Meanwhile, back here on earth, unlike in your fantasy world, murder-suicide bombers have been killing children by the hundreds in the last two years -- a rate of murder which proportionate to Israel's population is about equivalent of a September 11 attack every few weeks.
And unlike Israel, which has gone out of its way to avoid harming non-combatants, and which even Arafat
now admits has not killed any great number of civilians, and those only by accident in pitched battle with Palestinian gunmen who disguise themselves as civilians and hide in residential areas, the murder suicide bombers seek to kill as many civilians as they can.
As for `fascists', here we find ourself observing a conflict between Israel, a free democracy seeking to defend itself against terrorism, and Arafat, a totalitarian dictator who has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. Just which side are you calling `fascist' here?
Leaving aside the logically absurd and fundamentally racist content of the site
you link to, what are we to take this to mean? That we are all citizens of a totalitarian dictatorship which pays us to send our teenagers to blow themselves up in the children's areas of restaurants in order to distract us from the fact that the only people oppressing us are our own rulers? I guess I don't buy it.
And Hitler built the Autobahns. So? If our enemies are religious extremists who believe in the wholesale slaughter of civilians, but also once built some houses somewhere, then what?
Leaving aside the logically absurd and fundamentally racist content of the site you link to, what are we to take this to mean? That we are all citizens of a totalitarian dictatorship which pays us to send our teenagers to blow themselves up in the children's areas of restaurants in order to distract us from the fact that the only people oppressing us are our own rulers? I guess I don't buy it.
Funny, the site you link in your sig speaks of Louis Farrakhan as `wise' and `balanced', calls for more murder-suicide bombings with claims like `only by continuing to take the fight directly to the Israelis can Palestini
ans free themselves' (as if setting off nail-bombs in the children's area of a pizza shop is `freeing' anything, and ignoring the fact that the Palestinians have been free of Israeli rule (but not of Arafat's totalitarianism) since Oslo), and repeats lies about Israel which even Arafat now admits are not true, such as the claims of a massacre at Jenin.
And this is what you think people would believe if they opened their eyes?
Funny, the site you link in your sig speaks of Louis Farrakhan as `wise' and `balanced', calls for more murder-suicide bombings with claims like `only by continuing to take the fight directly to the Israelis can Palestini
ans free themselves' (as if setting off nail-bombs in the children's area of a pizza shop is `freeing' anything, and ignoring the fact that the Palestinians have been free of Israeli rule (but not of Arafat's totalitarianism) since Oslo), and repeats lies about Israel which even Arafat now admits are not true, such as the claims of a massacre at Jenin.
This is what you think people would believe if they opened their eyes?
Re:the real terrorists are governments and media
on
Cyber-Attacks?
·
· Score: 1
I'd say the empirical evidence speaks for itself -- those nations which have adopted free market economies have prospered, while those which have adopted collectivist systems have produced no end of misery for their own citizens. The main point here, however, is that economics is not a zero-sum game, so asserting that if the US is doing well it must be at another nations expense simply doesn't hold.
With due respect, there's plenty of precedent for considering a loose multinational terrorist force to be a hostile power, precedent going back to the earliest days of this republic's existance, when we found ourselves set upon by the pirates of the North African coast...
Some big news channel owner notes that the jews are killing more palestinians than vice-versa, result was scandal+ near removal of the channel from some places etc...
Of course, because this isn't true -- and even Arafat doesn't bother to claim it is anymore. Or are you suggesting that media outlets normally wouldn't be upset at an employee who reports fiction as fact?
With due respect, Bill Maher's show was cancelled because no one wanted to listen to his rants -- or are you suggesting that the stations should be forced to keep on the air a show that no one's watching? This isn't censorship, it's supply and demand -- or do you consider it censorship every time a show no one watches is cancelled?
`Self-censorship' is a contradiction in terms, and your argument boils down to a claim that because Americans by and large don't want to speak out against their system of government (because we feel it is the best on Earth), we must somehow be being silenced.
