War in Middle East - part XXVVVII

[Southover Street Seagull]

Yes, 632 is in the 1st millennium I referred to? You need to re-read....

Originally Posted by portlock seagull

When did it ever stop? Pause maybe, but it's been going for at least 2 millennium!

Originally Posted by Southover Street Seagull

The war between Muslim and Jew can't have been going on for two millennia as Islam was only founded around 632 AD!


I have re-read your post and to quote you " but it's been going for at least 2 millennium!"

Well the OED says this about a millennium:

millennium
/milenim/

• noun (pl. millennia or millenniums) 1 a period of a thousand years, especially when calculated from the traditional date of the birth of Christ. 2 (the millennium) the point at which one period of a thousand years ends and another begins. 3 (the millennium) Christian Theology the prophesied thousand-year reign of Christ at the end of the age. 4 an anniversary of a thousand years.

So by saying " but it's been going for at least 2 millennium!" you seem to be saying it's been going for at least two thousand years, which as I quite correctly pointed out, it hasn't!

 

[Simster]

Words sometimes aren't necessary to show how sickening incorrect your arguement is nor what murderous zealots Israelis really are.

I struggle to remember when we sent in warplanes, battalions of troops armed to the hilt and heavy artillery into fight the IRA. We used much more targeted strategies and guess what - we now have peace -

Hmmm, seems a trifle self righteous IMO. It wasn't all that long ago we allowed our army to fire on 12 unarmed civilians on the streets of Londonderry/Derry, and then white-washed the investigation - all of which drip-fed a generation of Irish catholics into the arms of extremists.

 

[m20gull]

Hmmm, seems a trifle self righteous IMO. It wasn't all that long ago we allowed our army to fire on 12 unarmed civilians on the streets of Londonderry/Derry, and then white-washed the investigation - all of which drip-fed a generation of Irish catholics into the arms of extremists.

"allowed" is not the same as "sent in". And they weren't "unarmed". They may not have had guns but that's not the same as unarmed.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

This week, Israeli warplanes pounded Hamas strongholds in the Gaza Strip. The goal of the operation is to strike a major blow to Hamas's terror infrastructure and the ability of Hamas and its allied organizations to launch missiles and mortar shells at Israeli citizens and execute terror attacks of various kinds, such as kidnapping Israeli civilians.

<snip>

Hamas steadfastly refuses to recognize Israel and continues to launch attacks on its neighbor. Since Hamas refuses to live in peace with Israel, the Israeli government has no choice but to seek Hamas' replacement.

If, and it's a very big IF, this were the truth then Israel would be happy to have the worlds press in the war zone to report on it. As it is they're clearly scared that their lies will be shown for what they are. I just hope the UN carries out investigations once it's all over and indites Israeli troops, commanders and leaders for war crimes.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

why is it racist to call for all research into sycal cell animia to be banned?


A Zionist is someone who accepts or beleives there should be a state of Israel.

Sorry far too simplistic. Zionism is the movement that insisted on the creation of a Jewish State based on the historic / legendary State of David's Israel, regardless of the cost and whether anyone else lived there or not. This was based purely on religious grounds and completely ignored the fact that there were very few Jews actually living there at the trime. It's a bit like the English demanding Normandy back, even though hardly any English live there.

Well, of course it's not ... because the English havn't been persecuted for hundreds of years , treated like second class citizens and suffered the holocaust.

Any of you got children? What happens to children who are bullied throughout childhood, persecuted etc.... They grow up to be.....?

ergo... Israel.

 

[User removed 4]

why is it racist to call for all research into sycal cell animia to be banned?


A Zionist is someone who accepts or beleives there should be a state of Israel.


If you dont beleive in it you need to state how it would be dismantled peacefully without resorting to ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.

This is were ANTI-Semetics like bushy come unstuck, they either refuse to answer the question or their response seems decended from cloud cuckoo land.

Untill you can produce a rational responce that isn't wacked out utopianism I will continue to beleive you are an anti-semetic. Or just plane insane.

israel isnt going to be dismantled , nor do i believe its possible to do so, therefore lets accept that a peaceful solution needs to be worked out, pragmatism is the order of the day i think, but that doesnt mean i subscribe to the theory that it has a "right to exist" , there are a lot of things wrong with the world that arent going to go away , but we have to learn to live with them as best we can , but that doesnt mean they are right,so yet again i will specifically ask you looney and also lord large , what is anti semitic about not recognising israel's right to exist ?

