NationStates Jolt Archive

In Gaza Hamas has continued to use kassam rockets and mortars to target Israeli neighborhoods despite Sharon's continued work to uproot the settlements and give the land back to the palestinians. This makes me wonder if the Palestinians actually want peace or if they just want to kill Israelis.

Why is Hamas trying to threaten the disengagement from Gaza? Do they actually want to prolong and escalate the conflict?

The peace the radical Palestinians want doesn't include the State of Israel.

Hamas wants the total destruction of Israel. They are not interested in "peace."

In Gaza Hamas has continued to use kassam rockets and mortars to target Israeli neighborhoods despite Sharon's continued work to uproot the settlements and give the land back to the palestinians. This makes me wonder if the Palestinians actually want peace or if they just want to kill Israelis.

Why is Hamas trying to threaten the disengagement from Gaza? Do they actually want to prolong and escalate the conflict?

Near as I can tell, Hamas is trying desperately to make it look like they somehow forced the pullout. They want to capitalize on the power vaccum that will come with the pull out. They'll gain politically if they can convince their own youth to join them instead of a different group.

And yes, its very likely that some professional terrorists simply need a target to kill. Hamas has quite a few professional terrorists in its ranks no doubt.

Of course the Palestinian's don't want peace: they wish to continue to die and be subject to systematic oppression.

:rolleyes: :headbang:

Do the Palestinians actually want peace?

no, of course not, they're quite enjoying the terrorism, the poverty and the suspicion before the law. [/sarcasm]

of course there is a terrorist caste that benefit from the state of terror, but these people are scum who are not (despite what many zionists may say) represented within the palestinian authority. the vaste majority of people, israeli and palestinian just want peace.

Of course the Palestinian's don't want peace: they wish to continue to die and be subject to systematic oppression.

:rolleyes: :headbang:
I'm glad you could refrain from using sarcasm.

Look, I'm asking a question because their actions don't seem to support the idea that they want peace. It's a legitimate question in light of them continuing to attack civilians even though they're getting something they've wanted for some time.

It goes deeper then that too.

Many major terrorists fight for a "cause," often one that they have very little to no interest in what so ever. But I wouldn't be surprised if many of these people were simply men and women who felt extrordinary measures were necessary to protect their homes, children, and lives - and I bet they'd love a little bit of peace and normalcy.

However...

As someone mentioned a lot of these people are just power hungry. They've tasted the rainbow and they want more, and the only way to continue to hold power is to have a rallying point to fight against and for people to follow them towards. In the case of the Palestinians, the rallying point is the Israelis and their nation. Really, it's a very ugly, despicable cycle. Uuntil the corruption is routed, it'll continue, and I for one have no solution...

I'm glad you could refrain from using sarcasm.

Look, I'm asking a question because their actions don't seem to support the idea that they want peace. It's a legitimate question in light of them continuing to attack civilians even though they're getting something they've wanted for some time.
It is not a legitimate question when you take the actions of a few and use them to reflect the whole.

Does Hamas want peace? Probably not. What would they do with it?

Do Palestinians in general want peace? Do humans in general want peace? Do you possibly doubt that they do?

It is not a legitimate question when you take the actions of a few and use them to reflect the whole.

Does Hamas want peace? Probably not. What would they do with it?

Do Palestinians in general want peace? Do humans in general want peace? Do you possibly doubt that they do?
When elections were held in Gaza Hamas won bigtime. The majority of the people of Gaza have demonstrated their support for Hamas in that way. They've endorsed Hamas.

Sometimes people want victory more than peace.

I'm glad you could refrain from using sarcasm.

Look, I'm asking a question because their actions don't seem to support the idea that they want peace. It's a legitimate question in light of them continuing to attack civilians even though they're getting something they've wanted for some time.

And I'm glad you refrained from any fallacies, like:

Hasty Generalization (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/hasty.php)
False Dilemma (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/fd.php)
Complex Question (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/cq.php)
Unrepresentative Sample (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/unrep.php)

Your question was treated with the respect it deserved.