Don't assume that because people disagree with your black-helicopter ravings, they haven't thought their position through...
I can't give you a link... but after 9/11 hundreds of arabs were put in prison -- without charge.
Of course you can't provide a link, because this isn't true. No US citizen was held without charge, and no non-citizen who was not in violation of their immigration visa was held either. Try again.
jose is in prison -- without charge
Actually, Abdullah al-Muhajir (why do you call him `Jose'? Do you call Muhammad Ali `Cassius'?) is being held as an enemy combatant for trial by military commission, under the 1943 Supreme Court decision Ex Parte Quirin, which upheld the practice, dating from the earliest days of our republic, of trying acts of war or attempted acts of war under military jurisdiction. See
this journal entry for excerpt from the ruling in Ex Parte Quirin and links to the complete text of the decision.
and if i want to advocate killing americans, that's my right. i'm no enemy combatant until you can prove that i'm an enemy combatant.
Of course Mr. al-Muhajir is eligible to contest this decision in court -- his lawyer is doing so right now, here in New York. I'd suggest you actually read the relevant case law (such as the decision linked above) before you shoot your mouth off. Nor is Mr. al-Muhajir being held for anything that he `advocated' -- such behavior would be free speech. He is being held for what he attempted to do -- or are you suggesting that we should wait for a dirty nuke to go off before making any arrests?
A free country, as well, where outrageous misrepresentations like yours are very common.
Care to provide cites for any of your claims here? And if you think that we're not the most free nation on Earth, do tell what nation you think is more free?
With due respect, has it crossed your mind that maybe Americans support our foreign policy because we do understand a thing or two about how the world works, not because we don't? Sure, `enlightened' European opinion prefers appeasement to self defense, from Israel to downtown Manhattan, to Iraq, but hey, `enlightened' European opinion favored appeasement of Hitler, too, right up to the point where his tanks rolled into Poland.
If you actually have a valid point of disagreement with our foreign policy, fire away, but an argument that `I don't agree with American foreign policy, therefore anyone who does agree with it must be stupid' doesn't hold any water.
Funny, people like you keep throwing around the words `blindly patriotic', but I have yet to see anyone actually meet that description at all.
Lots of people in the US are patriotic, as well they should be, given that they have the honor to live in the most free, most democratic, and most prosperous nation on Earth. There's nothing `blind' about this patriotism at all, though.
Nor have you presented a convincing argument that people liking Bush is just a reflection of patriotism -- unless you are suggesting that Americans were very unpatriotic at the end of the Clinton years, the end of the Bush Sr. years and all through the Carter years...
It is. See all the comments about the US's almost-elected leader, Dubya. In a time when the National Guard wasn't accepting any more applications, he managed to get accepted. He then supposedly didn't actually show up for most of it.
Any cite for this? Yes he served in the NG, lots of people did, but your claim here is completely unbacked by evidence.
And yes, he's pretty much thought of as a useless coward whose daddy bought him safety and runs him like a puppet now.
Oh. That must explain the 76% approval ratings. Face it, you want people to think like this, but the fact is that 0.76 * 285,000,000 Americans disagree with you completely.
I support the Palestinians. So would you if you cared to open your eyes
Is there something about opening eyes which you believe inclines people to support totalitarian dictatorships which pay their citizens to send their children to blow themselves up in the children's areas of restaurants in order to distract them from the fact that their own government is responsible for the misery they live in? Really?
Secondly Hoovers willingness to release known false "facts" casts doubt on any claim that these people were really soviet agents and didn't just have left leaning political views.
With due respect, the end of the cold war has resulted in the declassification of millions of pages of information by both sides, and it is no longer credible to claim this -- for all the liberal pieties, we have more evidence of the guilt of Hiss, the Rosenbergs, and many others than ever before, including the Venona intercepts, which are a comprehensive decryption of much of the communication back to the Soviet Union by their intelligence network here, the Mitrokhin archive, which is a large part of the KGB's archival records copied and smuggled out of Moscow as the Soviet Union fell, and a large number of casefiles which both the Soviets and Admericans have declassified.