 

[User removed 4]

Hmmm, seems a trifle self righteous IMO. It wasn't all that long ago we allowed our army to fire on 12 unarmed civilians on the streets of Londonderry/Derry, and then white-washed the investigation - all of which drip-fed a generation of Irish catholics into the arms of extremists.

how do you know the invwestigation was whitewashed ? how do you know what happened that day ? i guarantee i speak on the subject of northern ireland with a f***ing sight more experience than you .

 

[looney]

israel isnt going to be dismantled , nor do i believe its possible to do so, therefore lets accept that a peaceful solution needs to be worked out, pragmatism is the order of the day i think, but that doesnt mean i subscribe to the theory that it has a "right to exist" , there are a lot of things wrong with the world that arent going to go away , but we have to learn to live with them as best we can , but that doesnt mean they are right,so yet again i will specifically ask you looney and also lord large , what is anti semitic about not recognising israel's right to exist ?

Black emanicipation from slavery isn't going to be dismantled, nor do i beleive its possible to do so....pragmatism is the order of the day i think, but that doesn't mean i subscribe to the theory that blacks should be free/equal,there are a lot of things wrong with the world that arent going to go away , but we have to learn to live with them as best we can , but that doesnt mean they are right,so yet again i will specifically ask you looney and also lord large , what is racist about not recognising black peoples right to freedom?

 

[brighton bluenose]

Black emanicipation from slavery isn't going to be dismantled, nor do i beleive its possible to do so....pragmatism is the order of the day i think, but that doesn't mean i subscribe to the theory that blacks should be free/equal,there are a lot of things wrong with the world that arent going to go away , but we have to learn to live with them as best we can , but that doesnt mean they are right,so yet again i will specifically ask you looney and also lord large , what is racist about not recognising black peoples right to freedom?

Chalk and cheese!!

Bushys standpoint is a political or moral one.

The one you are putting forward is based on a`racist viewpoint (not yours I'm sure!).

 

[User removed 4]

Black emanicipation from slavery isn't going to be dismantled, nor do i beleive its possible to do so....pragmatism is the order of the day i think, but that doesn't mean i subscribe to the theory that blacks should be free/equal,there are a lot of things wrong with the world that arent going to go away , but we have to learn to live with them as best we can , but that doesnt mean they are right,so yet again i will specifically ask you looney and also lord large , what is racist about not recognising black peoples right to freedom?

sorry mate, you've lost me ?

 

[Dandyman]

why is it racist to call for all research into sycal cell animia to be banned?


A Zionist is someone who accepts or beleives there should be a state of Israel.


If you dont beleive in it you need to state how it would be dismantled peacefully without resorting to ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.

This is were ANTI-Semetics like bushy come unstuck, they either refuse to answer the question or their response seems decended from cloud cuckoo land.

Untill you can produce a rational responce that isn't wacked out utopianism I will continue to beleive you are an anti-semetic. Or just plane insane.

Bushy is not an anti-semite nor is questioning Israel's right to exist anti-semitic per se (which is not to say some anti-semites don't hide under a anti-zionist banner or that not questioning Pakistan's right to exist as well does not set the danger of a double standard).

A two state solution in which the two states build a structure of economic, social and political ties with each other with the possibility of eventual federation or union is at least one peaceful way in which the current exclusivist racist nature of Israel could be transformed over time. Given that the current war is a cynical exercise in electioneering and an attempt to have a permanent bantustan Palestinian existence it's probably not likely to happen soon, however.

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

israel isnt going to be dismantled , nor do i believe its possible to do so, therefore lets accept that a peaceful solution needs to be worked out, pragmatism is the order of the day i think, but that doesnt mean i subscribe to the theory that it has a "right to exist" , there are a lot of things wrong with the world that arent going to go away , but we have to learn to live with them as best we can , but that doesnt mean they are right,so yet again i will specifically ask you looney and also lord large , what is anti semitic about not recognising israel's right to exist ?

how do you clarify 'right to exist' ? How far do you go back in history before you draw a line ? Very, very thin argument....

 

[Dandyman]

This is an Israeli's critical view of Israel's behaviour and worth reading IMO..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine


The only way to make sense of Israel's senseless war in Gaza is through understanding the historical context. Establishing the state of Israel in May 1948 involved a monumental injustice to the Palestinians. British officials bitterly resented American partisanship on behalf of the infant state. On 2 June 1948, Sir John Troutbeck wrote to the foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, that the Americans were responsible for the creation of a gangster state headed by "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". I used to think that this judgment was too harsh but Israel's vicious assault on the people of Gaza, and the Bush administration's complicity in this assault, have reopened the question.

