None of this can be discussed in the major media and journals, and it's only a fraction. When we look at what is swept under the rug, or grossly distorted, the extreme imbalance of coverage becomes much more severe. tercüme ingilizce tercüme elektrik emlak çeviri tercüman link ekle kiral?k ev

hello all, there is a a demo saturday december 1st, in front of the israeli consualte in Toronto. Location: Israeli Consulate 180 Bloor Street West March to U.S. Consulate 360 University Avenue (east of University, south side of Armoury

I am not against Jews, I am against organized religion having political power. I am not anti-semetic. It's not my fault if you are actually incapable of grasping that people can be opposed to zionism because they think it's a bad idea, not because they are opposed to Jews. Many Jews are anti-zionism for religious and/or political reasons, according to you they are all anti-semites. You are an ideological bigot and have revealed yourself multiple times in this thread as such.

You are right about one thing, this conversation is over. I'm sick of arguing with you because you continue to rehash your same pointless, tired, hackneyed and irrelevant arguments about anti-semitism. You never responded to any of my real positions and just flung mud at me because that's apparently all you know how to do. You are a closed-minded person and first-hand evidence as to why there will never be peace within my lifetime.

Call me anti-semetic again. I don't care about the lies you tell about me because anyone who reads this thread can see I am not an anti-semite. I'll leave it to someone else to respond to your "Israel is the greatest idea in history anyone who is against it is an anti-semite" nonsense. Or we'll just forget you exist. Either way works for me.

Goodbye. I don't think anyone is going to be experiencing anything remotely resembling peace anytime soon, thanks to attitudes like yours.

 

Radna:

 

You don't care who controls the middle east because you do not live there and have no clue what is really happening.

In Israel, unlike other countries in the middle east, homosexuals are accepted in the community and have annual parades. Radicals are present everywhere and if ONE crazy orthodox attacked an homosexual it does not mean in terms of how minorities are treated there. This is in sharp contrast to the neighbors.

Lack of knowledge about the Israeli parlamient is also evident. The power constantly shifts between labor and likud, and is now with Kadima (have you heard about this?). Alliances are made with religous parties to achieve the majority of seats but a religious party has never ruled the country. Again this is in sharp contrast to the other middle east theocracies.

Who cares what Elton John thinks?

Anti-zionist is a masked form of anti-semitism. You absolute lack of knowledge associated with unique arrogance prevents further arguments.

Shabat shalom.

Eli 

Please continue this pointless argument. I'm enjoying watching you make an utter fool of yourself.

In case you havn't noticed, Jews live all over the world. I, for example, live in the United States. I ended up here because of social dislocation caused by persecution of Jews in Europe during the World War II era. I have ancestors who were killed in the Holocaust. I know all about the impact of anti-semitism both upon Jews in general and upon my family in particular. Your accusing me of anti-semitism reflects intellectual intolerance on your part, in that you cannot stand any criticism of zionist theory without resorting to name-calling.

I honestly don't care who controls the middle east. I, however, do care when skyscrapers in my city get vaporized because of people who are religious in the wrong way, and I don't think people who use religion to justify violence should have power. I read recently that a homosexual man was attacked by a religious fanatic in Jerusalem. See http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1558015,00.html. Did you even read the Elton John link I posted earlier? I am opposed to any country that has a religion as its basis of governmental authority. Period. You can call me whatever you want, but calling me anti-semetic isn't correct.

Now, prove to the world you can actually think straight and respond with something relevant this time.

If arabs are intolerant to other religions in countries where they hold control, how can you simply suggest that jews should just live in a totally islamic Pelestine? Can jews have any place to live in your ideal anti-semitic world? Probably not!

Stop characterizing me as supporting the Arabs. I know that they are intolerant to every religion other than Islam in countries where the government is controlled by them.

And this discussion would make a lot more sense if you'd read my posts and actually give a relevant response to what I'm saying. I'm not for or against the Jews or the Arabs. What I am against is this absurd idea that religion itself is somehow a step forward for us as a species, or a good thing. It isn't.

Read http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15675821/ . I'm not the only one who thinks this way. You should get your head out of your own navel and realize there's a larger world out there than you and your particular prejudices and opinions. I don't deserve to be called anti-semetic for daring to disagree with you on the value of religion. You havn't apologized for that yet by the way, which is the only thing here that is ridiculous. Not that I'm holding out for one. That would require you to admit you're wrong, which I sincerely doubt you're even capable of doing.

Radna:

 

Before making those ridiculous statements about jews living wherever they want, you should know what is a dhimmi. If you are not a muslim, you should get used to the Sharia law. It may also help you understand the world a little better.

I changed my mind. Call me anti-semetic all you want. It's an insult to you because it shows what you truly are. I won't say it, because it's obvious.

I am not anti-semetic. I am a libertarian who is against the UN taking land from Party A and handing it over to Party B. I think Jews should be able to live wherever they want. Whether they should have a country delivered to them by the UN is another story.

I would be against any exercise in government power to disposses anyone of their rights. And honestly, I don't think Jewish belief entitles the restoration of a state that last existed over 1,500 years ago.

As a left leaning libertarian, I also think the very concept of a state being based upon a religious belief is a huge step backwards.

This isn't anti-semitism, its a belief that the world powers should not carve up land and political hegemony like a cake and give it out like a party favor, and a belief that we took a step backwards about 1,500 years by establishing a state based on ancient beliefs that I don't think are a valid reason to cause all of the misery that has resulted from the establishment of Israel. The arabs who have opposed the state violently obviously are wrong, but I think the whole concept of giving a country away by fiat is wrong also.

Still waiting for word on that house. I want to move in soon. Is it cable ready? It's ok if it isn't, but I want to know because I want to make the appointment for the installer ahead of time so I don't have to go a week without CNN.

Addendum: I've thought it over and changed my mind again. Of course every religion should have its own state, so the world can disintegrate into a perpetual holy war over whose religion is right. Great idea!

I think the Scientologists should get a state also, they can call it Hubbardland. How about the Heaven's Gate people? It's insulting to their beliefs for everyone else to get a state and not them. I heard they worship Fox Mulder from the X-Files as a prophet now, maybe we can carve out a little bit of the middle east for them also, Mulderstan or something. They would probably have a great international economy with Hubbardland!

