Israel Destroys Entire Commercial Market in One Day ...

[Resistance]

(shortened a much longer headline)

Israel Destroys Entire Commercial Market in One Day in Largest Demolition in Years

Over 100 Shops and 5 Homes Demolished in Nazlat ‘Isa for the Building of the Wall

August 21, 2003. Nazlat ‘Isa, Occupied West Bank. PENGON/Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign. Marking the single largest demolition of buildings in years, the entire commercial area of Nazlat ‘Isa was today raised to the ground as some 15 bulldozers, accompanied by large numbers of military and border police, entered the community at 5:00 AM and destroyed over 100 shops and 5 homes. The market, which was previously targeted in January of this year with the destruction of 82 or close to of its shops, has been the commercial center for the entire region.

The bulldozers began the demolitions early in the morning and continued unabated until the late hours of the night.

The commercial area, just east of the Green Line in the Occupied West Bank, has been leveled for the building of an “isolation barrier”—an extension or offshoot of the Wall--that will entrap the community and the surrounding areas between it and the Wall to ensure complete isolation. Commercial areas along the Green Line have been consistently targeted with the building of the Wall in what assures that communities trapped between the Wall and the Green Line (the Wall in this case is located 2 km inside the West Bank) will have no infrastructure for survival.

Today, Nazlat ‘Isa saw countless tragic images of people clearing their shops and hurriedly removing goods and produce to safeguard their investments and livelihoods.

[rini]

1. once again

1. the can't occupy your own country
2. blame the victim for protecting themselves

good propoganda

[shockandawed]

2. who is the victim??

Are you saying the jews are victims for stealing the palestinians homeland (they were there first - both times) and being fought for it? Are you saying that tearing down homes and shops to make room for the new berlin wall ironically built by jews is not history doomed to repeat itself? Are you saying that the wall will provide real security?

[ignoranceisstrength]

8. How dare you question actions of israel!

After all, they are bush's friends!

hey, you anti-semite bastard! how dare you not revere the israeli's! They are god's people, and the Divine God (whom even our semi-divine president hails as Lord) gave that land to them long ago! The fact that even in the bible it is admitted that they stole the land from the palestinians is irrelevant!
And as one who lived in Germany (west) before and during the fall of the Great Wall of East Berlin, I can tell you that it is the perfect solution to the problem! The miles upon miles of landmines and watchtowers armed with automatic weapons was a far better choice than wussy diplomacy!

Ignorance Is Strength!!! Do Not Question the Accepted Truth!!! Or Else You Are A Racist Scum!!!


(because of this post, I will probably be reviled forever after as an anti-semite, which is kind of sad. I couldn't give less of a fuck what race or religion someone is, but I have noticed than anything not wholly supportive of israel's every action draws that dreaded label.
Aren't we the ones that oppose labels? Aren't we the ones that oppose terrorism? I'm not excusing the muslims for their attacks on innocent isralies, but nor will I excuse israeli's for their attacks on innocent muslims...
It saddens me that democrats are as quick to blind themselves to reality as repugs...
I know sit back and await the accusations of anti-semitism to rain upon me for this, similar to the way republican accusations of anti-americanism rain upon me because I despise bush.
God knows it's a sin not to share the same blind opinions as you...)

[Darranar]

47. Oh, don't worry...

I don't think your an anti-semite. In fact, I agree with you. (Assuming that your post was sarcasm.)

Few here are called anti-semites. A few pro-Palestinians elseswhere who don't post on DU are, though.

Welcome to DU, Ignoranceisstrength!

[Cujo]

6. I don't really think the Israelis are the victims here

Israel is too powerful to be a victim anymore. they recieve millions of dollars in military aid from the US and they also have total backing from the US. this time it is the Palestinians that are the victims.

[Resistance]

7. In this particular case

where an entire commercial market and 5 homes were bulldozed to the ground, no the victims are not Israeli.

