 by ofir on April 14, 2008 at 5:48 pm

Next to her was a Palestinian woman with a poster that said "I was born in Palestine! I DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO RETURN."

When there's a Palestinian state she will have the right to return there.

In Israel in 1948 all arabs received Israeli citizenship and the right to vote even though they were clearly aligned with the enemy . In the US a few years earlier, US citizens of Japanese descent were put in detention camps.

Until the 60s, blacks were marching against segregation. They couldn't use the same buses or restaurants. I'm sure you know all about it.

Now that's racism!

And please go check memritv.org before you talk to me anymore about racism. If in my self defence I appear racist to you, so be it.

46. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161006 by ofir on April 14, 2008 at 4:50 pm

"Yet zionists say they support a Jewish state, and expect people to say they are not racist?"

I support a Palestinian state for palestinians, does that make me racist?

Being a jewish state is the only way they can survive. It's not a matter of debate because it's the only way Israel can survive the demographic war.

I think I answered this before. For Israelis it's a matter of life and death ad not of comfortable armchair debate.

Again - being a democracy - you are effectively saying that 3 generations have always voted for a racist agenda.

See my australian example of how your simplistic definition of racism breaks down.

47. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160973 by ofir on April 14, 2008 at 3:55 pm

What motivates al-Qaeda? There are several ideologies at work.

I think your assessment is correct to a point. I invite you again to look at memritv.org

This will shed some more light on the underlying culture in these countries. Have you ever watched the Egyptian parliament 'debate'?

Have you ever seen serious discussions on jews drinking babies blood?

Are you aware of the popularity of Mein Kempf in the muslim world, or how often you see Nazi propaganda in their mainstream media?

You seem to know quite a bit about this, so I was wondering.

48. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160958 by ofir on April 14, 2008 at 3:33 pm

You still call it Judea. That is a little outdated.

OK - Israel it is.

I don't go around calling Irish Americans the "Chosen People". Telling everyone God has chosen me might... just might incite some hostility.

What's the obsession with chosen people?

Zionism was a reaction to racism... fine it was a racist reaction to racism.

It was a nationalist reaction, not racist.

Why does Judea persist as a name?

Because that's the name in the bible, that's the name in modern Hebrew, that's the name archeological evidence supports. Why should the Israelis accept a name forced on them by the Romans? And then again by the Turks? The British? Jordan and Egypt?

The jewish culture is to resist such things.

OK- let's play another game. You are now the prime-minister of Israel, you have to meet the Palestinian representatives which include Hammas next week and offer them a deal they can't refuse. Let's go. Chomsky thinks it's very simple - he said so himself.

Or maybe you think all the jews should pack up and leave?

49. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160824 by ofir on April 14, 2008 at 12:40 pm

People generally cite the Dreyfus Affair as the beginning of Zionsim. However this was 1892, and there had been previous migrations of Jews, largely encouraged by Rabbis, and not secular Jews. For instance the aliyya of 1882, a full ten years before Dreyfus. Not to mention the migrations of the 1870's And Herzl didn't publish Der Judenstat until 1896.

Zion comes from the Bible and is synonomous with Eretz Yisroel. So your secular argument is true as it regards a shoddy attempt to play the movement off as some modernist deal.

You are spinning facts to suit your narrative. It didn't work like this at all. If you really want to go into the details, fine. But first, let's slow down cos I think we are also missing eachother's comments.

So, yes, there where early religious migrants to Judea/palestine. These were jews and xians too, all wanting to be near god's house or whatever. These people were not zionists and later many would oppose the zionist movement for 'god' reasons. They said they had to wait for the Messiah. We are talking small numbers.

To look at the Dreyfus affair as a single incident would be unfair to jews who were being persecuted throughout europe and russia for centuries.

Herzl's trick was to unite all the factions by using the one thing that connected them all a quasi-religious notion of jews in the holy land. The zionists were not religious, indeed the first large waves of jews were committed to the socialist utopia of the Kibbutz system.

Understandably the locals started getting worried as numbers grew. I'm sure you know how miscalculated their reaction to the problem was. Starting in 1929 the Arabs turned violent and things escalated from there.

You are absolutely correct that the Arab nations made things worse. They never gave the palestinians asylum (except Jordan). In 1991 Kuwait expelled 500,000 Palestinians. The muslim world prefers to bash the jews for religious, racist and also real reasons.

50. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160809 by ofir on April 14, 2008 at 12:18 pm

The term Judea, denotes a Jewish claim on the land. It is Palestine, or Falasteen in Arabic. So it is very generous of you to allow Palestinians to live on their own land.

You claim to be fair? It is common knowledge and is also well documented that the region was called Judea until the Roman Empire changed its name. The name comes from the Philistines who are ancient people who lived around today's Gaza.

I would note that the Jews maintained a degree of autonomy under the Ottomans due to the Millet system

I would denote that I know people who lived under such systems and were not happy at all. Jews paid extra tax, their testimony did not equal a muslim, etc.

I don't treat Jews as a monolithic group. So European Jews are Europeans and ME Jews are Middle Eastern. These Jews were living in the Arab world for many many years. They spoke Arabic and were instrumental in setting up the HaMossad LeAliiya Bet and later the Mossad (along with Ezra Danin and Isser Harel).

They didn't speak Arabic - they mostly spoke their own Arabic/Hebrew dialect. As the jews of europe spoke Idish and Ladino.

So I treat these as distinctly different groups. The Ashkenazi Euro Jews still treat the Mizrahi Jews (mostly Sephardic) as "lower". So the demarcation remains in Israeli society.

You will find that the two have strong connections. During the inquisition many spanish jews fled to Poland and mixed with the local jewish population. French jews and Morrocan jews are closely related. The boundaries of ethnicity are blurry and are a hot potato in Israel.