I'd suggest you start with
this book
if you want a comprehensive history of Soviet
intelligence activity in that period and beyond.
While I'd certainly like to see a cite on this claim, it's not at all clear to me that this has any impact on the question of whether the FBI should be able to read public web sites, or of whether there were massive attempts at infiltration in the thirties, forties, and fifties.
I'm glad we agree on the `READING' part -- I think it's clear to all that the previous state of affairs where the Church Committee policies prevented the FBI from reading web sites or using Google was simply absurd.
As for history, it would be a mistake to let Senator McCarthy's grandstanding obscure the fact that there was in fact a massive Soviet attempt to infiltrate the US government and industry in the thirties, forties, and fifties, an effort which was initially extremely successfull -- at the time of FDR's death, the people he was planning to appoint to the positions of Secretary of State (Alger Hiss) and Secretary of the Treasury (Harry Dexter White) in his next term were both Soviet agents. Had Truman not selected other appointees, the results could have been truly catastrophic.
Against this background, objecting to the FBI's attempts to reign in this subversion is at best telling only half the story. And suggesting that the FBI is currently keeping files on anyone without cause is simply unfounded (as well as not making much sense -- unless you're suggesting they have the resources to keep files on everyone
To put one thing staight right away, I don't put the blame for the conflict on the Israel alone. Both sides are about equally resonsible.
In what sense? Is the police officer who responds to a crime `as responsible' for the crime as the criminal who he responds to?
You seem to think that after the Oslo agreement pulled out of palestinian areas, this is not the case. They left a few areas they chose alone, in yet other areas they have started israeli settlements, presumedly to have a "right" to that land if there ever is international intervention
This is simply untrue. fully 98% of the West Bank has been under full PA control since Oslo. The remaining 2% are pre-existing settlements which Israel has indicated a willingness to hand over to PA control if the PA would provide police protection for the citizenship. In the current climate, where the PA police forces are the ones attacking the settlements, this is not feasible. Or are you arguing that the Palestinians have a right to ban Jews from living in their territory? In South Africa this was practiced against blacks and was called apartheid. In Germany, this was called Judenrein. Why would this be okay for the Palestinians? And do I need to remind you that in marked contrast to this Palestinians who live in Israel proper have all of the rights of Israeli citizens? Indeed, the last time I checked there were 17 Palestinian Arab members of the Israeli parliament (the Knesset).
Arafat is a known previous terrorist leader snd have made statements he has later withdrawn.
Arafat is the leader of the al-Aqsa brigades, Fatah, and Tanzim, the three groups responsible for the vast majority of the murder-suicide bombings committed over the last two years. He still to this day repeatedly calls for such bombings when speaking in Arabic, even while making overtures to the west in English.
Ariel Sharon has made similar statements about getting rid of the palestinian people.
Nonsense. Provide any credible cite for this claim.
The difference is that while Palestinians terrorists go out of their way to maximize civilian casualties, the Israeli army has gone way out of their way to avoid civilian casualties, such as fighting house-by-house instead of fighting from the air. In addition, despite wild claims made by the Palestinians earlier, even Arafat himself, in his
official report of the fighting at Jenin confirms that only 53 Palestinians were killed in total in the fighting there, and all but one or two were combatants. Hamas, in
their account of the fighting at Jenin confirms that those Palestinians who died there were combatants who died in battle.
Some palestinians believe that Allah has given them the right to kill for their land.
Yes. Arafat himself says this often.
Some Jews believe that God has given them a right to kill for their land.