[dfong63]

12. millions with a b

Israel is too powerful to be a victim anymore. they recieve millions of dollars in military aid from the US and they also have total backing from the US.

you mean "billions", as in thousands of millions. Israel is by far the dominant military power in the region.

sometimes i wonder --- does anyone else? --- whether part of the Israeli rage against the Palestinians might spring from some subconscious feeling of guilt that THEY (or their parents or grandparents) didn't wage their own "intifada" against the nazis' holocaust? the Palestinians are resisting valiantly in the face of impossible odds. they're using brutal and yes immoral methods. but don't the Israelis themselves use "survival" as the ultimate rationale for their own brutal and immoral acts? the intifada must be crushed, for if it were allowed to succeed in any way, it would raise the question of whether those millions of Jews who went quietly to the ovens in WWII, might have changed their own destiny by all-out resistance. instead of going down in history as the world's most piteous victims.

if Yasser Arafat had been born a Jew in Germany prior to WWII, he would have been an immortal hero. (an overstatement, i know.)

[vierundzwanzig]

9. It's called collective punishment

It is one of the crimes against humanity Israel commits on a daily basis.

Next time somebody shoots you because your uncle robbed a bank remember it.

[Resistance]

10. as another example

I despise the person who murdered Rachel Corrie - but I would not even entertain the thought of bulldozing down the home(s) of his family members. Only a sociopath would resort to a racist war crime like that.

[QuietStorm]

18. how is bulldozing on this par protecting Israel?

do all the terrorists run these shops? please enlighten me.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Thanks for the repeated propaganda...

1. The Occupied Territories aren't part of Israel, so yr comment about it not being possible to occupy yr own country has absolutely no relevance to what was posted....

2. If someone can turn the IDF into victims and the Palestinians who've had their businesses destroyed into agressors, they're spinning so hard that the smoke is causing more pollution than the combined output of the US and Europe combined....

Violet...

[mmm]

3. What can we do to stop the IOF?

[Resistance]

4. nothing

if you get in their way they will murder you too, like they did to Rachel Corrie.

[Herschel]

26. Rachel Corrie's death was suicide

What is the result of standing in a bulldozer's path? I think you know the answer.

[Karmadillo]

31. These suicidal maniacs can be quite the problem.

Here's the story of another, luckier one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/75679.stm

Impeding the instruments of government policy. Outrageous! What was he thinking?

[ThorsteinVeblen]

37. MLK's death was a suicide

What is the result of opening your big mouth against people in power? I think you know the answer.

[Herschel]

42. Do not compare

King's fate to that disturbed woman.

[dudeness]

46. Herschel

look into your own heart and find some sympathy for Ms Corrie..your description of her as "disturbed" is callous and indeed portrays you in a very dim light..

[Herschel]

48. Rachel Corrie

was an unfortunate being. For all the qualities she was claimed to have, perhaps she should not have wasted them to the bulldozer.

[Karmadillo]

51. Robert Fisk: Smearing the dead

http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk08262003.html

<edit>

But there's a far more hateful bit of denial and hypocrisy being played out now in the US over two young and beautiful women. The first, Private Jessica Lynch, is feted as an American heroine after being injured during the American invasion of Iraq and then "rescued" from her Iraqi hospital bed by US Special Forces. Now it just happens that Private Lynch--far from firing at her Iraqi attackers until the last bullet, as the Pentagon would have had us believe--was injured in a road accident between two military trucks during an ambush and that Iraqi doctors had been giving her special care when Lynch's "rescuers" burst into her unguarded hospital. But the second young American is a real heroine, a girl called Rachel Corrie who stood in front of an Israeli bulldozer that was about to demolish a Palestinian home and who was killed--wearing a clearly marked jacket and shouting through a loudspeaker--when the Israeli driver crushed her beneath his bulldozer and then drove backwards over her body again. All this was filmed. As a Jewish writer, Naomi Klein, bravely pointed out in The Guardian, "Unlike Lynch, Corrie did not go to Gaza to engage in combat; she went to try to thwart it." Yet not a single American government official has praised Rachel Corrie's courage or condemned her killing by the Israeli driver. President Bush has been gutlessly silent. For their part, the Israeli government tried to smear the activist group to which Rachel Corrie belonged by claiming that two Britons later involved in a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv had attended a memorial service to her--as if the organisers could have known of the wicked deed the two men had not yet committed.

But there's nothing new in smearing the dead, is there? Back in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s, I remember well how the British Army's press office at Lisburn in Co Antrim would respond to the mysterious death of British ex-soldiers or Englishmen who were inconveniently killed by British soldiers. The dead were always described as--and here, reader, draw in your breath--"Walter Mitty characters". I used to get sick of reading this smear in Belfast Telegraph headlines. Anonymous army officers would pass it along to the press. The guy was a Walter Mitty, a fantasist whose claims could not be believed. This was said of at least three dead men in Northern Ireland.

more...

