That was in a battle during a war, you joker.

It was the humane alternative to bombing the area.

Other armies just bomb the area in these situations. Israel uses bulldozers because it allowed for the destruction of installations without hurting or, G-d forbid, killing too many innocent civilians.

Incidentally, "refugee camp" is newspeak for "Arab village". The word is supposed to trigger sympathy for the Arabs. Jewish villages made up of people who fled 60 years ago are not called "refugee camps" because that would trigger similar sympathy for Jews. (Jewish refugees also don't get any money from the UN, not even if they are half Arab.)

I'll show you how this works:

Village or town founded after 1948 and populated by refugees from then:

Arab: "refugee camp"

Jewish: "town"

Jewish village or town in the West-Bank or Arab village or town in Israel:

Arab settlement in Israel: "town" or "village"

Jewish settlement in the West-Bank: "outpost" or "settlement"

It didn't occur to the UN (or the media) to treat Jews and Arabs the same. Arabs live in towns and refugee camps, Jews live in settlements and towns.

There is a 3000-year old Jewish "settlement" in Hevron, surrounded by an Arab town settled 1000 years ago.

That's one of the "settlements" Obama wants destroyed, I think.

Anyway, I find it interesting that "Israel uses bulldozers in a battle even though bombing the area would be easier" transformed into "Israel bulldozes innocent families' homes for no reason".

And you don't think this is anti-Semitism???

Let me rephrase your quote, without changing its truth value:

In April 2002, during Operation Defensive Shield, the Israeli army surrounded Arab towns in the West Bank, and entered them in force, systematically demolishing buildings manually instead of bombing the area."

The changes I made to remove the propaganda:

1. "Palestinian" became "Arab". (I refuse to acknowledge that only Arabs are "Palestinians". If the land is called "Palestine", then certainly both Jewish and Arab inhabitants would be "Palestinians".)

2. "towns and refugee camps" became "towns". (The UN and the media do not differentiate between Jewish towns settled by Jewish refugees and others, I don't see why this has to be done with Arab towns.)

3. "systematically demolishing homes in many areas" became "systematically demolishing buildings manually instead of bombing the area". (I added the logical explanation for why one side decides to use bulldozers to destroy buildings in a battle. I also figure that "buildings" is more correct, since Israel destroyed mainly police stations and other non-civilian buildings and "homes" really is a word used for "house" when one wants to draw attention to the idea that families live there. It is more honest to say "buildings" when the target were buildings in general rather than homes specifically.)

You can change any news story to add your propaganda.

Take this example:

"Traffic police were attacked by drunk car driver. The armed drunk wounded a police officer and then walked into incoming traffic where he was hit by a car and died before the ambulance arrived."

(I made this up.)

This can be rephrased, without changing the truth value:

"Armed government units were involved in a fight with a civilian attending a social event. The civilian died on the spot. One officer was wounded."

It's the same story, but the focus is on different aspects of it. Both versions are true.

It becomes a lie when I retell the same story as:

"Armed governments units generally kill innocent civilians coming home from parties."

And that's what became of this story about the destruction of buildings during a battle.

The truth: Israel had once decided to use bulldozers to destroy buildings instead of bombs.

The other true version: Israel bulldozed "homes" during a battle with terrorists.

the lie: Israel bulldozes the homes of innocent people for no reason.

(Note that Israel doesn't do this any more. It proved too good a propaganda fodder for the terrorists. I still think it was an excellent idea. Note that I think that WHAT REALLY HAPPENED was the excellent idea. I do NOT think that the lie about destroying the homes of innocent people is true and that that was the right thing to do.)

I am sorry, I might not have made myself clear enough.

I do NOT BELIEVE that Israel was destroying innocent people's homes. If I at any point implied that I think it was OK for Israel to do something instead of telling people repeatedly that it was a lie that Israel did this, I apologise. I meant to make it perfectly clear that I considered it a lie.

(And I thought I had totally exaggerated it with my many replies explaining the same thing over and over again. And yet here we are and some people still think that I believe the lie and support Israel perpetrating what the lie says Israel did.)

That's what the Jews did when the Germans screamed "death to the Jews". Since then we know that the world will simply watch.

It will NEVER happen again. The high road is, for non-Jews, something the Jews can take on their way to death.

I found the article I wrote about this some time ago:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/313428/Lies_about_Israel_and_why_People_tell_them

Palistinians are welcome to move and live freely in Israel.  The reverse is NOT true.

How AJ, do you propose they 'stop the battle' when they aren't the one's throwing the first grenade, rocket, killing, etc?  That's like me telling you to stop your feud with your neighbor when your neighbor keeps throwing rocks at you, your family, and your house.  Not to mention that your neighbor calls for the destruction of you and your house. 

So you decide to give them a bit of your back yard in the name of peace. Now they are closer to you, your family, and your house to take better aim. 

