News
Jewish terror suspect convicted
By Ahiya Raaved
Published: 24.05.05, 14:03
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
10 Talkbacks for this article
1. So terrorists are jewish too.
Mike ,   USA   (05.24.05)
first, good job to Israel for convicting your "own". All humans need to be unbiased or unprejudiced when terrorism is invloved. Second, well, so much for the old "terrorist are ARABS" only argument.
2. To Mike (1) - Let them eat cake
Shai ,   Israel   (05.24.05)
You remind me of the French queen, I think it was Marie Antoinette, who replied "let them eat cake" when she was told that her countrymen had no bread to eat. She had a complete misunderstanding of what she was being told, and thought that it was a question of menu choice her countrymen were complaining about, not the _quantity_ of food the Frenchmen had to eat. See the connection? For you, quantity isn't an issue because you read about our conflict on the net from your safe location in the US of A. For us, quantity is a BIG issue, since we're the victims of your cheering on these terrorists, and it shows the qualitative difference between two Peoples. We have an exception to the rule, their rule is to discourage exceptions.
3. 23,000 Arab Terror Attacks In 4 Years
(05.24.05)
And so few Jewish terrorist reprisals? Wow! The Arabs are lucky that you're not like they are or else they'd ALL be dead by now.
4. SHAI
Mike ,   USA   (05.24.05)
no, Shai, numbers count. As I watch the news and see dozens more US soldiers dying in Iraq. and for WHAT??? Whats the real reason. huh? NUMBERS COUNT. You miss a main point of the ISRAELiS dont need to be terrorists a because they HAVE A HUGE military supplied by the USA- the ARABS dont have a military. They resort to terrorisim (sadly enough) because they have NO OTHER WAY TO FIGHT BACK- for their land, people, injustices they feel the jews are doing to their people. and these jewish terrorists- they felt desperate enough to resort to the cowardly act of terrorism, because I am sure they felt enough frustration and anger against the Arabs.Most likely they had personal experiences with terrorism. Dont forget the King David hotel- one of the first terrorist acts in Israel- by a jewish group- because they desperately wanted the British out of Palestine-
5. Propaganda stunts or what?
Observer   (05.24.05)
This is merely a proaganda stunt by the Israeli government .... these two guys must be some old trash drug addicts who make the perfect escape goat for the killing of Palestinians practiced by the IDF on a daily basis and legitimised by the Israeli (in)justice department ...
6. Some questions for Mike (part 1)
Shai ,   Israel   (05.24.05)
Mike, give these questions serious consideration. Don't reach into the drawer for answers, give me real ones from your heart. Explain your point about US Soldiers dying in Iraq. Had they been more successful than they've been by now ("for what???"), would you support the Iraqi invasion? If there were less killed and more accomplished, it'd be OK? The way you phrased your dispute with the Iraq invasion is inconsistent. A dispute against their being in Iraq is not the same as disappointment at the results. Where to put the blame? Don't you think that the Turkish who refused to allow the US to set up a pincer position share some, so that the Iraqi insurgency would be forced to fight on two fronts? How about the Syrians who housed the deposed regime and allowed the insurgency to operate from there? How about Iran, which seeded Iraq with Shiite insurgents in the hope of hamstringing the US so they couldn't set their sights next on them? And why not express anger at the Europeans and the UN, especially France, and to a degree Germany, for withdrawing their support for the leader of the NATO alliance, the USA? All of these contributed to the situation you rue much more than the moral arguments you pose. There is little doubt that the Saddam Hussein regime was a source of support for insurgency in the whole Middle East against American interests, irrespective of their not having WMD at the time they were invaded. It's for America to decide their interests, and one of them was according to America's elected leadership the support of democracies rather than the past model of supporting strong dictators in the hope that THIS would result in Arab societies that advanced human rights rather than seethed in resentment for 800 years of defeats at the hands of foreign empires, producing terrorists. It saw the root cause as the political structure of these nations, not "Israel". So my first question is, do you really think that there is no moral argument to be made by the Bush Administration for their actions? What did you see as the alternative that would have accomplished the same thing? Defend your analysis.
7. For Mike , Part 2
Shai ,   Israel   (05.24.05)
Secondly, you claim that the Arabs don't have weapons. You'll recall that Israel supplied the Palestinians with 10's of thousands of weapons to protect Arafat's regime, at his request, and with the promise of enforcing peace on the renegades. He turned them on us. Remember that Israel is only permitted for reasons of political expediency only "proportional" responses to the weapons that the Palestinians received from us, so from the get-go that we have a large military is irrelevant. We can't use it against Pals. Remember as well that no small percentage of all of us killed by Pals were killed by materiel supplied by our government. The Palestinians are armed well enough, thanks to us, and we emasculated of our power politically enough, to cause your argument to evaporate. A lack of arms does not cause terrorism. Remember as well that we were in peace negotiations. There was no reason to start the Arafada, even out of desparation, when peace negotations were a suitable alternative to terrorism. Arafat made no counter-offer - look it up, it's a fact. His counter-offer was war. My second question is then, why don't you call the Palestinians to task for starting a second intefadeh when they could have quelled the uprising and continued with peace talks? Instead of another 4000 Palestinian and 1000 Israeli dead, there'd be two states side by side in peace. Just as the Pals have no embarrassment asking Israel for one-sided concessions, why can't you beg the Pals to offer some to have kept Barak afloat rather than pushing Sharon to a victory? Lastly, what's your definition of "terrorism"? Here's the conventional one - it's "a military attack on non-combatants (look it up, these can be soldiers, too, in certain instances) for the expressed and planned purpose of achieving political leverage and broad civilian demoralization by using random acts of violence to cause fear". Militaries as opposed to terrorists on the other hand use their attacks to prevent greater damage than their attacks cause. They are designed to staunch the spiral of damage, to be battles to end all battles, to save civilian lives, and sometimes you pay with 10 lives if not acting will result in the loss of 1000. Military decisions have tactical value, not political value. Therefore, they aren't terrorism. Re: King David Hotel, very few justify it, it was not the typical method of pre-state warfare, and my point was that such acts are few and far between as opposed to Palestinian chain-terrorism, which you don't have to go back 60 years to find an example of.
8. THEY SHOULD RUN FOR KNESSET
SAMUEL BLAIR ,   BOCA RATON USA   (05.25.05)
MR.GOLAN AND HIS FRIENDS SHOULD BE PUT ON PROBATION AND THEN THEY SHOULD RUN FOR THE KNESSET. SOMEDAY BECOME THE P.M. AND DO WHAT SHARON HASN'T THE COURAGE TO DO. LET THE WORLD KNOW WHAT A GREAT COUNTRY ISRAEL IS. HOW SHE IS THE MOST POWERFUL MILITARY FORCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. AND FEARS NO ONE INCLUDIING THE EU AND THE USA. SHALOM
9. Shai, You Made Excellent Points!!
Mark Melnicoff ,   Bethesda, MD   (05.25.05)
Nothing else needs to be said. I doubt Mike will have any comeback based on the REAL FACTS.
10. SHAI
Mike ,   USA   (05.25.05)
Hey, dude,I want to connect. I really do. I want peace as much as anyone.I am thinking and meditating on your post, . I will respond. I am just a bit spent right now, as I had a long day and your points need to be addressed honestly and clearly..
Back to article