[ThorsteinVeblen]

38. The Israeli Government murdered Rachel Corrie

And is no better than the Chinese Government who murdered people at Tieniman square.

What is the result of standing in a tank's path?

Sharon should be tried and hung by the Hague for the death of Rachel Corrie. Her parents should pull the lever.

People who protect and justify murderers of couragous young people make me sick.

[Herschel]

41. Please!

You have no conclusive evidence this was deliberate. Pure guessing. Do you believe this driver awoke to decide he would murder that day? Do you believe Sharon knew this disturbed woman would be just there just then? Do you believe a country's leader should be executed even should a member of their military commit murder? Oh, my.

[chapter32]

43. The “disturbed” part is with you

Do you have any conclusive evidence this was NOT deliberate?

How do you know if this driver didn’t murder that day? Because YOU say so?

Stop calling this woman you do not know and never met “disturbed”. It’s sickening.

[Herschel]

44. She stepped in front of the bulldozer

Unless you show the driver deliberately flattened her, the responsibility lies with her. Her actions including her suicidal encounter lead me to conclude she was disturbed. I am being kind. I will leave it at that.

[chapter32]

45. Take my hand, not my life

You apparently got that confused too.

"She stepped in front of the bulldozer. Unless you show the driver deliberately flattened her, the responsibility lies with her. Her actions including her suicidal encounter lead me to conclude she was disturbed. I am being kind. I will leave it at that."

What a well pressurized crock pot full of crap you say.

[madrchsod]

5. nothing

nothing at all

[dfong63]

13. as the old joke goes -

Q: how do you stop a charging elephant?
A: take away his credit card.

if we want to stop Israel's flagrant violations of international law, it seems the first and most obvious step would be to stop bankrolling them.


(i know, easier said than done.)

[beanball]

14. Stop aiding criminal action

stop the flow of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and there will be peace in the Holy land.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Or then again

Things will heat up and Israel, lacking U.S. aid, will be forced into a defensive posture that encourages it to go nuclear.

[thebigidea]

21. whoah

are you actually saying that US $$$ is what keeps Israel from using nuclear weapons?

Against who? The Palestinians?

Then again, perhaps its not THAT outrageous. Surely such use of a nuke would no doubt, uh... SAVE LIVES and END THE WAR sooner... after all, those Palestinians are fanatical, right? They'll never give up. Better use two nukes, then. Why, the survivors could then go on to create a thriving consumer electronics industry!

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Does Israel only have one enemy? Not likely

Israel faces numerous enemies in the Mideast who would be emboldened if the U.S. cut off aid and assistance to Israel. Individually, each could easily be handled by Israel right now. Together, Israel has been victorious against them, but it has been a dicier proposition.

Imagine this:

* Israel, unable to trade with other nations, runs out of spare parts for weapons. Expensive jet fighters and tanks drop in number as they are cannibalized for spare parts.
* Israel, unable to trade with other nations, has an economy that collapses resulting in widespread unemployment and susistence living.
* Arab nations, seizing this opportunity, attack Israel for the umpteenth time, gaining ground by use of modern weapons and knowing no one will aid Israel. They commit to the attack with unusual vigor.

Israel is now left with a few options:

* Sue for peace against enemies that have attacked it since the state was formed.
* Surrender to nations that wish to eliminate it from the face of the earth.
* Fight to the last conventionally and suffer a holocaust almost identical in number to what occurred in WWII.
* Use every weapon in its arsenal to defeat its enemies.

If you take YOUR scenario to its logical conclusion -- Israel cut off from the world entirely, this is not tough to imagine. No man, nor nation is an island.

[vierundzwanzig]

33. It also might

try to start forging amicable relationships, something it should have done from day one.

Let's get history right: Israel was the aggressor, not the other way around.

What do you and I do when we see we acted improperly: I, for one, do apologize. And then one makes amends.

Sharon's Israel (and Meir's and Gurin's and countless other's) knos no such concept. It is under the same irrational impression as the U.S. in general that war breeds peace.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. The aggressor?

Not likely. Israel has fought just to survive for 55 years. That doesn't make it an aggressor, that makes it a survivor.