See what I'm getting at? Having states based on a religious identity is a step backwards for humanity. And my being opposed to that, and daring to have a different opinion than people who take the bible literally, doesn't make me anti-semetic. I'm honestly sick of anyone who dares to question whether the existence of Israel is right or a good idea being labeled as anti-semetic. That's a misuse of the term and is nothing more than a slanderous insult designed to stifle debate on this issue. Which is, of course, what you want. But you won't silence me by calling me names. And you won't intimidate me by telling lies about what I'm saying, because what I'm saying is crystal clear, and in no way anti-semetic. You could call me anti religion, I suppose, in the sense that I'm opposed to religion interfering with civil affairs in general. That makes me an ideological brother to the disestablishmentarianists, I guess. That's not anti-semitism.

Following your reasoning, if some cavemen get unfrozen from a glacier tomorrow, and it turns out that they lived in the land that is now Israel before anyone else alive today, the Jews would have to give up their country to them, because they were there first. Tell me, what you think of that Eli? You wouldn't like it? Why not? Why are you so anti-caveman-ic?

Radna:

 Yes, you are indeed anti-semitic. That should not bother you since it is just the truth and seems to be very fashionable. Does not matter your religion, since the owner of this blog belongs to the same ideology.

Palestinians sided with the peaciful sorrouding countries and acually left their own houses waiting to return once Israel was destroyed. The ones that remain, have full citizenship and members in the Knesset who unfortunately support both Hamas and Hizballah.

Just a reminder, there was also a population there before the former population. Guess who they were?

The only explanation for your distorted view is the belief that the whole arabic peninsula should belong to Islam. That means jews, christians and other infidels have no rights to stay there and may have the options of being converted, pay high taxes (Dhimmis), or be killed. This is written in the Q'uram and unfortunately may become the reality soon as Israel is being used by Europe as the new Czechoslovakia.

Radna:

 Yes, you are indeed anti-semitic. That should not bother you since it is just the truth and seems to be very fashionable. Does not matter your religion, since the owner of this blog belongs to the same ideology.

Palestinians sided with the peaciful sorrouding countries and acually left their own houses waiting to return once Israel was destroyed. The ones that remain, have full citizenship and members in the Knesset who unfortunately support both Hamas and Hizballah.

Just a reminder, there was also a population there before the former population. Guess who they were?

The only explanation for your distorted view is the belief that the whole arabic peninsula should belong to Islam. That means jews, christians and other infidels have no rights to stay there and may have the options of being converted, pay high taxes (Dhimmis), or be killed. This is written in the Q'uram and unfortunately may become the reality soon as Israel is being used by Europe as the new Czechoslovakia.

I'm just opposed to rewriting history at a barrel of a gun. And I wouldn't care if it was the Jews, the Eskimos, or the Hoosiers who were doing it, it's wrong whoever is doing it, and you calling me anti-semetic for it is ridiculous.

By the way, have you moved out of your house yet? It's my ancient homeland. Don't want to move? I guess by your own reasoning, you are anti-semetic, since I'm Jewish. Perhaps you can explain to me why the former population of the current Israeli state should be consigned to refugee status based on the same reasoning. Since you can't, don't bother.

Don't accuse me of anti-semitism just because I disagree with you on the Israel issue. If anything, you're just proving how right I am, since you cannot refute my argument without attacking me by calling me an ugly name. When I see theft, I yell thief, and I don't care what race or religion the thief is. But don't call me anti-semetic for it.

Cyrano:

Very interesting that you know how Iranians treat the jews. Have you ever been there? This statement must be related to the Reza Pahlavi era. Do you know what is a dhimmi? What about Israel and Lebanon? Any sources beyond Al-Jaazera?

Whenever the text is filled with "my opinions" the value of the statements should be questioned. The historical "opinions" are so badly innacurate that do not even deserve comments.  

Do you know the difference between Israelis, jews and zionists? Are the Canadian jews mistreating the Lebanese? What about the Christian Zionists? This new "politically correct" form of anti-semitism, the anti-zionism, is distorted by nature, particularly for the very uniformed and biased occasional readers of the middle east.

 

 

the Holocaust must be discussed OPENLY and knowledge regarding the fact that Zionists exchanged Land for European Jews.. please xplain how you come to the conclusion that zionist exchanged land for european jews? please indicate your source. eli, I didnt find Radna's comment anti-semite andc the Bible is not accurate historical book. you wrote, maybe you can find more reliable documents from that time..

That ultimately pose a problem , the violent bible is imcompatible with any historical facts. If I were going to take the Bible for the truth, I say the bible is a journal that is apologitical of genocide and infanticide.

thus my own conscience dictate me that non-paranoid jews are non-violent and that this murderous bible cannot be true.

It is my opinion that jews were probably puritanists religious renegades, may be of iranians descent, whom were allowed to build communities in Palestine by the the Syrians and Assyrian and Egyptian rulers of that time and this on humanitarian ground.

Also if you take into consideration of what the bible say, it is alwaysthe other "arabs" nations whom are the bad guys and it does seem again that thousand of years later , you are still blaming arabs..

also if you pay attention, you will see that the jewish community is better treated in Iran, than palestinians are treated in Israel! You should be aware that even Komeini declared protection for the synagogues and jewish communities in Iran.

In my opinion, the way zionists and jewish people treated palestinians and lebaneses people negates or strip any israel right to exist you may have obtained.

Here , in my country of origin, Canada, if ever there is policies that are pitted against an ethnic group, Ill apply the same shame standard.

 

When Israel stand up with integrity and negotiate peace in good wiil , only then should it be recognizeed. Also arabs should not negotiates with state-terrorists..

Radna:

 Your are just another anti-semitic. There is nothing of historical value in your comments, just ridiculous texts that fit an audience eager to continue their biased trend. How can you express opinions without any knowledge?

The only real relocation of Palestinians was from Jordan in 1970. Weren't they citizens at that time? Well of course it does not matter. If it does not involve Israel it should be legal and accepted. At least Europe and the arab countries did not complain.

Were you born in New York or came from some other country? Maybe you have also relocated someone. If the other person accepted money or did not really like the place is irrelevant in your distorted view. Even more insignificant is if the former owner accepted the money and fled hoping for the eventual killing of the new occupant, as promissed by the peaciful Arab armies. 

The old book is the basis for the new books and there is no question of which population came first. Maybe you can find more reliable documents from that time, good luck in your search!