If any Jews did believe this, they would be stopped by their own government -- or haven't you noticed the complete lack of terrorist attacks by Israelis against Palestinians? The fact is that Israel is fighting to avoid being the victim of genocide, and as much as you Europeans may relish the idea of abandoning the Jews to that fate for the second time in less than a century, they're not going to let that happen.
The only major difference is that one side has guns, planes and helicopters. The other side has a lot of people willing to sacrifice themselves for what they believe is right
No, the major difference is that one side is a free democracy fighting for it's right to peacably coexist with its neighbors, while the other side is a totalitarian dictatorship fighting to destroy its neighbors.
The two biggest problems to solve the conflict is that it's gone on for so long that there are people on both sides that would rather see their own people continue suffering than to make peace with their enemies
This is simply slander. The Israelis have again and again offered the Palestinians all of their demands (most recently in 2000), only to have the Palestinians come back with a new round of demands and a new wave of attacks on civilians.
The fact is, Palestinian school textbooks show Palestine as encompassing all of what is now Israel, and speak of Jews as `pigs and monkeys' who must be slaughtered. Palestinian leaders (including Arafat) repeatedly promise their own people the whole region and the destruction of Israel. The matter thus comes down to a simple choice: If the Palestinians stop the murder-suicide bombings, Israel will leave them alone, and there will be peace. If Israel stops defending itself, the Palestinians will commit genocide, and you Europeans won't care. Which do you think is the road to peace?
None of which changes the basic facts here. Every time I have dropped an item, it has fallen down, not up. Every time people have founded a system based on Marx's ideas, the result has been tyranny, not liberty.
I have a theory as to why this has occured, just as we have a theory of gravity -- but if you tried to tell me that the next item I drop will fall up, it would be your job to explain this, not my job to work out a proof based in the theory of gravitation. Likewise, if you wish to claim that for some reason the next system to establish itself in Marx's ideas will miraculously not be a tyranny, it is your job to explain why we should believe this.
Which is amusing, as none of the west bank has been `occupied' at all since Oslo. Your excuses for the murder-suicide bombers and comparison to the Nazi occupation of Norway are particularly odious, coming as they do as part of Europe's attempt to wash their hands of the Jews for the second time in three generations.
Let's look at the facts here: even though Israel ended up with the West Bank as part of a war they were forced into after being attacked by the entire Arab world, they have been trying to reach a peace and return it for decades. In fact, they have given it back for all intents and purposes in 1993. All they have asked for in return is an end to the murders of Israeli civilians. They never got that end.
Now you speak as if Israel is wrong to seek to restrict Arafat as a response to the bombings, a stance which you can only take by willfully ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the murder-suicide bombings are being carried out by Arafat's own organizations, Tanzim and Fatah.
Why don't you admit that while the Israelis have made concession after concession, Arafat has said repeatedly that he will accept nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel (these are his own words!), and that he fully approves of the tactics (like setting off nail bombs in the children's area of restaurants) which his followers use to pursue this end.
Arafat openly calls for genocide against Israel, and as you did once before, you in Europe choose to blame the Jews when madmen call for their destruction.
Slashdot Mirror
And unlike Israel, which has gone out of its way to avoid harming non-combatants, and which even Arafat now admits has not killed any great number of civilians, and those only by accident in pitched battle with Palestinian gunmen who disguise themselves as civilians and hide in residential areas, the murder suicide bombers seek to kill as many civilians as they can.
As for `fascists', here we find ourself observing a conflict between Israel, a free democracy seeking to defend itself against terrorism, and Arafat, a totalitarian dictator who has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. Just which side are you calling `fascist' here?
Leaving aside the logically absurd and fundamentally racist content of the site you link to, what are we to take this to mean? That we are all citizens of a totalitarian dictatorship which pays us to send our teenagers to blow themselves up in the children's areas of restaurants in order to distract us from the fact that the only people oppressing us are our own rulers? I guess I don't buy it.
And Hitler built the Autobahns. So? If our enemies are religious extremists who believe in the wholesale slaughter of civilians, but also once built some houses somewhere, then what?