[StandWatie]

28. that could be correct

Until W and the PNAC's ascent Israel's interest was in toppling every government in the middle east and setting up Israeli puppets. The US goal was status quo so there was a sort of leash affect. I'm not positive that hasn't changed as US policy now.

[QuietStorm]

30. the leash effect

Yes I keep wondering when that will kick in. I have anticipated that Bush would pull the reigns at one point. I also have vaciliated how much Israel at that time would comply having been given such free reign since the new US administration took over. I also agree with Violet's post below. Time will tell.

[QuietStorm]

20. nothing

the time for doing was perhaps two years ago when mofaz's plan first hit the net. Only now has the Guardian chosen to pin point it as the weakness in US strategy

shall I get the link again? I already placed here in other threads. no one ever seemed to grasp the signifcance of Mofaz' plan ...

It does seem to be too late. Mofaz's plan has pretty much been exacted we all just need hold our breaths until comes the time when between the US and Israel their next preemptive strike is justified.

Count your blessing people count your blessing because we may have pasted the point of no return. I do fear muddleoftheroad may be right on this one. Let us hope not.

[starroute]

11. Is it possible to sit shiva for an entire country?

I remember my mother telling me when I was a little kid about people sitting shiva -- that is, engaging in the Jewish funeral ritual -- as a way of ritually casting out family members who they felt had brought shame upon the entire family.

It struck me at the time as being a frighteningly primitive gesture, yet also as the ultimate act of moral commentary.

For some reason, this thread reminded me of all that.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Herschel]

27. America has it's own misguided peace movements

Not unlike these. I will leave it at that.

[Tinoire]

32. Heaven forbid we have peace in this world right! n/t

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[StandWatie]

36. yeah, that's exactly what happened..

Not to try and suggest that maybe that isn't really possible why in God's name would they leave at all? There was way, way, more of them than there were Jews, if they just wanted to "rape the women" or whatever they could have done so very easily by just marching outside and doing it. Why did they have to leave to go do this.

on edit: Your gross appeals to anti-semitism to bolster your own insane "God the Real Estate Agent" agenda is in poor taste.

[eablair3]

17. PICTURES HERE

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1851.shtml

thanks for the post there Tinoire

[QuietStorm]

19. well I have read through all posts

this was always my worry. I am not surprised we got here. and yes I agree with muddleoftheroad for the first time veering at this time from Israel might prove nuclear. At least it has been a thought I have had often.

My question to muddleoftheroad would be how would he justify that IF it should happen. I see it seems he can justify demolitions or at least the posts of have read of his seems to back all IDF actions with little exception. I apologize before hand if this is incorrect I arrived and did not participate in IP but only LBN and other forums here so I speak perhaps prematurely.

It was the way you phrased you statement - cutting Israel off now (which clearly the US at this time has no intention of doing) would "force" them to go nuclear. If this time should come can you defend an action of this nature? From very early on when I began coming to the history and the information this was a worry of mine. I read mofaz' plan it was clear to me what was going on. but pragmatism is the order of the day and it can sometimes help maintain status quo as well.

IF the bus bombing was a new low well it looks to me like it will be beaten by a long shot over the coming weeks.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. I don' t agree with what Muddle said...

Using those nuclear weapons that Israel insists it doesn't have because they've declared to the world that they won't be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, would be a sure-fire way to destroy Israel. Unless something totally bizarre happened and an extremist lunatic became PM, I can't see any leader of a major party there ever taking that sort of step. Even if they were in a position where a nuclear strike wouldn't result in the short or long-term deaths of many Israelis, there's a few other reasons why nuclear weapons will never be seriously considered. The experience of the US where for a few years they had total nuclear supremacy didn't deter the Soviets from giving them the finger in Eastern Europe. Nuking North Vietnam was one of the four options Nixon was given when he became President, but it was never seriously considered because of the internal opposition it would have caused in the US, and also because the Chinese or the Soviets might then have gone and nuked Saigon and no-one wanted to think about where it could go from there. Using a nuclear weapon wouldn't be something the US would turn a blind eye to either, I wouldn't think. Plus, it's a little bit difficult for even Israel to deny it has nuclear weapons if it goes and uses one. And finally, there is no way a nation that uses a nuclear weapon can paint itself as a victim, and it seems to me that the GOI is way too fond of painting itself as a victim to ever give up that status...

Violet...