When elections were held in Gaza Hamas won bigtime. The majority of the people of Gaza have demonstrated their support for Hamas in that way. They've endorsed Hamas.

Sometimes people want victory more than peace.

Sometimes people want more than just peace at any price.

That does not mean they do not value peace.

When elections were held in Gaza Hamas won bigtime. The majority of the people of Gaza have demonstrated their support for Hamas in that way. They've endorsed Hamas.

Sometimes people want victory more than peace.
That doesn't explain why the Fatah is still the ruling party. Hamas may have won a lot, but they don't have a majority. A lot of the people that voted for Fatah are the ones that are sick of their houses being torn down when their children blow themselves up.

And I'm glad you refrained from any fallacies, like:

Hasty Generalization (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/hasty.php)
False Dilemma (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/fd.php)
Complex Question (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/cq.php)
Unrepresentative Sample (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/unrep.php)

Your question was treated with the respect it deserved.
You're acting like I'm trying to make a point with my question. Like it's some kind of propaganda statement or something. I'm seriously just asking the question to better understand what's going on there.

Getting opinions from others helps me understand the issue better. Getting crap from you accomplishes nothing.

And I'm glad you refrained from any fallacies, like:

Hasty Generalization (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/hasty.php)
False Dilemma (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/fd.php)
Complex Question (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/cq.php)
Unrepresentative Sample (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/unrep.php)

Your question was treated with the respect it deserved.


You're acting like I'm trying to make a point with my question. Like it's some kind of propaganda statement or something. I'm seriously just asking the question to better understand what's going on there.

Getting opinions from others helps me understand the issue better. Getting crap from you accomplishes nothing.

Children, please, please! If you keep this up you will have to stand in the corner for 30 minutes. :D

In Gaza Hamas has continued to use kassam rockets and mortars to target Israeli neighborhoods despite Sharon's continued work to uproot the settlements and give the land back to the palestinians. This makes me wonder if the Palestinians actually want peace or if they just want to kill Israelis.

Why is Hamas trying to threaten the disengagement from Gaza? Do they actually want to prolong and escalate the conflict?

Do the Palestinians actually want peace? Yes, of course they do as much as Israeli's.

Do the extremists on either side want it? Probably not.

You're acting like I'm trying to make a point with my question. Like it's some kind of propaganda statement or something. I'm seriously just asking the question to better understand what's going on there.

Getting opinions from others helps me understand the issue better. Getting crap from you accomplishes nothing.

It appeared you were making a point -- particularly in your subsequent posts.

I apologize if I misunderstood.

I do think my response answers the question (albiet rudely) -- and Steph has given a better answer.

It's quite simple. Anyone who associates themselves with Hamas wants the peace of not having the dirty joooos as their neighbors, which is to say they don't want peace at all. Of those who associate themselves with Fatah, some want peace, some don't but for reasons of their own don't associate with Hamas, and then there's the group that wants to rule the whole territory but would allow the jooooos to live in dhimmitude. I hope this answers your question.

Do the Palestinians actually want peace? Yes, of course they do as much as Israeli's.

Do the extremists on either side want it? Probably not.
Oh, the extremists want peace. Their conditions just don't include there being an other side.

Oh, the extremists want peace. Their conditions just don't include there being an other side.

Haha, true enough! ;)

So is there any party among the palestinians that actually encourages peacefull dialog rather than bombings, rocket and mortar attacks? The only groups I ever hear about are Hamas, PIJ, and the PA. PA doesn't really seem to do much, and the other two are terrorist organizations.

Children, please, please! If you keep this up you will have to stand in the corner for 30 minutes. :D

:p

So is there any party among the palestinians that actually encourages peacefull dialog rather than bombings, rocket and mortar attacks? The only groups I ever hear about are Hamas, PIJ, and the PA. PA doesn't really seem to do much, and the other two are terrorist organizations.