Please AJ, tell me what the 'high road' is here?

Which brings us back to my theory that western liberals simply don't see Iranians (and middle-easterners in general) as human beings completely like Americans or Europeans.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/06/02/obama_iran_has_legitimate_aspirations_for_nuclear_power.html

You confuse first with "all the time"

There are countless cease fire agreements, terrorist organizations keep on breaking them, israel does not.

It'll takes both sides though you are right because the PA doesn't want peace.  I will concede this fact a fair amount of Religious Jews don't want to give up any land, but you see that being disregarded.

Suha Arafat, she's the widow of Yasser, she is in the top 15 most wealthiest women in the World.  I don't think you become one of the wealthiest by being the wife of a PA president.  A lot of that money is OUR tax money hard at work.  Greed, was one of the main reasons why Hamas won elections.

In conclusion, your analysis of the PA gov't was very accurate and they plan on not doing anything that will help the peace process.

Do you still need a mexican recipe? I have won and gone to a lot of cooking competitions in many different styles.  What type of food do you like? Are you vegan or do you like meat? What type of food does she like? Spicy? Tangy? Are you looking for something easy? What food do you have to work with? What is your budget?

Leauki, as you and I know they are part of the blame for trying to live.

Leauki,

Isn't it interesting how Israel has to always give up something? Israel needs to be the one to stop fighting first (ie start the cease fire).  Israel needs to give up some land.  Israel needs to give up some money.  Why hasn't there been a solution that says.  Hey Palistine you want to exist then leave Israel alone else, withdraw most of the restrictions on what Israel can do as part of warefare!  There that's my two state solution.

Obama is now calling for a 2-state solution.  Suddenly he says, "Now is the time to act." Obama went to a concentration camp, gave a speach in Cairo, and suddenly he is the expert.    

I wonder if Obama realizes that Netanyahu has told him, NO to dividing of Jerusalem.  The lines are already drawn why doesn't the POTUS just push for them to accept their current territory?  I'm of the opinion that Chamas/Palistine will continue to push and break peace treaties when they know that the next peace treaty will involve Israel giving them something (usually land).  What incentive is Palistine given to quit fighting when they know that they'll keep getting more?

Leauki and Adventure Guy, you fail to realize that most people, especially in the States, don't know about that  or care to know.  Hence, why they say let them duke it out or we should blow them up.

Israel was totally trouncing Lebanon but was force to stop.  If the United States and the U.K (both countries are becoming anti-sematic and are just plain ignorant) stop supporting Israel, Israel will still survive.  Now, for the United States and the U.K, both countries and the West in general is another question if they survive.

Most people think its all about the land.  If only the PA had the land this whole thing would be over.  In the two U.N resolutions that I posted (181 and 465) they got a lot of land.  Obviously now, the land is better because Israel had irigated it, but the PA has made that all null and void with what they've done to the land. The land now is back to how it was prior to '47 and just a waste land.  Its not about the land but its about the people who are on the land and who is allowed on the land.

One final thing, is most people don't realize that the PA use to get most of their electricity, food, medical needs to such a point where was like a tumor or a leech.

It would be like if the United States supported Mexico as in they supplied them with what ever they need.  Wait a minute, the U.S. already does!

Bottom line is folks, I want to see peace. For the sake of my friends, and my grandfather; the stuff happening over there breaks my heart, and I do not see the PA willing to do much, so, it really falls on Israel to get things done. I'm not saying Israel is some hideous monster, but I do believe it can do better. I'm suddenly reminded of a comment that is worth chewing on:

"Governments have never lied to anyone; they are the bastion of honesty, I should believe my government."

Think about it; other than that, I'm done with the Israel part of the conversation.

Yes, and I'm vegetarian, she is not. She's not picky and I don't mind spicy food's so long as it isn't "kick your arse" spicy. You know what I mean? I'd like something easy to make since I really am no Emeril Lagasse. My budget is 45-50$.

as for peace, the Jewish scriptures speak of a man who will broker peace for a seven year period.  He's the one the Christians are waiting for.  He will not be a good guy but millions will think he's god because he will finally be the one who brings peace  (false) to the Jews and to the nations.  So as I watched Obama yesterday I was thinking....is he the one Daniel spoke about so many many years ago?  If so, there's not one thing we're going to do to stop this.  There will be some sort of seven year pact made.  Time will tell if that's what Obama is supposed to be part of or not.  If so, it should be imminent.  Because he has most likely 7 1/2 years left.

I have a nice rice,bean, mexican cheese and salsa dish that wins raves everytime I make it.....but it does have hamburg in it.  Everyone else who has made it also said it went over big at their homes.   It's very easy but very good.    It's very inexpensive to make and with some cornbread and salad would make you a wonderful meal.