[QuietStorm]

29. good points

I had considered also that going nuclear would also make inhabitable the very land all seem to cherish so. So it wouldn't make much sense. At least that is a consellation. It would have to be a very grave consideration anyone goes nuke, as your post articulates. I guess the thread was a really downer and I was sorry I had come into after I did and I came to it quite late last night.

Your thoughts are much clearer than mine I posted last night. Let's all hope all these guys concerned maintain reason, logic, and pragmatic deduction. Since neither the US or Israel seems to like diplomacy these days, it leaves one to speculate along the more graver lines than one might generally consider.

As to painting themselves the victim. With knowledge of this kind of heavy handedness one acquaints themselves with in regards to IP politics and policies, in my mind they ceased to be the victim about a year and a half ago.

Peace

[Violet_Crumble]

39. I've been trying to work out any advantage those weapons give Israel...

And I can't think of any. When it comes to deterrence, I can't see what value nuclear weapons would have for Israel. With the US and the Soviet Union there was always the fear that the weapons *might* end up being used, and that's what both sides based their massive weapons programs on. If Israel's intention is to deter other Middle Eastern states with these weapons Israel to this day denies exists, there has to be some fear that Israel might end up using them. As Israel can't use them without destroying itself in the process, there goes the deterrence value. I heard something a while back that there was a plan in the UN to declare the Middle East a nuclear-free region and this had the support of all states in the region except for Israel. If Israel keeps going down this path, then eventually another nation in the region is going to feel so insecure that it's going to start trying to produce its own nuclear weapons. They could either do what Israel does and blatantly lie and say the weapons don't exist, or they could use the excuse that every other nuclear power uses that possessing these weapons ensures its security. And in ensuring its own security, this state would ensure that Israel would get even more insecure than it already claims it is and there could be a full-blown arms race in the Middle East, which is complete insanity that no-one should want to see happen...


Cheers....

Violet...

[QuietStorm]

49. hmmm well

Iran maybe a contender there. I know they have been working steadily toward nuclear capabilities (various sources). Whether they have the bomb to justify Israel or the US use of it? I know there are various thoughts on that. At one point one of the think tanks speculated that at the rate Iran was developing their nuclear program, the study concluded they Iran could have the bomb somewhere between 2003 and 2007. On the other hand I have heard analysis to suggest this think tank overestimated Iran's capabilities and how far along they realy were. Between Iraq and Iran, I always felt it was Iran that was more the nuclear heavy.

If the NPT were taken more seriously we'd have less to worry about, but there again neither the US or Israel is interested in signing it. The Freepers support this. I vascilate on whether or not this could go nuke (not necessarily the bomb just nuke). sometimes my emotions get in the way of good steady, pragmatic consideration, but when I am not thinking via my emotions, I must say besides the fact that there seems to be a level of irrationality evident here, I can not imagine what purpose it would serve. It would just render the land uninhabitable by all and defeat the purpose from a revenue standpoint. The more I get a grip on the history, the more in balance I can look at this. I must say that the whole war analysis plagues me. I am a pacifist so all these varying degrees in terms of war legalities and moralities I find ridiculous.

There has been exchanges of bravado between Isreal and Iran -- you know if you hit me I'll hit you back harder. The last series of articles that cropped up seems to have us once again focusing on Syria. I remain focused on a potential preemptive strike. That seems in the cards, but going nuclear that would be too disadvantageous for all concerned and all the various alliances that might kick in would have to be very carefully considered. It does not seem realistic as an option. With this pending escalation or build up in troops things seem dramatic to say the least.

The problem in terms of critical analysis that I am having is factoring in just how wrapped up US strategy is with Israel. There were a couple of good articles regarding turkey, Iraq and Israel that seemed to suggest the plan is shift the management of Oil in the region to Israel. Of course than Saudia Arabia comes into play and OPEC and too Russia would come into play as Russia has interests (as does other European countries. Another article I read suggested breaking OPEC is part of the overall strategy. These guys have a good deal to juggle.

What does not bode well for me is observing just how disorganized the US regime seems and their seemingly utter lack or understanding or regard for Islam (beyond the propaganda that is coming through the media). This last chapter in terms of the infrastructural damage in Iraq has got to have had its sting. I have absorbed a great deal of information over a relatively short period of time. For this kind of analysis one really needs to have a very good frame of reference. And again there does not seem to be much of a concensus on forum in regard to who has laid the groundwork for US strategy. The level of arrogance as well as evidence of anti-arabism from a bigoted standpoint bothers me. I do not get these peoples lives are really worth much of anything to those involved with strategy....