Leaving aside the logically absurd and fundamentally racist content of the site you link to, what are we to take this to mean? That we are all citizens of a totalitarian dictatorship which pays us to send our teenagers to blow themselves up in the children's areas of restaurants in order to distract us from the fact that the only people oppressing us are our own rulers? I guess I don't buy it.
And this is what you think people would believe if they opened their eyes?
This is what you think people would believe if they opened their eyes?
I'd say the empirical evidence speaks for itself -- those nations which have adopted free market economies have prospered, while those which have adopted collectivist systems have produced no end of misery for their own citizens. The main point here, however, is that economics is not a zero-sum game, so asserting that if the US is doing well it must be at another nations expense simply doesn't hold.
With due respect, there's plenty of precedent for considering a loose multinational terrorist force to be a hostile power, precedent going back to the earliest days of this republic's existance, when we found ourselves set upon by the pirates of the North African coast...
Some big news channel owner notes that the jews are killing more palestinians than vice-versa, result was scandal+ near removal of the channel from some places etc...
Of course, because this isn't true -- and even Arafat doesn't bother to claim it is anymore. Or are you suggesting that media outlets normally wouldn't be upset at an employee who reports fiction as fact?
With due respect, Bill Maher's show was cancelled because no one wanted to listen to his rants -- or are you suggesting that the stations should be forced to keep on the air a show that no one's watching? This isn't censorship, it's supply and demand -- or do you consider it censorship every time a show no one watches is cancelled?
`Self-censorship' is a contradiction in terms, and your argument boils down to a claim that because Americans by and large don't want to speak out against their system of government (because we feel it is the best on Earth), we must somehow be being silenced.
Don't assume that because people disagree with your black-helicopter ravings, they haven't thought their position through...
I can't give you a link... but after 9/11 hundreds of arabs were put in prison -- without charge.
Of course you can't provide a link, because this isn't true. No US citizen was held without charge, and no non-citizen who was not in violation of their immigration visa was held either. Try again.
jose is in prison -- without charge
Actually, Abdullah al-Muhajir (why do you call him `Jose'? Do you call Muhammad Ali `Cassius'?) is being held as an enemy combatant for trial by military commission, under the 1943 Supreme Court decision Ex Parte Quirin, which upheld the practice, dating from the earliest days of our republic, of trying acts of war or attempted acts of war under military jurisdiction. See this journal entry for excerpt from the ruling in Ex Parte Quirin and links to the complete text of the decision.
and if i want to advocate killing americans, that's my right. i'm no enemy combatant until you can prove that i'm an enemy combatant.
Of course Mr. al-Muhajir is eligible to contest this decision in court -- his lawyer is doing so right now, here in New York. I'd suggest you actually read the relevant case law (such as the decision linked above) before you shoot your mouth off. Nor is Mr. al-Muhajir being held for anything that he `advocated' -- such behavior would be free speech. He is being held for what he attempted to do -- or are you suggesting that we should wait for a dirty nuke to go off before making any arrests?
Care to provide cites for any of your claims here? And if you think that we're not the most free nation on Earth, do tell what nation you think is more free?
If you actually have a valid point of disagreement with our foreign policy, fire away, but an argument that `I don't agree with American foreign policy, therefore anyone who does agree with it must be stupid' doesn't hold any water.
Lots of people in the US are patriotic, as well they should be, given that they have the honor to live in the most free, most democratic, and most prosperous nation on Earth. There's nothing `blind' about this patriotism at all, though.
Nor have you presented a convincing argument that people liking Bush is just a reflection of patriotism -- unless you are suggesting that Americans were very unpatriotic at the end of the Clinton years, the end of the Bush Sr. years and all through the Carter years...
Umm, huh? If Clinton was popular at several points in his term, this means Bush can't be popular now? I guess I'm not convinced...