Yes! Since the death of Arafat, the P.A. seem to be genuine from everything I have seen and has been reported on. Sadly they have no control over the extremists among them, such as Hamas et al. So, until they either stand up to Hamas with the support of the majority of the Palestinian people and other fringe groups things will not change as I see it.

On the other hand, even if they were willing to have peace, at what cost? Israel already has 78% of the land, all Palestine (the moderates) really want is their lousy 22% as was the split that was made (1967 boarders) The question is, will Israel be willing to let them have that 22% that is rightfully theirs in the name of peace? It's not exactly an easy question to answer. If it was, it would of been solved by now. Mostly because part of the disputed land is Jerusalem.

I guess your guess is as good as mine. However, as long as both sides think the other doesn't have a right to exist, no peace will come.

Edit : Sorry, phone rang at the same time as I was posting this..lol I fixed it.

On the other hand, even if they were willing to have peace, at what cost? Israel already has 78% of the land, all Palestine (the moderates) really want is their lousy 22% as was the split that was made (1967 boarders) The question is, will Israel be willing to let them have that 22% that is rightfully theirs in the name of peace? It's not exactly an easy question to answer. If it was, it would of been solved by now.
most of the israelis still hope it will end in 21.5% or so, but every proposal give the palastinians better terms. anyway, the borders aren't the only question. disarment of the terror organizations and prevention of the refugees from immigrate to israel, as well as safe access to the holy sites are also important issues, and the palastinians have to give up on some, if they want their country.
in the end it is possible to get compormise on those things. the problem will be in the fight with the both sides radicals. the pullout from gaza strip is test case for all the groups involved, and the day after it will be the time when both sides would have to decide their way.

most of the israelis still hope it will end in 21.5% or so, but every proposal give the palastinians better terms. anyway, the borders aren't the only question. disarment of the terror organizations and prevention of the refugees from immigrate to israel, as well as safe access to the holy sites are also important issues, and the palastinians have to give up on some, if they want their country.
in the end it is possible to get compormise on those things. the problem will be in the fight with the both sides radicals. the pullout from gaza strip is test case for all the groups involved, and the day after it will be the time when both sides would have to decide their way.


Well yes, nothing is ever as simple as "all they want" but it is the gist. I already did say they have to do something about the terrorists among them. I believe the P.A.'s intentions are good now, but don't have the teeth needed to rid themselves of Hamas, etc. This must be done before the peace can even move forward.

I have often thought that the best solution would be to make Jerusalem neutral territory. In other words, not controlled by either side and opened and all welcomed regardless of faith. Seeing how it is "the holy place" for the three major religions. With of course Mecca being perhaps a little higher on the scale for Muslims, but still a very holy place for them as well.

Maybe if they took a religious leader from all three of the major religions and put them in charge of Jerusalem (all moderates of course) then it would be a good thing. However, who is really going to agree to anything that makes that much sense? LOL.

perhaps their definition of "peace" includes the annihilation of all Jews, and Palestine standing where Israel use to be.

But in fairness to both sides, it's easy to understand their bitterness, given that they were displaced barely a generation ago.

Maybe if they took a religious leader from all three of the major religions and put them in charge of Jerusalem (all moderates of course) then it would be a good thing. However, who is really going to agree to anything that makes that much sense? LOL.
people don't think good in hot wether.

I'd say the palestinians, inculding Hamas, wants peace a LOT mopre than the israelis. After all, who's occupying who...

An attack on a settler is the same thing as an attack on a soldier, an occupation is not less illegal just because you put on a hat on pretend to be a peaceful farmer.

I'd say the palestinians, inculding Hamas, wants peace a LOT mopre than the israelis. After all, who's occupying who...