Eli

 

 

 

I have an ancient book that says that 2,000 years ago, your house belonged to my ancestors.

Give me your house. I have an old book that says it's mine.

What's the matter, don't want to move because of what some old book says?

Okay, you're one person. Now, explain to me why millions of Arabs should step aside to let Jews take over because there was a Jewish state there centuries before, since I'm presuming you're probably not willing to relocate.

Chomsky suffers delusions that result from his bias towards the underdog. He has a protector mentality. According to his logic, anyone who wins is automatically the villain; losers deserve our sympathy and support. In these human battles over land and power, there are always winners and losers. The Jews have to walk a fine line between using the overwhelming force at their disposal and alienating the publics in the major power centers.  So they cannot win decisively without paying a huge price in the public opinion bazaar. The current plight of the Palestinians is manufactured by them and their culture. It has been their choice. They are an inbred, patriarchal tribal people with few resources except the institutionalized hand-outs of the UN and the western democracies who must appease their large Muslim immigrant populations. I do not see a way that it will go well for them. My sympathy goes to the Israelis who try to resist the plunge into utter rage and fury. While revenge is the programmed human trait whose existence is supposed to stay the hand of the aggressor, and which can bring such momentary joy in being unleashed, there will be a high price to pay should it one day be unleashed on the Palestinians. But that day may yet come.

Huge news:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.general/index.html

The political ramifications of this are stunning.

I found an interesting quote from David Ben-Gurion that illustrates my point nicely:

"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country...There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" (Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar)

I found this online and since it had a citation I figure it's probably genuine; even if it isn't, it summarizes my points nicely and probably better than I could have. I really have come to resent the fact that the Arab side seems to actually have legimate grievances, and nobody seems to care. I'm not defending terrorism, but just becauser there's terrorism doesn't mean that there hasn't also been some injustice on the other side as well.

I think it's hypocritical for the Jews to feel entitled to get their own state, and thereby get much more favorable treatment from the political powers that be than multiple other groups like the Kurds, Basques, and Rom, who in my opinion has just as good a claim to their own state, if not a better one in terms of chronicity (how long has it been since the original Jewish state in Israel existed?), don't even get consideration, and I don't recall anyone who supported Israel coming out to support these groups in their desire for statehood also.

As for the holocaust, obviously that's the whole justification for this exercise in land redistribution and political seizure of power, but like I said, the issue isn't so much that there's been a political response like this to the holocaust, but that the parties responsible for the holocaust haven't been imposed upon in the creation of Israel. Rather, the non-jewish peoples of the middle-east have. And nobody whose opinion could actually change things has seriously questioned the injustice of that, and I find that frustrating. What everyone fails to notice is that the non-Jewish peoples of the middle east see the existence of Israel as more colonialism and the west dictating their political existence and meddling in their affairs, and to a great degree, they're right: we didn't create a Jewish state in north america or Europe; we created one in the middle-east, not only because that's where the first one was, but because we had the power to do so and the middle-east couldn't resist. How's that any less colonialist than if we went to Africa with a bunch of surveyors, and carved out a hunk for someone else? What gives us the right to carve up the world like an apple pie as we see fit? Military and political power to do something doesn't make it right, and I don't see how mass murder of a people entitles the world to decide to hand over a country to those people in response, at the expense of countries that had nothing to do with the mass-murder.

Yes, one does not know whether to laugh or cry at the Israeli regime's atrocities and their lying rhetoric.

 Zionism must be stopped and furthermore, the Holocaust must be discussed OPENLY and knowledge regarding the fact that Zionists exchanged Land for European Jews needs to be published in every textbook on the planet.

 Israel is based on a foul deed/s and it will never result in anything good, productive, fair or legitimate.

Do you mean "bomb them into the stone age"?

If that's our policy, than it's us who are still in the "stone age."

Rudolph, it seem that the US and israel has a "stone age" policy against the arabs..

I found an excellent blog that contains some photographs of victims of Israeli violence against civilians that you won't see on cnn or fox or whatever. The title of the post is unfortunate, but since the photographs are so good I decided to link it anyway, since it takes what we're talking about out of the abstract and really drives home what the problem here actually is.

http://sketchythoughts.blogspot.com/2006/07/fuck-israel.html

The hypocricy of drawing a distinction between Al Qaeda's victims, and these victims, is galling. The only difference between Al Qaeda and Israel is that Israel is better supplied so they can launch a conventional military attack and politically cover their ass by saying words to the effect that "we're sorry we killed innocent civilians, but they were in the line of fire and it's the 'terrorists' fault we did it because they were hiding among the civilians as human shields." There's no functional distinction between Al Qaeda killing random people at work, and Israel bombing Lebanon with the full knowledge that these actions will result in civilian deaths. If you accept one, you have to accept the other, and if you condemn one, you have to condemn the other. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite and are saying that American and Israeli lives have value, but Lebanese lives are worthless and expendible.

Eventually in New York, there will be a monument to honor the victims of 9-11. Who is going to build a monument to honor these murdered Lebanese, since the way things seem to be going, it's likely that Israel will bomb it and there will have to be another monument to commemorate the monument.

Eli wrote:

Let me remind you that Jesus was Jew,

its no difference to me.

and Israel has long recognized the palestinian state.

wow big deal, they exist but have the right to nothing,
not even water!

The population of southern Lebanon was indeed helpless, since civilians were used as shield for the Hizballah terrorists. Their subterranean hidding places were coincidentally built over schools and mosques. Furthermore, firing missiles from inside villages does not appear very safe for the population either. For all the accounts, nobody knows where are the civilizations in the pre-bibilical era. Nevertheless, there is written documention for the begining of both jewish and Islamic religions and I do not have to remind you who came first. There is no reason to use G'd in the discussion, since the bible per si is used as a historical document. There is no question whether the palestinians should have their own country. They were also there but unfortunately refused a much better deal in 1948. Unfortunately they do not want to share the country but rather take total control. In addition, they used to and still live in the eastern Transjordan. Why can't they have a part of the current Jordan in their own country?

Let me remind you that Jesus was jew and Israel has long recognized the palestinian state.

I suggest you to read the Koran. It is a great book, perhaps the best among the monoteist religions, and help you understand the current events. Life under the caliphate rule can be quite challenging for infidels. A good look at the middle east map may also help.