I write as someone who served loyally in the Israeli army in the mid-1960s and who has never questioned the legitimacy of the state of Israel within its pre-1967 borders. What I utterly reject is the Zionist colonial project beyond the Green Line. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the June 1967 war had very little to do with security and everything to do with territorial expansionism. The aim was to establish Greater Israel through permanent political, economic and military control over the Palestinian territories. And the result has been one of the most prolonged and brutal military occupations of modern times.

Four decades of Israeli control did incalculable damage to the economy of the Gaza Strip. With a large population of 1948 refugees crammed into a tiny strip of land, with no infrastructure or natural resources, Gaza's prospects were never bright. Gaza, however, is not simply a case of economic under-development but a uniquely cruel case of deliberate de-development. To use the Biblical phrase, Israel turned the people of Gaza into the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, into a source of cheap labour and a captive market for Israeli goods. The development of local industry was actively impeded so as to make it impossible for the Palestinians to end their subordination to Israel and to establish the economic underpinnings essential for real political independence.

Gaza is a classic case of colonial exploitation in the post-colonial era. Jewish settlements in occupied territories are immoral, illegal and an insurmountable obstacle to peace. They are at once the instrument of exploitation and the symbol of the hated occupation. In Gaza, the Jewish settlers numbered only 8,000 in 2005 compared with 1.4 million local residents. Yet the settlers controlled 25% of the territory, 40% of the arable land and the lion's share of the scarce water resources. Cheek by jowl with these foreign intruders, the majority of the local population lived in abject poverty and unimaginable misery. Eighty per cent of them still subsist on less than $2 a day. The living conditions in the strip remain an affront to civilised values, a powerful precipitant to resistance and a fertile breeding ground for political extremism.

In August 2005 a Likud government headed by Ariel Sharon staged a unilateral Israeli pullout from Gaza, withdrawing all 8,000 settlers and destroying the houses and farms they had left behind. Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement, conducted an effective campaign to drive the Israelis out of Gaza. The withdrawal was a humiliation for the Israeli Defence Forces. To the world, Sharon presented the withdrawal from Gaza as a contribution to peace based on a two-state solution. But in the year after, another 12,000 Israelis settled on the West Bank, further reducing the scope for an independent Palestinian state. Land-grabbing and peace-making are simply incompatible. Israel had a choice and it chose land over peace.

The real purpose behind the move was to redraw unilaterally the borders of Greater Israel by incorporating the main settlement blocs on the West Bank to the state of Israel. Withdrawal from Gaza was thus not a prelude to a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority but a prelude to further Zionist expansion on the West Bank. It was a unilateral Israeli move undertaken in what was seen, mistakenly in my view, as an Israeli national interest. Anchored in a fundamental rejection of the Palestinian national identity, the withdrawal from Gaza was part of a long-term effort to deny the Palestinian people any independent political existence on their land.

Israel's settlers were withdrawn but Israeli soldiers continued to control all access to the Gaza Strip by land, sea and air. Gaza was converted overnight into an open-air prison. From this point on, the Israeli air force enjoyed unrestricted freedom to drop bombs, to make sonic booms by flying low and breaking the sound barrier, and to terrorise the hapless inhabitants of this prison.

Israel likes to portray itself as an island of democracy in a sea of authoritarianism. Yet Israel has never in its entire history done anything to promote democracy on the Arab side and has done a great deal to undermine it. Israel has a long history of secret collaboration with reactionary Arab regimes to suppress Palestinian nationalism. Despite all the handicaps, the Palestinian people succeeded in building the only genuine democracy in the Arab world with the possible exception of Lebanon. In January 2006, free and fair elections for the Legislative Council of the Palestinian Authority brought to power a Hamas-led government. Israel, however, refused to recognise the democratically elected government, claiming that Hamas is purely and simply a terrorist organisation.

America and the EU shamelessly joined Israel in ostracising and demonising the Hamas government and in trying to bring it down by withholding tax revenues and foreign aid. A surreal situation thus developed with a significant part of the international community imposing economic sanctions not against the occupier but against the occupied, not against the oppressor but against the oppressed.

As so often in the tragic history of Palestine, the victims were blamed for their own misfortunes. Israel's propaganda machine persistently purveyed the notion that the Palestinians are terrorists, that they reject coexistence with the Jewish state, that their nationalism is little more than antisemitism, that Hamas is just a bunch of religious fanatics and that Islam is incompatible with democracy. But the simple truth is that the Palestinian people are a normal people with normal aspirations. They are no better but they are no worse than any other national group. What they aspire to, above all, is a piece of land to call their own on which to live in freedom and dignity.