An attack on a settler is the same thing as an attack on a soldier, an occupation is not less illegal just because you put on a hat on pretend to be a peaceful farmer.
The Israleis are moving out of Gaza yet Hamas keeps provoking Israel by launching random attacks. Doesn't seem like Hamas wants peace. The palestinian civilians should try to keep a muzzle on Hamas during this Gaza pullout.

The Israleis are moving out of Gaza yet Hamas keeps provoking Israel by launching random attacks. Doesn't seem like Hamas wants peace. The palestinian civilians should try to keep a muzzle on Hamas during this Gaza pullout.

Perhaps they would if israel pulled put of the all of Palestine, instead of seizing more of the West Bank and Jerusalem...

Perhaps they would if israel pulled put of the all of Palestine, instead of seizing more of the West Bank and Jerusalem...
Are they building new settlements in the West Bank?

If anyone asked me (and no one did... :D ), then I would say this:

Since 1948/49 the Israelis have been triumphant in every war. I'm not going to argue about who started them (neither in 49 nor in 67 is it 100% certain in my opinion) but the result is clear:
Israel is hugely bigger than it was meant to be initially. Rather than a Palestinian state there is now a few refugee camps and ruins.
A peace now would let Israel keep everything they have gained in the past 56 years. In the eyes of the Palestinians, that is grossly unfair. And that is why there are many in Palestine who don't like a Peacedeal as it is put forward now.

In Gaza Hamas has continued to use kassam rockets and mortars to target Israeli neighborhoods despite Sharon's continued work to uproot the settlements and give the land back to the palestinians. This makes me wonder if the Palestinians actually want peace or if they just want to kill Israelis.

Why is Hamas trying to threaten the disengagement from Gaza? Do they actually want to prolong and escalate the conflict?
I'll tell you more: the Palestinians have been raising new demands, laying claims for lands from within Israel proper- that is, from within Israel's internationally recognized borders.

Hamas wants the total destruction of Israel. They are not interested in "peace."


Not true, they just want Gaza entirely to themselves (who can blame them? It's the most crowded region in the entire world!)

I'm glad you could refrain from using sarcasm.

Look, I'm asking a question because their actions don't seem to support the idea that they want peace. It's a legitimate question in light of them continuing to attack civilians even though they're getting something they've wanted for some time.


But it still isn't on their terms. The division of the West Bank has been terrible for the country of Palestine, the way that this new country of theirs will be set up was chosen independently of Palestinian influence. Had the Palestinians had their way, they would join all of West Bank, but leave the Jordan river settlements to the Israelis. Or maintain Israeli settlements, but tear down this traffic-stopping wall that has been erected.

I'll tell you more: the Palestinians have been raising new demands, laying claims for lands from within Israel proper- that is, from within Israel's internationally recognized borders.


You mean Jerusalem? I think your people should be willing to divide the city, or share the capitol, as it is the third holiest place in their religion.

Holy Womble, I need to talk to you on your thoughts about Israeli oppression and exclusionary politics up until this recent Intifada. I want to find out what the Israelis think, because right now, all I can see is that they have left the Palestinians completely out of the peace process, (even though their demands were very moderate) and have only brought them in a small amount in these talks about sovereignty.

If anyone asked me (and no one did... :D ), then I would say this:

Since 1948/49 the Israelis have been triumphant in every war. I'm not going to argue about who started them (neither in 49 nor in 67 is it 100% certain in my opinion) but the result is clear:
Israel is hugely bigger than it was meant to be initially. Rather than a Palestinian state there is now a few refugee camps and ruins.
A peace now would let Israel keep everything they have gained in the past 56 years. In the eyes of the Palestinians, that is grossly unfair. And that is why there are many in Palestine who don't like a Peacedeal as it is put forward now.


Not to mention that the Palestinians have been kept from the peace process for years, and there was that whole long fiasco where the Israelis would shell and air attack the refugee camps, killing tens of thousands of innocents, all with no concern about the casualties.

Are they building new settlements in the West Bank?


Yes they are, though they are tearing down some older ones as well. Overall, there will be more settlements going into the West Bank though.