I get a strong sense that the bias of media
coverage goes beyond the way military actions are
treated; the coverage tends to be sensational and
focused on the image of a bomb attack upon civilians,
designed to provoke an emotional response from the
viewer that turns them against the "terrorists" (I
don't like calling the bus and cafe bombers
terrorists, because then I'd have to call Irgun
terrorists for bombing the King David Hotel, and the
U.S. terrorists for atom and fire bombing civilian
populations in Japan during WWII. So I lump it all
together under the handier term "war." But I
digress).

I think the root of the bias is what isn't
present in the coverage, rather than what is present.
When the Palestinean point of view is presented, I
don't feel there's ever a rigorous, objective
exploration of the grievances of the Palestineans; I
get the impression that there has never been a fair
hearing of the Palestinean cause in the public media.
I don't think the bombings have been good for the
Palestineans' goals, but I also don't think it's fair
to look at the merits of their grievances through the
lens of the asymmetric (and from all appearances,
spectacularly unsuccessful) warfare they are
currently engaged in against Israel.

On Israel itself: if there can be a state
imposed by UN fiat based on one religion's ancient
history, then sign me up. I want to start my own
religion and dispossess an indigenous population so
the UN can give me my own state.

I'm also rather sympathetic to the opinion
that Israel exists because of the sins of Europeans,
but the middle-east pays the price. It would be
interesting to see how enthaustiac the West would be
for the Israel idea if the historical location
happened to be located in their jurisdiction, rather
than the Middle-East. I'm guessing they'd have a
change of heart. It's easy to be generous with
someone else's property.

There you generalize again, sharon was a prime minister and he was a bigger terrorist than Arafat.. You wrote, it seem that having an army is considered acceptable for all except Israel. When this army is aiming terror at helpless populations, its an army who should not have right to exist. Read ancient history and find out who was there first: if it this, by all accounts arabs were there first, and what ancient history are you alluding to, are you alluding to the Bible? by all account the Bible was embellished and filled with anachronism, its false, therefore noting is holy is it. Most likely israeli ancestors were some sect of babylonians or iranians that were being renegades or slaves. To tell you the truth, I don't care.

By all accounts that would explain the fabled genocides and infanticides the israeli committed that were legitimized by the help of God.. I don't know it could be said that Moses and your God were terrorists because he attacked "civilians" with the plagues.

its very doubtful, Israelis were there first although Israelis migh had a presence over there.. Christ apparently spoke aramean, John the batist was born in Syria..

Your very own denial of palestinian rights forfeit Israel the right to exists, Israel refusal to negotiate forfeit this right to exist. I refuse to take israel sides when palestinians are being murdered

Your source of information should be checked again. Arafat was a terrorist with no peaceful intentions. With peace, the financial aid to his organization will end. How do you think he got so rich? What other job did he have?

It seems that having an army is considered acceptable for all the world except Israel. However, without it, the country would not survive a single day. Read ancient history and find out who was there first. Since Israel is so repressive in your view, find out what happened in Jordan, also home for thousands of palestinians in 1970.

eli you are truly surprising.. arafat recognized the state of israel and considering the later, israeli government refused to negotiate with him, you had the guy removed and replaced by Abbas ( Israel hit all the head of PLO), you people headed an election and the opressed voted for Hamas while at the same time you continued to opress palestinians. truly i can't see arabs recognizing israel right to exist because Israel not a country, israel is rather an occupation army. I use to think Israel should have the right to exist, now i think they should just find another home.

Let me remind you of some historical facts that are missing in your articulated but biased text.

Few days after the Israeli independence, the peaceful neighbors decided to attack in a clear evidence of their true intentions.

Captured soldiers is a term used in war. If this term is to be used, it implies in continuous war and I think it remains very acurate.

Specific points

1. Shaba farms

The only piece of land not returned to the Lebanese (i.e Hizballah) control. What did the Lebanese do with the returned territory? Let me answer for you. They fortified the region and built hidding places under mosques and schools. Of course in a very peaceful way, so  the retaliation for their provocation will hurt the civilians and not their own soldiers. Perhaps that may explain the occupation, which occurred after the very peaceful PLO attacks in the 80's. If Hizballah is so interested in the Lebanese well being, they should turn against Siria as well. Of course it will not happen, since Siria is the bridge from Iran to southern Lebanon.

2. UNIFL

Very interesting that you mention UNIFL. A very much useless group of soldiers that colaborated with Hizballah before and during the combat. Their mission was to disarm Hizballah but some of the hidding places were built a few yards from the UNIFL post! There is also the UN information on the Israeli troops being provided on real time to the guerrillas.

3. Palestinian organizations want peace

Of course they want. As soon as Israelis give up on their country. Their peaceful plan is to draw the lines to the pre 1948 agreement. Yaser Arafat himself was not interested in peace, since it might result in the cut of aid from Saudis and other terrorist supporter countries. How did he become so rich anyway? The palestinians deserve their own peace of land but voting for Hamas does not help much. Have you ever heard of peace with someone that does not accept your right to exist?

4. Israel is small

In fact, very small. The difference between Israel and its neighborhods is that victories prolong the survival and a single defeat means the anihilation. For that reason, there is a need for a strong army. What would happen if Siria, Egypt and Jordan succed in their long waited quest? A divided state between Palestine and Israel? Of course not, jews would be killed without mercy. Even with nuclear capability, Israel is unable to destroy a single country. Nevertheless, due to its small size, 3 bombs into Jerusalem, Haifa, and Tel-Aviv would destroy the entire country. Guess who is trying to do so? Mr. Ahmadinejad, the one that coincidently sponsors Hizballah. The iranian president made clear that he does not mind to sacrifice half of its population to eliminate Israel. This is pretty much what would happen in an exchange of nuclear missiles.

Israel waging wars - Well, the 1948 war was started by the peaciful neighbors and there is no question about the 1973 was as well. In 1956 the military aggression started from Israel, US, and UK after Egypt closed the Suez. In 1967, Israel took the warnings from Nasser seriously, since the Islamic tradition (or law) states that the enemy should be warned. At that time, with the armies moving towards the borders and their liders calling for drowning the jews in the sea, there was no other alternative.

Comparing Israel with South Africa or Nazi Germany is so insane that I refuse to elaborate much. Arabs are treated as citizens and have Knesset members, which by the way, supported the Hizballah. Palestinians bet on the wrong side since they were promissed to return once the peaceful neighbors destroy the Israeli state.