Like other radical movements, Hamas began to moderate its political programme following its rise to power. From the ideological rejectionism of its charter, it began to move towards pragmatic accommodation of a two-state solution. In March 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed a national unity government that was ready to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with Israel. Israel, however, refused to negotiate with a government that included Hamas.

It continued to play the old game of divide and rule between rival Palestinian factions. In the late 1980s, Israel had supported the nascent Hamas in order to weaken Fatah, the secular nationalist movement led by Yasser Arafat. Now Israel began to encourage the corrupt and pliant Fatah leaders to overthrow their religious political rivals and recapture power. Aggressive American neoconservatives participated in the sinister plot to instigate a Palestinian civil war. Their meddling was a major factor in the collapse of the national unity government and in driving Hamas to seize power in Gaza in June 2007 to pre-empt a Fatah coup.

The war unleashed by Israel on Gaza on 27 December was the culmination of a series of clashes and confrontations with the Hamas government. In a broader sense, however, it is a war between Israel and the Palestinian people, because the people had elected the party to power. The declared aim of the war is to weaken Hamas and to intensify the pressure until its leaders agree to a new ceasefire on Israel's terms. The undeclared aim is to ensure that the Palestinians in Gaza are seen by the world simply as a humanitarian problem and thus to derail their struggle for independence and statehood.

The timing of the war was determined by political expediency. A general election is scheduled for 10 February and, in the lead-up to the election, all the main contenders are looking for an opportunity to prove their toughness. The army top brass had been champing at the bit to deliver a crushing blow to Hamas in order to remove the stain left on their reputation by the failure of the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon in July 2006. Israel's cynical leaders could also count on apathy and impotence of the pro-western Arab regimes and on blind support from President Bush in the twilight of his term in the White House. Bush readily obliged by putting all the blame for the crisis on Hamas, vetoing proposals at the UN Security Council for an immediate ceasefire and issuing Israel with a free pass to mount a ground invasion of Gaza.

As always, mighty Israel claims to be the victim of Palestinian aggression but the sheer asymmetry of power between the two sides leaves little room for doubt as to who is the real victim. This is indeed a conflict between David and Goliath but the Biblical image has been inverted - a small and defenceless Palestinian David faces a heavily armed, merciless and overbearing Israeli Goliath. The resort to brute military force is accompanied, as always, by the shrill rhetoric of victimhood and a farrago of self-pity overlaid with self-righteousness. In Hebrew this is known as the syndrome of bokhim ve-yorim, "crying and shooting".

To be sure, Hamas is not an entirely innocent party in this conflict. Denied the fruit of its electoral victory and confronted with an unscrupulous adversary, it has resorted to the weapon of the weak - terror. Militants from Hamas and Islamic Jihad kept launching Qassam rocket attacks against Israeli settlements near the border with Gaza until Egypt brokered a six-month ceasefire last June. The damage caused by these primitive rockets is minimal but the psychological impact is immense, prompting the public to demand protection from its government. Under the circumstances, Israel had the right to act in self-defence but its response to the pinpricks of rocket attacks was totally disproportionate. The figures speak for themselves. In the three years after the withdrawal from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. On the other hand, in 2005-7 alone, the IDF killed 1,290 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children.

Whatever the numbers, killing civilians is wrong. This rule applies to Israel as much as it does to Hamas, but Israel's entire record is one of unbridled and unremitting brutality towards the inhabitants of Gaza. Israel also maintained the blockade of Gaza after the ceasefire came into force which, in the view of the Hamas leaders, amounted to a violation of the agreement. During the ceasefire, Israel prevented any exports from leaving the strip in clear violation of a 2005 accord, leading to a sharp drop in employment opportunities. Officially, 49.1% of the population is unemployed. At the same time, Israel restricted drastically the number of trucks carrying food, fuel, cooking-gas canisters, spare parts for water and sanitation plants, and medical supplies to Gaza. It is difficult to see how starving and freezing the civilians of Gaza could protect the people on the Israeli side of the border. But even if it did, it would still be immoral, a form of collective punishment that is strictly forbidden by international humanitarian law.

The brutality of Israel's soldiers is fully matched by the mendacity of its spokesmen. Eight months before launching the current war on Gaza, Israel established a National Information Directorate. The core messages of this directorate to the media are that Hamas broke the ceasefire agreements; that Israel's objective is the defence of its population; and that Israel's forces are taking the utmost care not to hurt innocent civilians. Israel's spin doctors have been remarkably successful in getting this message across. But, in essence, their propaganda is a pack of lies.