It's quite simple. Anyone who associates themselves with Hamas wants the peace of not having the dirty joooos as their neighbors, which is to say they don't want peace at all. Of those who associate themselves with Fatah, some want peace, some don't but for reasons of their own don't associate with Hamas, and then there's the group that wants to rule the whole territory but would allow the jooooos to live in dhimmitude. I hope this answers your question.


Not true either. You don't know the history of this conflict at all. The Palestinians want the Israelis out of Gaza because the Israeli presence has:
1. Gotten many Palestinians killed
2. Severely damaged the local economy with water allowances that are unfair (the Israelis get full water allowances, while the Palestinians get 1/6th the water, this has caused their citrus industry to stagnate terribly)
3. The Israelis (up until around 1985) were planning to take all of Palestine, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and send the Palestinians to Jordan (a barren, desert "paradise")

You mean Jerusalem? I think your people should be willing to divide the city, or share the capitol, as it is the third holiest place in their religion.

all I can see is that they have left the Palestinians completely out of the peace process, (even though their demands were very moderate) and have only brought them in a small amount in these talks about sovereignty.
*me mutters*
So much misinformation.....

I think Jerusalem should remain Israeli for one simple reason. Christians want to be able to visit it right? Israel would let them, the Palestinians wouldn't. Jews want to keep visiting? Then Israel better keep Jerusalem, because the Palestinians would not let them visit.


MODERATE? This is a joke right? Arafat was offered 98% and walked away without even negotiating.

And you honestly think that Palestine could handle sovereignty? I'd bet good money on it being less than a year before they cry about how Israel is leaving them to die and how Israel should send them billions a year to help fund them. When they prove capable of handling sovereignty without it turning into anarchy, then there'll be something to talk about in that regard.

So is there any party among the palestinians that actually encourages peacefull dialog rather than bombings, rocket and mortar attacks? The only groups I ever hear about are Hamas, PIJ, and the PA. PA doesn't really seem to do much, and the other two are terrorist organizations.


These groups are not the political players in this conflict. The unarmed popular revolution (the Intifada) was what changed the Israelis minds about this conflict.

No one is negotiating with the terrorist groups. The leaders of the Intifada are the political players, and they are negotiating peacefully.

Not true either. You don't know the history of this conflict at all. The Palestinians want the Israelis out of Gaza because the Israeli presence has:
1. Gotten many Palestinians killed
2. Severely damaged the local economy with water allowances that are unfair (the Israelis get full water allowances, while the Palestinians get 1/6th the water, this has caused their citrus industry to stagnate terribly)
3. The Israelis (up until around 1985) were planning to take all of Palestine, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and send the Palestinians to Jordan (a barren, desert "paradise")
1) Good good, so we have justification to want them out of all Israeli territory.
2) Got proof of this? Otherwise I'm going to take it with the same pinch of salt that I gave "Israel oppresses us" when Arafat was.

These groups are not the political players in this conflict. The unarmed popular revolution (the Intifada) was what changed the Israelis minds about this conflict.

No one is negotiating with the terrorist groups. The leaders of the Intifada are the political players, and they are negotiating peacefully.
ROFLMAO! Sorry, that was brilliant. Intifada.....peaceful.....LOL

-snip-
I wonder, Sanctaphrax, usually you can argue things and are a pretty good debater.
But as soon as it gets to this issue, you dig yourself in and are just absolutely unreachable for any arguments at all.
Why is that so difficult for you? Why do you say the Palestinians wouldn't let Christians visit the places. Christians can visit Betlehem now, can they not?
Do you really think Gaza, Jerusalem and the West Bank are Israeli territories? What is the justification?

*me mutters*
So much misinformation.....

I think Jerusalem should remain Israeli for one simple reason. Christians want to be able to visit it right? Israel would let them, the Palestinians wouldn't. Jews want to keep visiting? Then Israel better keep Jerusalem, because the Palestinians would not let them visit.