Sharon was a general in the first Lebanon war and the war crimes you are refering to (Sabra and Shatila camps) were not commited by him or his soldiers. He failed to provide the protection to these refugees but you should blame the Southern militia hungry for revange.

No one is absolutely right or wrong. The main problem with the midia is to utilize the historical anti-semitism to demonize Israel. This is unacceptable. Unilateral withdraw from Gaza and southern Lebanon caused more harm than good. The situation in the middle east is just too complicated and a quick analysis is probably biased. It is much easiear, safer, and rewarding to take side with the 1.5 billion audience rich in oil than a much smaller 10 million population historically persecuted that does not threat anyone who disagrees.

Have you seen jews burning mosques over the Iranian president  comments?  

Perhaps instead of harsh critics you should provide a proposal for the conflict.

So you say the occupation ended in 2000, and yet you question that Hezbollah tried to liberate Shebaa Farms. Since Shebaa Farms is occupied, the occupation obviously did not end. Not many countries in the world occupy other countries. That's why not many soldiers are taken captured. No sane person believes Israel attacked Lebanon to free the soldiers though. Even so, that is the reason Israel gave for their murderous attack. I recommend you read the UNIFIL reports. They reveal that whenever Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel, they always did so after Israeli fire into Lebanon, civilians being kidnapped, or increase in Israeli warplanes violating Lebanese territory. IIRC Hezbollah also targeted the Israeli military posts, not villages or cities. That only happened after Israel attacked the Lebanese infrastructure in the war. Should murderer that becomes a politician be forgiven for his crimes? Interesting. The worst murderer in the Middle East is Ariel Sharon. Should he be forgiven for his crimes? Of course not. What all the Palestinian organizations have done since 1967 is peanuts compared to what this man has done. If Israel and the US wants peace, why have they rejected it for 30 years? Palestinian organizations and governments have said time and time again that they want peace, and have gone pretty far to achieve it. Every time there is a small chance of progress towards peace, Israel pulls out. That is an undeniable fact. Israel is a small country, that is true. It is also a country filled to the teeth with military installations, tanks, warplanes, gunships, you-name-it. It is the strongest military power in the region, and the only nuclear power in the region. Nobody would look at Israel as small or weak. The media doesn't even touch on this. They tow your line. "Israel is surrounded by hostile nations". First of all this is not true. Most of the neighbouring regimes are not hostile to Israel. The populations are however "hostile" to the Israeli policies. And can you really blame them? I think the Jews were a bit "hostile" to Nazi policy. I sure won't blame them for that. When Israel have killed and injured so many Arabs, and waged so many wars against Arabs, it should be no surprise that the Arabs have a less than euphoric view of Israel. Just as they do with the US. Just as the Jews had of Nazi-Germany. Just as the blacks in South-Africa had with Apartheid. The policy in Israel has to change. Unless that happens there will never be peace. Israel have to understand this. You can't war yourself to peace. The only way to achieve peace is through negotiations. Israel have to tear down its illegal settlements in the West Bank, and give the land back to the Palestinians. Unless that happens there will never be peace. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

I forgot to say that Chomsky is a self-hating jew

The soldiers were in the Israeli border and the ocupation ended in 2000. This is in sharp contrast to the Sirian abuses which ended after growing international pressure over Hariri's death. In this case, the rocket attacks for several months and the terrorist attacks were aimed at the liberation of Shaba farms?!

No other country in this world would allow its soldiers to be captured, kidnaped or whatever inside its own territory without a harsh reply. Furthermore, if you think that this incident was the sole reason for the attacks, I recommend you more reading.

Regarding the Lebanese people, I agree that they should not pay for the incompetence of its leaders. The tearful Mr. Siniora did nothing to control the exploside southern border despite the agreement to disarm Hizballa. Did he fail to realize that a conflict would eventually happen or was he another hostage of the powerful terrorist organization? What is exactly the intention of the Hizballa? a peaceful coexistence with Israel or its total destruction?

Hammas is a terrorist organization responsible for several suicide attacks inside Israel, who does not recognize the existence of Israel. Is it possible to make a peace agreement with such organization? Should murderer that becomes a politician be forgiven for his crimes?

Anti-Israel means a several paragraph text with severe critics and without mentioning the other side. The demonization of Israel, a small country sorrounded by hostile enemies, has become very common in the midia.

Maybe Pangaea, will also blame Israel for the recent attack in a Oslo Synagogue.

 

applauds pangaea's logic ()

You forgot to say Chomsky is a "self-hating jew" or "anti-semite". Hezbollah didn't kill 8, they killed 3 and captured two soldiers. The other 5 got killed after driving their tank over Israeli mines. You can't "kidnap" soldiers, they can only be captured. Especially when the same soldiers are part of the army that is occupying the land of the people who capture them. US-made Israeli warplanes have made almost daily overflight into Lebanon since 2000. Often sonic-boom overflights flying deep into Lebanese territory. Israel has also kidnapped civilians and killed some herders. It is a much worse crime to kidnap and kill civilians, than to capture and kill soldiers. International law makes that distinction. Nothing anybody in Lebanon has ever done justifies the near-complete destruction of Lebanon. Do you really think the capture of two soldiers and the killing of 3 others justifies the destruction of a country? There some implications follow such a statement. For instance, what rights do Palestinians have towards Israeli actions? Just in the latest Israeli aggression in Gaza, about 200 people have been killed. Nobody knows how many have been kidnapped. Large parts of the Palestinian Government have been kidnapped. Do you think the Palestinians have the right to drop 65 times (apprx 200/3) more bombs on Israeli infrastructure than what Israel did in Lebanon? What do you mean by "Anti-Israel". There is a difference between the Israeli people and Israel's policy and wars. Chomsky (and everybody else, bar the US administration) are critical of Israeli atrocities in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories, not Israeli citizens or the Israeli state itself. If I criticize the policy of the Palestinian Government, am I then "anti-Palestinian"? If I criticize the policy of the Lebanese Government am I then "anti-Lebanese"? Pangaea Oslo, Norway

Mr. Avram Chomsky:

I would like to remind you that Hizballah is a terrorist organization responsible for several terror attacks inside Israel. Furthermore, the constant missile attacks over the northern israeli border would justify an attack. What would any country do if a neighbor pursue its destruction? What if a Mexican or Canadian guerrilla crosses the border, kills 8 American soldiers and kidnaps 2 others?

