@ pvdh

1)  It is not as simple as that.  You want to 'undo' history, and in a one-sided way.   Three points:

- At the time of Israeli independence there were more jewish refugees than Arab refugees in Palestine/Israel.   The jews have integrated their refugees (from the Arab world) in Israel.  The Arabs did not integrate their refugees in their states. Any 'right of return' would be a one-sided one.  Arab Israeli citizens have complete civil and political rights in Israel.  No jews have that in any Arab country, and in most they would not last a month today!

- The way the Arabs interpret the so-called "right of return" (descendents of now-mostly-dead refugees) would mean the end of Israel as a 'democratic/jewish' state.  If someone were to come and ask you to commit suicide, I doubt that you would comply either.  But you do seem to advocate it for Israel. 

- Possibly most Arab refugees left 'voluntarily', in the sense that they were not 'driven out' but followed the advice of 'Arab' radios at the time of Israeli independence.  In other words, the neigboring Arab states vowed to come and destroy the new jewish state and urged Arab residents to get 'out of the way' with promises of coming back to their old+new riches (to be taken from the jews).   It turned out differently than they 'expected', but only comfy naive-lefties and foolish 'christians' would not insist on consequences for such behavior.

2) The question of the so-called 'right of return' is a very different one from the one that Amsterdamsky raised about the 'occupied territories'.  So you have changed the subject

3)  Why do you continue to fall for Arab (and muslim) propaganda?   After all, you continue to justify senseless violence in a one-sided way.  Around the same time of Israeli independence, (not only more jews) but also many more 'Germans' (than Arab 'palestinians') were 'forced' to leave their homes and lands.  You only seem to care about the 'Arabs' because they continue to commit violence, and not about the other 'verdrevenen' because they do not.  That is perverse thinking, and rewarding bad behavior (typical naive-left).     

4) In the Arab world, there are many more 'refugees' from other Arab regimes than from Israel.  Of course, they would never get a 'reading' on the Amsterdamsky+pvdh 'compassion-meter'.  Probably because they cannot serve the ideological purposes of the Israel+USA bashers of the naive-left media. 

@ pvdh

1) Where did I advocate anywhere "collective punishment"?   In response to Amsterdamsky's ludicrous 'logic' I have simply pointed to the fact that the present 'occupied territories' are the result of Arab aggression in 1967 (and twice before that, and once after that year).  Their 'resolution' does require a peace treaty.  Justifying continued violence to 'undo' history, as head-in-the-sand Amsterdamsky appears to do, certainly will never bring peace. 

2) Where did I refer to any "God in heaven" in this context?

3) Where did I "interpret any text allegorically"?

If you cannot answer these simple questions, you should be able to recognise that you are dealing in 'strawmen'.

Finally, I know, you have "more esteem for radicals, who etc..." and that is why a society composed of many pvdh-types cannot survive the onslaught of "radicals".  Behind a facade of nonviolence you justify mindless violence aimed to destroy (or prevent) individual freedom for muslims and nonmuslims alike. 

Amsterdamsky: "You have to believe in some divine justifiction and racial superiority otherwise Israeli setters and the IDF would never be able to commit these horrible atrocities."

During the 1949-50 conflict, both Muslim and Jewish paramilitary units committed war crimes, including summary execution and the terrorism of non-combatants. However, Israeli victory afforded Jewish soldiers more opportunities to "cleanse" enemy villages. Yet had the Muslims won, the plight of the Israelis would most likely be worse than that of the Palestinians; the involvement of the Syrians and Egyptians would have made "low-level" genocide and brazen oppression and pogroms unavoidable given the authoritarian tendencies of Damascus and Cairo.

Amsterdamsky: "Same with the Nazi's and the US military against the Indians.  That the Palestians would dare resist the demolition of their farms, the abduction of their husbands and sons without warrant or justification and the massive shelling and bombing of their territories with weapons made in the USA is to be expected.  If anyone is curious why there is no real discussion of this in the US please go here www.normanfinkelstein.com..."

Conflicts between American settlers and soliders, and Amerindian peoples cannot be compared to the ethnic cleansing committed by the Germans in their own country and the ones they occupied. Nor does Apartheid even come close. As far as Palestinian resistance is concerned, it is perfectly natural for any people to engage in violence who have effectively lost their land and dignity. If the Israelis were not prepared to eradicate Palestinians from the human race upon their victory, then they should have acted from a conciliatory position from the outset. As with every group conflict, hardliners generate antagonism and then gradually become moderates, and wonder why there is conflict at all...

From Peter V. "It’s probably your higher moral authority "God in Heaven" that preaches these practices."

You have to believe in some divine justifiction and racial superiority otherwise Israeli setters and the IDF would never be able to commit these horrible atrocities.  Same with the Nazi's and the US military against the Indians.  That the Palestians would dare resist the demolition of their farms, the abduction of their husbands and sons without warrant or justification and the massive shelling and bombing of their territories with weapons made in the USA is to be expected.  If anyone is curious why there is no real discussion of this in the US please go here www.normanfinkelstein.com

@

peter vanderheyden

"I've more esteem for radicals,who at least read the texts as they are,rather than putting in texts what is the most convenient at the time being".

Excerpt from the Palestinian National Charter,as it was formulated in 1964 by the inaugural convention of the Palestinian National Council in Cairo,Egypt:

Article 24: "This Organisation does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan,[or] on the Gaza Strip...".