It is. See all the comments about the US's almost-elected leader, Dubya. In a time when the National Guard wasn't accepting any more applications, he managed to get accepted. He then supposedly didn't actually show up for most of it.
Any cite for this? Yes he served in the NG, lots of people did, but your claim here is completely unbacked by evidence.
And yes, he's pretty much thought of as a useless coward whose daddy bought him safety and runs him like a puppet now.
Oh. That must explain the 76% approval ratings. Face it, you want people to think like this, but the fact is that 0.76 * 285,000,000 Americans disagree with you completely.
Is there something about opening eyes which you believe inclines people to support totalitarian dictatorships which pay their citizens to send their children to blow themselves up in the children's areas of restaurants in order to distract them from the fact that their own government is responsible for the misery they live in? Really?
Secondly Hoovers willingness to release known false "facts" casts doubt on any claim that these people were really soviet agents and didn't just have left leaning political views.
With due respect, the end of the cold war has resulted in the declassification of millions of pages of information by both sides, and it is no longer credible to claim this -- for all the liberal pieties, we have more evidence of the guilt of Hiss, the Rosenbergs, and many others than ever before, including the Venona intercepts, which are a comprehensive decryption of much of the communication back to the Soviet Union by their intelligence network here, the Mitrokhin archive, which is a large part of the KGB's archival records copied and smuggled out of Moscow as the Soviet Union fell, and a large number of casefiles which both the Soviets and Admericans have declassified.
I'd suggest you start with this book if you want a comprehensive history of Soviet intelligence activity in that period and beyond.
Are you arguing that it does?
As for history, it would be a mistake to let Senator McCarthy's grandstanding obscure the fact that there was in fact a massive Soviet attempt to infiltrate the US government and industry in the thirties, forties, and fifties, an effort which was initially extremely successfull -- at the time of FDR's death, the people he was planning to appoint to the positions of Secretary of State (Alger Hiss) and Secretary of the Treasury (Harry Dexter White) in his next term were both Soviet agents. Had Truman not selected other appointees, the results could have been truly catastrophic.
Against this background, objecting to the FBI's attempts to reign in this subversion is at best telling only half the story. And suggesting that the FBI is currently keeping files on anyone without cause is simply unfounded (as well as not making much sense -- unless you're suggesting they have the resources to keep files on everyone
OTOH the FBI can now read this thanks to the war on "terrorism"
So it's clear: you think the FBI should not be allowed to browse slashdot? Why not?
To put one thing staight right away, I don't put the blame for the conflict on the Israel alone. Both sides are about equally resonsible.
In what sense? Is the police officer who responds to a crime `as responsible' for the crime as the criminal who he responds to?
You seem to think that after the Oslo agreement pulled out of palestinian areas, this is not the case. They left a few areas they chose alone, in yet other areas they have started israeli settlements, presumedly to have a "right" to that land if there ever is international intervention
This is simply untrue. fully 98% of the West Bank has been under full PA control since Oslo. The remaining 2% are pre-existing settlements which Israel has indicated a willingness to hand over to PA control if the PA would provide police protection for the citizenship. In the current climate, where the PA police forces are the ones attacking the settlements, this is not feasible. Or are you arguing that the Palestinians have a right to ban Jews from living in their territory? In South Africa this was practiced against blacks and was called apartheid. In Germany, this was called Judenrein. Why would this be okay for the Palestinians? And do I need to remind you that in marked contrast to this Palestinians who live in Israel proper have all of the rights of Israeli citizens? Indeed, the last time I checked there were 17 Palestinian Arab members of the Israeli parliament (the Knesset).
Arafat is a known previous terrorist leader snd have made statements he has later withdrawn.
Arafat is the leader of the al-Aqsa brigades, Fatah, and Tanzim, the three groups responsible for the vast majority of the murder-suicide bombings committed over the last two years. He still to this day repeatedly calls for such bombings when speaking in Arabic, even while making overtures to the west in English.