PLO offering peaceful negotiation? Where did you hear this?

Your left wing view promotes the distortion of facts and a one-sided story. This text is completely anti-Israel and beyond comprehesion. This shameful new 21st century version of Tomas de Torquemada is unnaceptable. Have you forgotten your past?  

Maybe that info is US supplied instead of Iranian supplied, and that´s why doesn´t match with Mr. Chomsky analysis.

I complete agree with your meaning about Neo-Cons

Just to be clear, from the 4th sentence "Now remember folks..." I was

referring exclusively to the US voting scenario.

 

In Canada, the Neo-Cons got in (with a minority gov't) because the center-right Liberals were caught in a secretive policy funding scam, and sadly, the Bush-Loving Harperites were ushered in to "clean up".If Canada had e-voting via Diebold, the Neo-Cons would have been handed a clear majority.

 

But the youth is shifting left, visible minorities are shifting left (towards

social democracy), so there is hope to thwart this Neo-Con madness

which is running rampant in North America.

 

 

 

 

 

First I must admit I don't know all that much about Canada, but if what you say is correct, that is point-by-point the exact same strategy as the Republicans used to steal the 2000 and 2004 elections in the US. Perhaps it wouldn't have made much difference as Dems are more or less as mad as the Reps, but Bush lost both the 2000 and 2004 elections. Pilger has documented this remarkably well. If this is being exported to other countries as well, it indeed is bad news. It is just insane to have a voting system without a paper trail. You could say Party X got 100% of the votes, and there is no way to challenge it (besides common sense of course).

* That should read "implementation".

 

The ultimate goals of the imperialistic stomping are:

 

1) To faithfully engineer a polarized clash of Christian vs. Muslim religious fundamentalists (making "God", Falwell, Robertson happy).

It helps fulfill (Judaeo-Christian) biblical prophecy and leads calls for more security (and causes an increase in the power ratio of gov't to populace).

You might notice how the major news networks run 100+ fear-trigger stories per week, bombarding the gullible populace with imminent threats, making the malleable public want/invite/allow more invasive security measures.

 

2) To augment US international domination (fulfilling manifest destiny).It artificially boosts the economy (via seized assets),

and unites the public against "the enemy', which facilitates

furthering of the Republican fascist agenda of greater

militarization (67% of your tax dollar goes to

military expenditures), imperialism and polarization.

 

Fuel on the fire.

 

repeat.

 

repeat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 In Canada, Neo-Con PM Stephen Harper called the Israeli response measured and justified.He is simply faithfully spouting subconscious Neo-Con programming.He has embraced a faithful fantasy book-theory which is aligned with the Bush Administration. Now remember folks, that when you turn on MSNBC, Fox or even supposedly 'leftist' CNN (yes, they are a tad left of the Neo-Fascists, which makes them the imperialist center-right), you must calculate/estimate the minutes per hour devoted to advertisements (30/60).Then you must realize that the funding comes from huge companies like Merck, and Petroleum companies strongly linked to the Military-Industrial-Prison-Pharmaceutical Complex (MIPPC) which will pull their ads if the reporting becomes anti-MIPPC. The big-picture scenario is this : The Neo-Cons in the States rigged the last election via 8 hour waits in voting lines, destroyed absentee ballots, blacklisting blacks off voting lists and employing Diebold (a pro-Bush company) to supply the e-voting machines and rig them. With the Neo-Cons in power, they got to implement their imperialistic mayhem based on biblical fuel, providing the orchestrated, engineered clash of Christian vs. Muslim fundamentalists.The fueling of the fire is being witnessed. The terroristic breeding ground is now fueled by orphanization caused by imperialistic armies. The major news networks are skimming the surface of the above scenario.They are in the pockets of the MIPPC. With the fire burning, the Bush Admin. gets to implement yet more of their 'solutions', which is more orphanization of invaded populaces, fueling greater polarized hatred of the Christian-Fundamentalist invaders, sadly perceived generically as "the West", even though only 10% of the west is pro-Christian-Fundamentalist. The Neo-Con cult is acting on their dogma, which is an international exacerbator, NOT an antidote. And the Pro-Bush crowd is blindly oblivious to the true scenario. If the US voting system could go back to pencil, paper, box ballots, and social democrats as found in Finland, Norway and Sweden could run the American show, the world would be saved from Neo-Con implemantation of their esteemed cult/dogma prophecy via the MIPPC vehicle.

 

 

I find the unsubstantiated assertion that there is an Arabic slogan "A Jew cannot be a friend for an Arab." interesting, to say the least.  From whom have you heard this "slogan" I must ask.

I imagine that someone in the deep south of America at some point in recent history has uttered the words "The only good ni**er is a dead ni**er" or something to that effect.  Can we therefore conclude that there is a general American slogan that is anti-African?  And then extrapolate this feeling to be representative of all Americans?

Earlier this year there was a terrorist attack on the Egyptian resort town of Dahab, one of the best scuba diving locations on the planet.  When I was there, the thing that struck me the most about that town was that the tourists who flocked to it came from all over the Middle East... including a very large number of Israelis.  Coming from a closed system of disinformation, to which you apparently subscribe, I was surprised that two "races" that are supposed to hate each other would choose to take their holiday/vacation in the same place and intermingle.  There are those who would seek to foster divisions between Arab and Jew for their own benefit, and as evidenced by your belief in an assertion that reality bears witness to a mutual hatred, these people are succeeding.

The terrorists responsible for the bombing in Dahab were attempting to encourage the division that you have accepted as normal, and even perhaps preferrable, above.

However, although there has been an understandable drop in tourism to the area in recent months, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all still flock to Dahab together.

I think perhaps your stereotyping of Arab and Jew mutual pervading animosity might be a bit overreaching.

The more arms to this region-the bitter conflict goes on as at the end of the day all ammunition to be turned against a non-Muslim world indiscriminately.  

And what about providing more goats to the concerned? -

 http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/un-acts-on-sex-abuse-by-staff-in-east-timor/2006/08/29/1156816899264.html 

 

Let us be realistic. Arabic nationalism is a very response to English racism affecting non-Anglos both in Anglo-sphere, the British Commonwealth at first stage, internally, and sustaining a protectionist policy at world markets.

