Apartheid's downfall was a combined effect of longterm international condemnation with the end of the Cold War. The ANC had been a joint holding company of Communists and Black nationalists. Once the Communists became Gorbachov-era voices of reason, South Africa's apartheid leadership realized that a worthwhile peace could be negotiated with ANC.

Be careful what you wish for. In the 1930s, German Jews who tried to save some assets from the Nazis were reckoned "criminals." I would agree, however, that the "criminal" label fits many secret account holders today.

As someone with an equally goyish surname, I winced a bit when I saw his.

If no public funds are spent to maintain this practically invisible eruv, I can't see a significant church-state issue.

The limitations of Wikipedia (or of anything else on the Internet-- you cannot be 100% certain that hard-copy sources are being quoted accurately) apply to controversial matters, not to generally recognized ones, eg that Columbus sighted land in the Caribbean in 1492, or that the Moon revolves around the Earth. When you progress beyond junior high school, you will learn that one of those obvious points is that even "good wars" against serious enemies are bad for many civilians. As it was written almost 240 years ago, "all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable."

If you are serious about wanting a hard source, find that book by William I. Hitchcock that I mentioned to you.

Your endless filibustering on such a tangental point marks you out as a troll.

As I said before, the 1977 Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions, at the core of NGO accusations that Israel has committed "war crimes," was not ratified by the USA. Jimmy Carter apparently allowed a preliminary signature with reservations, but by 1987, Ronald Reagan determined Protocol 1 could not be salvaged even with reservations. Google
"protocol 1 Geneva convention Reagan message"
No more recent President has repudiated Reagan's reasoning, and certainly the US Senate, which must "advise and consent" to treaties, has refused to go along with this one. In any case, NGOs have made clear that they wouldn't accept "reservations."

I may well let you have the last word here. You are too childish to worth more time.

Does anyone know when the headstones were originally laid on the staircase? Was it during the Nazi occupation (1941-1944), or at some other time? I am puzzled that the Soviets did not remove them. Were they laid face down, showing an unmarked back, so that their original use was not obvious?

>That is not quite accurate

I was refuting JRD's claim that the tunnels were Israel's stated reason for starting the war. He would have been correct, however, to say that they were an important stated reason for *continuing* the war.

>A month after the Gaza conflict began, Israel announced that it was in the process of developing >technology to detect these tunnels and that such a system could be operational within a year.

And what about the intervening year?
And since when can new military technologies be assumed to work at the date originally promised?
And what would prevent Hamas from devising their own counter-counter measures during the intervening year?

Where did you get the idea I am a "her"?

If you don't know a poster's gender and the handle does not suggest one (eg "Ron" is a male name; I don't believe George Eliot posts to the Internet), it is normal to use the handle or an abbreviation of it, rather than guess at the pronoun.

>>"Look up "Battle of Manila (1945)" in Wikipedia."

>1) wikipedia is probably the least-reliable source of info on the planet, since anyone can change an ehtry.

This complaint is at least ten years out of date. Serious people pay attention to what is written in Wikipedia, and important controversial articles can no longer be changed by idle passers-by. There is no systematic right-wing bias; indeed, in some areas (notably Latin America except Cuba) the Left seems to have more supporters.

>2) The massacre in Manila was done by the Japanese, not by fighting between >Japanese and American troops.

Some of the 100,000 civilian dead were from deliberate massacres by the Japanese, but by no means all of them.

For a different perspective on the "Good War" (the liberation of Western Europe in 1944-45), check out
The Bitter Road to Freedom: The Human Cost of Allied Victory in World War II Europe
by William I Hitchcock
(and keep in mind that that was the most gentle theatre of WW2)

>>"If you can't answer the message, than denounce the messenger."

>Like she's doing with Amnesty International & HRW?

The breach of AI and HRW with those serious about national defense can be found in Additonal Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions, submitted in 1977. The USA and most of its key allies rejected it because it abolished the distinction between lawful combatants, accepting laws of war designed to shield noncombatants, and terrorists who deliberately victimize and exploit noncombatants. With the end of the Cold War, our NATO allies ratified Protocol 1, figuring they had attained the "end of history" where a sop to domestic pacifists was cost-free. The USA, however, with continuing global responsibilities, has never ratified Protocol 1 (nor has Israel or several other countries facing terrorist threats).

AI and HRW pretend that Protocol 1 is established "international law," but it is only so among countries that have ratified it.

>I'm curious - if you are not Jewish, what brings you here? Are you a Christian Zionist?

I am culturally Christian, but am not a Christian Zionist. As a Cold Warrior (You can google me against "cyberussr"), I became increasingly supportive of Israel as I came to appreciate the contribution of pro-Israel Jews to the Western cause in general. If American Jews cease to support Israel, then I will cease to support Israel also. (My support has limits. I take up the cudgels against crypto-pacifism, but not in favor of settlements.)

I have long taken a respectful interest in Jewish culture, but try not to be intrusive. History has gentiles like Martin Luther whose Judaeophilia became unhealthy.

I was an avid follower of New Republic during the golden age of Martin Peretz, and may have drifted from there to here. I like a comments section with enough intelligent commenters to generate traffic, but not too many to keep track of.