Ariel Sharon has made similar statements about getting rid of the palestinian people.
Nonsense. Provide any credible cite for this claim.
Palestinian terrorists kill israeli civilians, Israel's soldiers kill palestinian civilians
The difference is that while Palestinians terrorists go out of their way to maximize civilian casualties, the Israeli army has gone way out of their way to avoid civilian casualties, such as fighting house-by-house instead of fighting from the air. In addition, despite wild claims made by the Palestinians earlier, even Arafat himself, in his official report of the fighting at Jenin confirms that only 53 Palestinians were killed in total in the fighting there, and all but one or two were combatants. Hamas, in their account of the fighting at Jenin confirms that those Palestinians who died there were combatants who died in battle.
Some palestinians believe that Allah has given them the right to kill for their land.
Yes. Arafat himself says this often.
Some Jews believe that God has given them a right to kill for their land.
If any Jews did believe this, they would be stopped by their own government -- or haven't you noticed the complete lack of terrorist attacks by Israelis against Palestinians? The fact is that Israel is fighting to avoid being the victim of genocide, and as much as you Europeans may relish the idea of abandoning the Jews to that fate for the second time in less than a century, they're not going to let that happen.
The only major difference is that one side has guns, planes and helicopters. The other side has a lot of people willing to sacrifice themselves for what they believe is right
No, the major difference is that one side is a free democracy fighting for it's right to peacably coexist with its neighbors, while the other side is a totalitarian dictatorship fighting to destroy its neighbors.
The two biggest problems to solve the conflict is that it's gone on for so long that there are people on both sides that would rather see their own people continue suffering than to make peace with their enemies
This is simply slander. The Israelis have again and again offered the Palestinians all of their demands (most recently in 2000), only to have the Palestinians come back with a new round of demands and a new wave of attacks on civilians.
The fact is, Palestinian school textbooks show Palestine as encompassing all of what is now Israel, and speak of Jews as `pigs and monkeys' who must be slaughtered. Palestinian leaders (including Arafat) repeatedly promise their own people the whole region and the destruction of Israel. The matter thus comes down to a simple choice: If the Palestinians stop the murder-suicide bombings, Israel will leave them alone, and there will be peace. If Israel stops defending itself, the Palestinians will commit genocide, and you Europeans won't care. Which do you think is the road to peace?
I have a theory as to why this has occured, just as we have a theory of gravity -- but if you tried to tell me that the next item I drop will fall up, it would be your job to explain this, not my job to work out a proof based in the theory of gravitation. Likewise, if you wish to claim that for some reason the next system to establish itself in Marx's ideas will miraculously not be a tyranny, it is your job to explain why we should believe this.
The rest of the world see an occupying country.
Which is amusing, as none of the west bank has been `occupied' at all since Oslo. Your excuses for the murder-suicide bombers and comparison to the Nazi occupation of Norway are particularly odious, coming as they do as part of Europe's attempt to wash their hands of the Jews for the second time in three generations.
Let's look at the facts here: even though Israel ended up with the West Bank as part of a war they were forced into after being attacked by the entire Arab world, they have been trying to reach a peace and return it for decades. In fact, they have given it back for all intents and purposes in 1993. All they have asked for in return is an end to the murders of Israeli civilians. They never got that end.
Now you speak as if Israel is wrong to seek to restrict Arafat as a response to the bombings, a stance which you can only take by willfully ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the murder-suicide bombings are being carried out by Arafat's own organizations, Tanzim and Fatah.
Why don't you admit that while the Israelis have made concession after concession, Arafat has said repeatedly that he will accept nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel (these are his own words!), and that he fully approves of the tactics (like setting off nail bombs in the children's area of restaurants) which his followers use to pursue this end.
Arafat openly calls for genocide against Israel, and as you did once before, you in Europe choose to blame the Jews when madmen call for their destruction.