 With no shadow of sympathy to any sort of nationalism, one could say that in multy-nations societies the US are it is a very source of tensions rather than a united the majority pattern as in the Muslim world, country by country, where influx of minorities is negligible, and all they see a common anti-Islam enemy in outer world.

It is because a preferential treatment of bin Laden-alike rules: discovered by the Jews and for the Jews, contemporary America is too shy to reject even explicitly in-advance-non-compelling with her democratic values applicants.

Too many paid-from-tthe-Middle-East enjoy her “decadent non-Muslim” values on overstayed visas as local employers reject residents. However, migration system allows them to purchase over some time permanency legally as money rules.

Arabs nationalists get their funding where ever they can, its their right to defend against imperialism.

Google searches aside, did anyone watching the mainstream reporting NOT get the strong sense that Iran was behind the bad guys and Isreal was acting in self defense? 

It's the mainstream media that is used to spread the disinformation more broadly through our society.  A limitless number of google hits from academic, political, radical sources won't tip that balance one bit

anonymous, you wrote : No wonder that really admiring the States people, sharing democratic values and an American spirit of freedom are unable to get green cards Its because mainly these admiring people did not read the fine prints : democratic values and an American spirit of freedom has disaspeared from the US electoral obligarchy.. Its all a lie.

A loyal US citizen trying to sue Israel in the States for inability to leave his/her Motherland the US supposed to undisputedly be for Lebanon. 

No wonder that really admiring the States people, sharing democratic values and an American spirit of freedom are unable to get green cards as a number of home-born local Hezbollah supporters is on rise, considering themselves being overseas.   

Veronica,

You are so right that people are fed up with terrorist attacks.

However, when a crime is commited ,it is common practice to believe one is innocent until proven guilty. I guess that goes for the iraqi and lebanese people.

On the topic of the attacks on Spain and Britain (and, why not, on US soil) there are only theories as to who is guilty. I mean conspiracy theories. The most ridiculous of them being the half drunk-half trained-half litterate bunch of losers defeating the entire US security and military complex.

Until some real effort is put into an investigation, we only have these theories : not enough to stop supporting innocent civilians being slaughtered by military armed with weapons of mass destruction.

There is another common pratice when investigating a crime : asking whom the crime does profit. While arabian countries have LITTLE to gain to attack their european supporters, even less to assault the US itself, the fact that some -who are anything but arabians, persians or muslims- have A LOT to gain from these attacks has to come to mind, of course.

Or hasn't it ?

Rojer
From France

 

 

Michael, your rough English allows understanding of an issue: some Jews are much more pro-Islamists than even the most liberal Muslims are not anti-Jewish.

 

The Westerners are mostly short of knowing the Arabic slogan: “A Jew cannot be a friend for an Arab”: either missing this info or saying as itself are a sadden reality to my understanding.

 

What about your UNMIK-related continuing communications with Kofi and the UN? There is an interesting recent locally-arranged study on outcomes of international activities embedded with your known report at the time.

 

Eventually, there is neither time nor reason to copy-cat these UN activities in Lebanon at all.

 

 

Mr.  Chomsky,

 

My daughter was fortunate enough to see you in Beirut this year.  She was very impressed...one of the high points of her high school career.

My family has been totally displaced by this latest Israeli brutality.  When is someone going to stop these murderers?

My poor mother in law went to the south where our house was completely destroyed by the IDF who also left a live bomb inside and were either planning to murder my family or blow the house completely to the ground.  As it stands, it is uninhabitable.

Do you think Israel is working towards making south Lebanon 'another' Palestine?  It is my suspicion that this is the case and that they will use the brouhaha over Iran as cover for their evil deeds.

Also, do you know if there is any possibility that US citizens like myself can take Israel to court here in the US?  I am a US citizen, born and raised and am staying for the time being in Arizona as there was no possibility my children could return to school in Beirut as the roads are so damaged and fuel is limited.

http://carmenisacat.blogspot.com/

woe to the fool who thinks the islamic facists give ground so easily.  Oh how the isreal paper tiger overestimated the value of air bombardment. hezbulla held their ground while the isreals lost the match game point.  i've seen this episode.  another waste of time and taxdollars on deadbeat plans to eliminate the competition.  the u.s. coalition should rethink their global master plan and try to include some diversification of cultural competitors otherwise the war on terror is going to last forever.  hezbulla held the ground while the isreal paper tiger targetted the wrong buildings with every bomb.  how dumb are their analysts?  what's the target today, tommorow and next week? kids?  braindead intel coupled with a wisp of 'religious pride' brought this match to a close with the bullas winning the moral and strategic ground.  good luck to the next isreal tank crew patrolling north of the dmz.  seems like everyone needs some councilling because the only team sounding rational today seems like putin and his boys in blue.  hurrah to the french!  they should recruit their young inner city urban rioters and put them on the lebanese border least they'd have jobs.  lets see the isreals kill everyone in the next few weeks and then let the UN decide who's to be charged with war crimes.  our way of life seems to include killing children.  the 'western' society seems to be able to do anything it wants with disregard to any of the moral and legal consequences.  psychopaths are running our world.  good luck and god bless because this was the worst 'blitz' since the iraqi fiasco.  here's the war on terror in a nutshell:  attrition until the next election.  pray for a democrat otherwise our planets doomed. 

 

I think that maybe people are either fed up with the problem, or perhaps disencouraged by previews actions.

Many people around the world rallied against the war in Irak before it happened, but it didn't matter because the US and the UK, with the rabbit Ansar following close, decided to go ahead no matter what. So the US is leading the World, but unfortunately the world can't vote them out. I guess people got tired of going to demostrations after Irak. I can understand that.

On the other hand, after the rallies against Irak, 192 people died in bombs in Spain, plus 1500 injured. Most of them were workers, many were immigrants, they all came from the most depressed area of Madrid, an area that usually votes the left-wing parties, the wing that supported rallies against Irak's invasion. But you see, the terrorists did not care for rallies, nor for people's ideas, they only saw a chance and took it. Same thing with Brittain and the attacks in the underground and the buses. I guess it would have been different if the targets weren't civilians who have actually just rallied in their favor. Terrorists didn't show any respect for the people, so now the people are not being active in their favor.

So far, the media has been pushing the paranoia, everyone is talking about us and "the others", us being the Western world and the others being the Muslim world, the governments are supporting this division to gain support on the "War on Terror". The Cartoon War also increased the gap between the christian and the muslim world.