Thus far in terms of IP... for all the suicide bombers and militaristic aspects of the resistance over the years, while it has yet to be quelled, the Palistianian militarism is no match and is virtually ineffectual. Their campaign does more harm than good. Yet with the constant Israel aggression over the last three years short of dropping all arms and going non-violent, they are pushed into a corner. We can not ignore the gross violation exhibited by Israel in terms of total infrastructual damage and complete disregard of that property within the line of construction for that wall. Of course I see no good faith shown on the US and the Israel side. All important matters are held on final status and the dead in the water roadmap is an extension of Oslo and it which hardly had Israel relinquishing any power. Between a rock and a hard place. It is kind of like: How can we look like we are giving them a state, without addressing any of the important concerns and grievances. And yes I see the militants on the Palestinian side is problematic , but not any less or more than the racist Policies of the RW at play here and throughout this conflict.

The propaganda has always suggested that the Palestinian militias is the hub of all terrorism and the islamic militant fundamentalists are networked around them. I have always found this hard to believe. Hamas in the scheme of things is extraordinarily ineffectual. Look, in the last two, three years; the place has been flattened. Whatever has been in the way of Israeli construction plans has just bulldozed, no questions asked, no fuss no bother. Hamas hardly served to stop any of that. Now Yassin calls to Pakistan to deny Israel's existance according to a recent article. I have read militants are coming in from S. Arabia to Iraq...

Nukes? certainly they are an option. One would think that at one point (short of the bomb) low level nukes might come into play if the resistance becomes too overwhelming. Than again looks like these guys are up for another Vietnam. Seems thus far the benefits out weigh the risks and losses, at least according to their perspective. The boys were at first coming home by July 4th now various analysis is saying 5 years, while we have an equally plagueing war staging in Afghanistan. It is way beyond my comprehension.

Again, factoring Israel into this requires knowledge of how behind the scenes they are active in Iraq. If one looks at history certainly one knows various legs of Israeli intelligence certainly had its infiltration in Iraq as well. One would think that never changed per se, and this infiltraiton comes intertwines with the US effort. At least one would think. I am having my problems separating Israeli strategy from US strategy. I find if I am tending to evaluate this more from what I have learned about Israel tactic rather the US tactic, and I do not factor out any use of "dirty pool" tactics.

I had no intension of going on. I guess it requires a very hearty discussion. I overflow... not sure this addressed your thoughts, but to sum it up I can not see where going nuke would be in the interest for anyone concerned but for the smell of victory and the level of arrogance on display here (I speak specifically of both the US and Israel in this regard). Sorry I jumped around a great deal. There is much on my mind about it. Sorry for going on.

[QuietStorm]

50. Violet: Iran nukes still a concern - IAEA in LBN

It seems to me there are potentially two places where pre-emptive strikes are being considered (or being beefed up for). Syria which is the way of the Mosul to Haifa pipeline and Israel just pointed their fingers at for the UN bombing, in an article (before the unknown group Mohammed's Army claimed the UNBOMBING)...AND Iran with wherein another recent article had Israel stating Iran was a threat to the whole world and Iran warning if they were hit first there would be serious repercussions. Please understand I am not saying Israel will get outwardly into the act. However, it really does appear Israeli military and intelligence strategists are working very closely with US military strategists. That isn't that big a stretch of the imagination.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=83695

[StandWatie]

52. blackmail among other things..

It was used to force Kissinger to airlift supplies to Israel in the Yom Kippur war. Nuclear weapons have many uses.

[Kbowe]

24. It's time to freeze Israeli charity accounts and aid...

If the US is freezing Palestinian accounts because of suicide bombings in Israel, then it is time for the US to freeze Israeli assets because of incursions into Palestinian territories, bulldozing of civilian homes, land grabs by settlers, and direct assassinations. When will the American people wake up and see that its sons and daughters are nothing more than hired chattel to support and defend one of the most repressive and evil and lying governments on earth?

[rini]

34. freeze

When they are used for murder, ok, but unlike some Arab charities, all Israeli charities use at least part of the money for those in need. The other part like ours is used for salaries and adminstrative needs.