Thus,it would appear that "There are no differences between Jordanians,Palestinians,Syrians and Lebanese".And that "the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes...". Not my words,but the words of Zuheir Muhsin,made in an interview with the Dutch daily newspaper TROUW on March 31st,1977.

"and their claim goes even further back in history"

So the further back it goes, the more it's justified?

The way you advocate "collective punishment" is repulsing. It’s probably your higher moral authority "God in Heaven" that preaches these practices. After all, he preaches what ever you want. That’s the beauty of interpreting texts allegorically. Sometimes, I’ve more esteem for radicals, who at least read the texts as they are, rather then putting in the texts what is the most convenient at the time being.

@ Amsterdamsky

Following your 'logic', the Israelis should wipe out the 'Palestinians', which they could easily do.  The Arabs certainly would (wipe out the Israelis), if they could!  After all, you seem to be claiming that the 'Palestinians' are "morally right" to keep on committing violence against Israel.  If so, then the Israelis have just as much "right" to fight back.  They are fighting for their "ancestral homeland" too, and their claim goes even further back in history.

At the time of the UN partitioning plan, the 'Arabs' got over 90 percent of the land of the old British Protectorate (taken from the Turks after ww1), and that went to Jordan and Egypt.  If there are 'occupied territories' today, it is because the 'Arabs' 4 times tried to destroy Israel from these territories (and others) over the past half century.   You seem to be saying that people may attack their neighbours repeatedly and then, when they 'lose', there should be no consequences (so that they can prepare for the next 'round' and do it again)?   If the Germans had reasoned like that, and had refused to make accomodations in a peace treaty, there would still be war around 'Amsterdam' today!   

The comparison with American 'Indians' is silly.  THere was no Indian "genocide" (nor a 'Palestinian' one). Most of those 'Indians' died from 'white man' diseases.   Of course, 'Californians' like yourself, tend to learn their history from p-c Hollywood (Kevin Kostner and his wolf etc....).   But, it does tell you that - in order to survive in this world - a society needs to be 'strong'.  A society of selfish 'libertarians' will not be strong enough to survive any clash of civilisations, because it is unlikely going to be willing to fight anybody.  

I care.Do you have a problem with that? If so,which would you prefer I do,voice my disagreement with you in a cool and rational manner,or resort to violence? See the difference now?

In the end reactions like these only prove that we're no better than Muslims when it comes to religious uptightness. It's a video game, who cares ?

From MarcFrans

"Those who want to continually 'undo' history, and who refuse to take the consequences of past 'own actions', will never know 'peace'."

Just like those pesky american indians that had the audacity to fight their own genocide.  They did some nasty stuff to the european settlers but would you not do the same to defend your ancesters homeland? 

@ Amsterdamsky

Who is "displacing" 'palestinians' today?   Jordanians, Lebanese, Koeweitis (massively after gulf war 1), Egyptians?    Displacement of earlier generations (often their own fault) cannot be an excuse for violence today.   By that standard we have all been "displaced" by history.

Those who want to continually 'undo' history, and who refuse to take the consequences of past 'own actions', will never know 'peace'.  And that is why the Arab world will not know peace for a very long time.

"We call upon the courageous army...not to hold back by mercy and compassion.Even if they (Fath Al-Islam) enter mosques,destroy these mosques over their heads,because they deserve it".

Lebanese Mufti of Hasbaya and Marjeyoun Sheik Mustafa Ghader.

Visit:www.memritv.org

(Video Clip No 1473).

And check out the Mufti's views on Israel,vis-a-vis,"This gang (which) must be eradicated from our land...".

Interesting stuff.

"Afkar Media has already produced two games, both dealing with the plight of the Palestinian people. One game released last year, "Under Siege," was born out of frustration with the prevalance of Arabs and Muslims portrayed as terrorists in Western video games. The creators of the game say the story line counteracts the biases in some Western games by showing the Palestinian struggle from an Arab vantage point and creating Arab and Muslim characters who are fighting in self-defense.

In the first scene of "Under Siege," Baruch Goldstein, the Israeli settler who killed 27 worshipers in a Hebron mosque in 1994, snickers as he sneaks up to the mosque where two boys, Maen and Ahmed, are among those praying inside. Goldstein enters the mosque and starts shooting into the prostrated crowd.

As chaos ensues, Ahmed must disarm Goldstein and turn to fight Israeli soldiers. Killing civilians - Israeli or Arab - will make him lose his stamina. Maen is armed with a slingshot and must help the ambulance, which is being blocked by Israeli forces, reach the mosque.

Critics say the game merely inverts stereotypes - replacing extremist caricatures of Muslims with extremist caricatures of Jews, like that of Baruch Goldstein, and using the violent "shooter" format common to many video games."  http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0605/p07s02-wome.html

Probably not quite what you are looking for but since I see complete moral equivalence between jewish settlers and displaced palestinians I think I would play it.  Actually, I think the palestinians probably hold the moral high ground if anything.

Mosques are currently used  for gunbattles in Irak. Thus there is no need for gaming since we can experience it live (and in 3D), which is much more exciting ...

in real life, didn't Muslims (Palestinians) bring weapons into one of the holiest Christian churches in the world (forget its name) and additionally, used it as a place to dispose of their (ahem) bodily wastes?

prediction: you won't find any record of the VR Rog Govender having complained about that... 

Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, perhaps? 

It's probably only a matter of time before Manchester Cathedral is converted to a Mosque.