I think the lack of action is, in a way, showing that the population is listening to the US-UK governments, they're believeing in this unnatural division, therefor, Israel represents the western world and Lebanon is seen, unfortunately, as part of "the others". This problem have been presented as part of the general problem of terror, therefor it's not lebanese people anymore, but terrorists (in a wierd way people ended up beliving that Hussein was behind s-11).

Fortunately, there are many intellectuals that oppose the attack from their positions and with good arguments, denying the easy idea that is them (muslims) or us (west).

The problem has reached such a pathetic point that two passengers were denied their sit in a flight just because they "looked suspicious" (because they were not white men wearing shorts and sandals) and the good white people did not want to travel with them. We are being fed with the grapes of rage, and nothing good can come out of it.

Veronica, from Spain

Among a significant number of crimes committed by both fighters for Kosovo freedom and their UN-covered protectors in the nineties the brutal gang murdering of an entire family of a vocal supporter of a Kosovo statehood, a local professor from Serbian background, under noses of the UN-police and peacekeepers in Pristina's street had at the time attracted a condemnation from international community worldwide.

 

Although there were enough resources deployed to stage a picturesque funeral of an Albanian victim of an ethnic unrest with procession walking around the UN offices in Pristina next day exactly, not so much but some rumours were heard of the professor's fate in Kosovo itself.

 

It soundly recalls the Europe of the thirties when minorities were non-discriminatorily murdered regardless of their political views or sympathies but for biological reasons only.

 

Maybe, it would be good for calculating the ratio of Iraq/US-supplied ammunitions to remember, while bearing in mind, that if the Arabs remembered of the Europe-sparked crusades as well as the Jews of the Holocaust, a living history of the Jewish State and her neighbours could be much less rocky surely.    

http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2005/05/3170_comment.php

 

Michael Kerjman

Suyi, I thinkj there are more people whom are concerned about our palestinians brothers and sisters, the problem is people are afraid or intimidated to voice their opinions. This could be for few reasons, among others: fear of being black listed, spied upon or even being arrested.

'Left', 'right'- meaningless terms. If by left you meant liberals and progressives then I am surprised that you are surprised. Liberals have generally supported Israel while most progressives are single issue organizers and, while they may be social democratic in their own niche, they are hopelessly mainstream in the rest.

 

But if by 'left' you mean radicals (hopefully anarchists). then you only have to look at the front page of zmag to see the outrage. Unfortunately we are still few in number and we don't have the media power that the dominant culture has...

 

Regardless of the media's coverage of Lebanese casualties and suffering, the fact remains that sympathy for the victims was qualified as the unfortunate consequence of Israel's right to protect itself. Sympathy is easy.  But where was the outrage? Or was I stupid to expect any? Compared with the Iraq war, the silence in this country has been deafening. The marches and rallies in New York were dismally thin, a few hundred at most. Editorials were sorrowful about the innocent victims of Israel's “right to defend itself.” It was appalling how people on the left and right sang the same tune.  There is no question of anything approaching a debate, when it comes to this issue.  The only debate was about the strategic value of such a bombing campaign. I ask --- non-rhetorically ---- what will it take to affect public opinion?

Doing the same search (lebanon israel) on news.yahoo.com I get 35 counts for "us-supplied", 90 for "iranian-supplied", and 285 for "iran-supplied" using default restriction to last 30 days. This is a ratio of over 10 to 1 in support of the effect described by Prof. Chomksy.

In addition, looking at the top 10 results for the searches there are a lot more recognizable sources in the iran or iranian supplied results including AP, UPI, times online, etc. For us-supplied the only easily recognizable source is Financial Times and a viewpoint editorial from Baltimore Chronicle -- several of the results are from Arab sources which we can presume many united states readers will never see.If we could weight the results by US news readership I suspect the ratio would far exceed 50 to 1.

Doing the same searches on news.google.com I got 536 for "iran-supplied", 209 for "iranian-supplied", and 186 for "us-supplied" -- this gives more than three times the number of references for iran or iranian supplied arms than for US.

 

 

The result after a google search indeed isn't as bad as expected. Based on the results though, this is due to the huge blogging community and progressive sites, such as this one, not due to the news-media (which is "louder" you can safely say). I did a search on a media search engine (far from world-wide, but still). I got 32 hits on "us-supplied" israel lebanon and 162 and 131 for "iran-supplied" israel lebanon and "iranian-supplied" israel lebanon. Still not the difference Chomsky mentioned, but a lot worse. If we did a full search in Western media I'm sure Chomsky's numbers would be fairly correct. I don't think I've ever heard or read "US-supplied" or thoughts like that, in the Western media. And I follow news quite a bit.

I really expected Prof Chomsky to be right, that there would be about 50 tiems more references to "Iranian Supplied than "Us-supplied" but on Google at least there are in fact about 3 times more references to "US-supplied" than  there are to "Iranian-supplied."

Lebanon Israel "Iranian-Supplied" =  34,000
Lebanon Israel "US-Supplied" = 101,000
(results the same when limited to the "last 3 months")

Bearing in mind the volume of arms, as the Professor agues this may still represent a bias against Iran, but on the other hand it does not seem linguistically intuitive to assume that that the number of references is going to match the number or cost of the weapons, or even type of weapon.  

"Israeli forces are using us-supplied tanks, us-supplied missiles, us-supplied ordinance..." is not a natural turn of phrase, and unless we are counting articles in Jaynes then I guess that there are unlikely to be x times as many sentences of this type either.

 

 

I really expected Prof Chomsky to be right, that there would be about 50 tiems more references to "Iranian Supplied than "Us-supplied" but on Google at least there are in fact about 3 times more references to "US-supplied" than  there are to "Iranian-supplied."

Lebanon Israel "Iranian-Supplied" =  34,000
Lebanon Israel "US-Supplied" = 101,000
(results the same when limited to the "last 3 months")

Bearing in mind the volume of arms, as the Professor agues this may still represent a bias against Iran, but on the other hand it does not seem linguistically intuitive to assume that that the number of references is going to match the number or cost of the weapons, or even type of weapon.  

"Israeli forces are using us-supplied tanks, us-supplied missiles, us-supplied ordinance..." is not a natural turn of phrase, and unless we are counting articles in Jaynes then I guess that there are unlikely to be x times as many sentences of this type either.