need help please--does anybody have links to the death tolls on both

[niyad]

sides of the israeli-palestinian conflict--not just this week's, but overall. I have an idiot, almost wanna-be zionist on one of my boards, and I would like to present her with some numbers to counter her latest:

"One side is 100% on the offensive. The other is 100% on the defensive. Israel will happily stop fighting when she no longer has a need to defend herself from aggressors. Hannah and Ruth should direct their questions to the side that is so intent on slaughtering Jews just for being there that they are willing to sacrifice their own children in the process.

I have yet to see Israel start a war or engage in any military tactics that do not have a defensive purpose. I have yet to see an Israeli suicide bomber blow up a children's birthday party, I have yet to see Israel launch a war of aggression, and I have yet to see Israel swear death to all Arabs. All Israel wants is to exist. There really is no moral equivalency here, no matter how desperately you may seek it."

thank you all in advance.

[still_one]

1. there is never a justification for collective punishment

but the 5 wars that have been waged against Israel to push it into the sea cannot be ignored either

As far as your body count inquiry, there are many more Palestinians killed than Israellis, as though that somehow makes one death more or less significant than another?

The issues are quite simple. Accept the existence of Israel and create a Palestinian state

[niyad]

2. you and I, and other intelligent people know that--but at this point, I

really just want her to take a good look at the sheer numbers involved. what fascinates me about her ongoing diatribe (believe me, the above two were only a tiny fraction of the stuff she writes) is that she is a recent convert, a jewish version of a born-again.

[alvarezadams]

3. FIVE wars?

Look up the Suez Canal crisis sometime: that was a war of aggression started by the Israelis, French and British. Quite similar to the Iraq War in some ways, with the US' position making a volte face.

The body count DOES matter. By dismissing it you are actually incurring in what you bemoan: "making one death more or less significant than another".

As for the issues - the PLO recognized Israel, something conveniently overlooked by many. Madrid and Oslo went a long way in the right direction, only to be submarined by those (conservatives) who do not want peace.

[still_one]

4. As far as Oslo, Arafat had two faces

and ask where the millions of dollars that belong to the Palestinians went that he had under his control?

The Suez Canal crisis was "started by the Israellis", really? Why did Egypt close the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping in spite of the UN telling it not to? Why was Nasser importing arms from the soviets, perhaps to confront Israel. Nasser trained and equiped fighters to attack Israel, and he did it from bases in Jordan, so Jordan would bear the brunt of Israel's retaliation. Those attacks violated the armistice agreementment, yet it was Israel that was condemend by the UN for its counterattacks

Egypt made it very clear that he wanted the destruction of Israel, and signed and agreement with Syria and Jordan placing Egypt in charge of those armies.

When the fadayeen continue their attacks against Israel, and the Suez Canal was still blocked to Israeli shipping, Israel attacked Egypt with the SUPPORT of Britain and France

To imply that the Israel attacked without provocation is a distortion of history and the facts

[alvarezadams]

5. Millions?

Howsa bout the billions we send to Israel despite the fact that by LAW we are not allowed to provide aid to non-signatories of the NPT?

Ah... Suez. Interesting take on it... very Time-Life. No need to look at the Franco-British-Israeli compact. And to look at a long-standing conflict from the middle is, well, frankly disingenuous.

IMPLY that Israel attacked without provocation? I don't IMPLY it, I clearly STATE it - on the basis of long-standing international law.

[still_one]

6. whatever you say my friend, and Nasser didn't want to destroy Israel

and the fadayeen never attacked Israel

you have your views I have mine, I am not disingenuous, but I will tell you one, Democrat or Republican support will continue for Israel in spite of your feelings

incidently, we give 3 BILLION to Egypt, should stop that also?

[alvarezadams]

8. Certainly

By financing a dictatorship we ain't exactly moving those democratic dominoes along. And yes, Nasser wanted to destroy Israel... kinda like we wanted to destroy the USSR.

The whole point is that there's a right way of doing things and then there's the way we've been doing it since the GOP blocked Wilson. "Realpolitik" always ups and bites us in the arse whenever we move away from the concepts outlined in the "14 Points" - particularly self-determination.

Our foreign policy has been a case of realpolitik painted with a veneer of "human rights" and "fairness". We've supported bloody dictatorships and only cry foul when egregious regimes don't tow our line. Yet many Americans seem to feel that we've been the "good guys", generous and fair paladins for the highest moral causes.

We haven't. Not by a longshot.

Israel has a de facto (but not a de jure) right to exist. That right MUST NOT impinge upon the equal rights of the Palestinians. The fact that we support Israel to the point that we do goes a long way towards explaining why we and even our very way of life is unpopular in the ME and elsewhere. Our constant undermining of international law and the usage of nations hasn't helped one iota.

I believe that our "special relationship" with Israel must cease as long as Israel doesn't provide the Palestinians with a fair shake. The policies of collective punishments has been a success for the warmongers of the Israeli RW - to the point of turning Hamas into a majority party when they'd been considered a radical splinter group in the past.

Israel is the target of terror? Certainly. It seems that the US and Israeli RW have followed their usual MO in applying the same draconian measures that guarantee increased terror.

IF we hadn't been undermining the UN for decades we'd have a legal tool to fight terrorism and to defend Israel. IF Israel had followed UN resolutions. IF...

Nationalism is the bane of humanity. It is the tool used by special interests to foment and support what would otherwise be absolutely indefensible. The Israelis are nationalists, as are the Palestinians... and US rabid nationalism frightens the hell out of most of the world.

So who will make a stand against the Israeli lobby - a lobby, I might add, that has committed acts of espionage (etc) that might have been a casus belli if practiced by another nation?

[The Magistrate]

7. Starting When, Ma'am?

In the period of the "Second Intafada" recently, deaths have been about 1.000 Arab Palestinians and 300 Israelis per year of its course.

Over-all, the casualties have been surprisingly small, even taking into account the small number fo people involved, given the tremendous degree of attention devoted to the matter, and its frequent presentation as some unparalleled instance of vicious violence.

[alvarezadams]

9. Ah

1300 dead per year is pecata minuta, eh? Does that mean that it will become worthy of the attention given once it reaches the 3000 victim mark?

Isn't that the "magic number", the WTC number?

Sheesh.