A wide gap separates the reality of Israel's actions from the rhetoric of its spokesmen. It was not Hamas but the IDF that broke the ceasefire. It di d so by a raid into Gaza on 4 November that killed six Hamas men. Israel's objective is not just the defence of its population but the eventual overthrow of the Hamas government in Gaza by turning the people against their rulers. And far from taking care to spare civilians, Israel is guilty of indiscriminate bombing and of a three-year-old blockade that has brought the inhabitants of Gaza, now 1.5 million, to the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe.

The Biblical injunction of an eye for an eye is savage enough. But Israel's insane offensive against Gaza seems to follow the logic of an eye for an eyelash. After eight days of bombing, with a death toll of more than 400 Palestinians and four Israelis, the gung-ho cabinet ordered a land invasion of Gaza the consequences of which are incalculable.

No amount of military escalation can buy Israel immunity from rocket attacks from the military wing of Hamas. Despite all the death and destruction that Israel has inflicted on them, they kept up their resistance and they kept firing their rockets. This is a movement that glorifies victimhood and martyrdom. There is simply no military solution to the conflict between the two communities. The problem with Israel's concept of security is that it denies even the most elementary security to the other community. The only way for Israel to achieve security is not through shooting but through talks with Hamas, which has repeatedly declared its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with the Jewish state within its pre-1967 borders for 20, 30, or even 50 years. Israel has rejected this offer for the same reason it spurned the Arab League peace plan of 2002, which is still on the table: it involves concessions and compromises.

This brief review of Israel's record over the past four decades makes it difficult to resist the conclusion that it has become a rogue state with "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria; the cap fits and it must wear it. Israel's real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbours but military domination. It keeps compounding the mistakes of the past with new and more disastrous ones. Politicians, like everyone else, are of course free to repeat the lies and mistakes of the past. But it is not mandatory to do so.

• Avi Shlaim is a professor of international relations at the University of Oxford and the author of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World and of Lion of Jordan: King Hussein's Life in War and Peace.

 

[captainmorganrum]

This is an Israeli's critical view of Israel's behaviour and worth reading IMO..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine

I was just about to post that link.

A really good article by a Jewish professor ex Israeli army that for me anyway exposes the truth about this conflict.

A rare insight amongst the main stream media and because he is Jewish is allowed to say things critical of the Israeli government and avoid the usual charge of anti semitism.

 

[User removed 4]

how do you clarify 'right to exist' ? How far do you go back in history before you draw a line ? Very, very thin argument....

very very lame attempt at a wind up !!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

This is an Israeli's critical view of Israel's behaviour and worth reading IMO..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine


The brutality of Israel's soldiers is fully matched by the mendacity of its spokesmen. Eight months before launching the current war on Gaza, Israel established a National Information Directorate. The core messages of this directorate to the media are that Hamas broke the ceasefire agreements; that Israel's objective is the defence of its population; and that Israel's forces are taking the utmost care not to hurt innocent civilians. Israel's spin doctors have been remarkably successful in getting this message across. But, in essence, their propaganda is a pack of lies.



• Avi Shlaim is a professor of international relations at the University of Oxford and the author of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World and of Lion of Jordan: King Hussein's Life in War and Peace.

Fantastic article

FAO Steve Foster : You would appear to have swallowed the Israeli propaganda hook, line and sinker !!!

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

very very lame attempt at a wind up !!

why a wind up?

 

[Steve Foster]

The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000

ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world's population.

They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:

1988 - Najib Mahfooz

Peace:

1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1990 - Elias James Corey
1999 - Ahmed Zewai




Economics: (zero)




Physics: (zero)

Medicine:
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad

TOTAL: 7 SEVEN

______________________________________________________________________________

The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000 FOURTEEN MILLION

Or about 0.02% of the world's population.

They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:

1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer World

Peace:

1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1! 994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin




Physics:

1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Bu! rton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charle S Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger

Economics:

1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel

Medicine:

1908 ! - Eli e Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abra ham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
198! 9 - H arold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis

TOTAL: ONE HUNDRED & TWENTY NINE !

The Jews are not promoting brain washing the children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims!


The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics or blow themselves up in German restaurants. There is not a single Jew that has destroyed a church. There is not a single Jew that protests by killing people.

The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel 's part, the following two sentences really say it all:


'If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel' -Benjamin Netanyahu

 

[Don Quixote]

Wasn't Harold Pinter jewish? He won the nobel prize in 2005.

 

[Steve Foster]

Quite right, Harold Pinter is Jewish