MODERATE? This is a joke right? Arafat was offered 98% and walked away without even negotiating.

And you honestly think that Palestine could handle sovereignty? I'd bet good money on it being less than a year before they cry about how Israel is leaving them to die and how Israel should send them billions a year to help fund them. When they prove capable of handling sovereignty without it turning into anarchy, then there'll be something to talk about in that regard.


Contrary to Sanctaphrax belief, I am educated. I can send you a book that outlines the entire conflict from the start of Zionism to the current sovereignty talks.

Arafat was never offered 98% of the borders of Palestine. To do so would mean the destruction of THOUSANDS of Israeli settlements that currently hold much political power. Prior to the first Intifada (there are two), the Israeli policy towards the Palestinians was to eventually remove them from the West Bank and Gaza, which, to me, seems incredibly short-sighted.

The Israelis did retaliatory and preventative politics completely wrong. The invasion of Lebanese refugee camps helped to start the first Intifada, a rock-throwing revolution. The Israeli government never, ever negotiated with Yasser Arafat. All the talks about sovereignty took place in Oslo, between Israeli and Palestinian professionals (like doctors and lawyers), with no direct ties to the Israeli government. Yitzhak Rabin was the first prime minister to do direct talks (moderated by the United States) between Yasser Arafat and the Israelis, but no discussion of sovereignty occured. Provincial government was discussed, but an independent state of Palestine has only been in the works since 2001.


Jerusalem was proposed as a shared sovereignty city, it would never be dividided amongst these groups. And really, shared sovereignty is ideal, the Palestinian Muslims are among the most secular practitioners of Islam in the world. Allowance of Christians and Jews to worship would never be an issue, but dividing the city would, seeing that the holiest centers of three religions lie within 100 yards of each other. Problematic? I dare say so!

What the Israelis and Palestinians need, to settle all of their differences, is a common enemy! The US should attack both of them. ;)

You mean Jerusalem?
No, I mean a 2 kilometer swath of land beyond the Gaza strip border, on which


I think your people should be willing to divide the city, or share the capitol, as it is the third holiest place in their religion.
This is easier said than done. The issue of border control in an urban area alone will be pure hell. Whoever visited the Berlin wall museum knows what I'm talking about.


Holy Womble, I need to talk to you on your thoughts about Israeli oppression and exclusionary politics up until this recent Intifada.
I want to find out what the Israelis think, because right now, all I can see is that they have left the Palestinians completely out of the peace process, (even though their demands were very moderate) and have only brought them in a small amount in these talks about sovereignty.
If you phrase it this way, I will hardly be interested in talking to you at all. You're quite obviously out to confirm your prior biases, so nothing I can tell you will be of use to you either way. It is obvious that your reading on the matter has been heavily one-sided so far. I advice that you do some real self-education before you throw around this kind of inflammatory rhetorics.

ROFLMAO! Sorry, that was brilliant. Intifada.....peaceful.....LOL


I looked up my history, and there was some violence, though the first Intifada started out as peaceful protesting and rock throwing (nothing wrong with hitting some asshole between the eyes with something that only hurts). Gradually, it escalated, though the casualties caused by the Intifada were much less than the terrorism against the same enemy. 90 Israelis died total.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada

It was the fact that the Intifada was a popular uprising that scared the Israelis into talks, whereas prior to this, their policy did not even include a provincial government for the Palestinians. Bastards, I know.

No, I mean a 2 kilometer swath of land beyond the Gaza strip border, on which


This is easier said than done. The issue of border control in an urban area alone will be pure hell. Whoever visited the Berlin wall museum knows what I'm talking about.


If you phrase it this way, I will hardly be interested in talking to you at all. You're quite obviously out to confirm your prior biases, so nothing I can tell you will be of use to you either way. It is obvious that your reading on the matter has been heavily one-sided so far. I advice that you do some real self-education before you throw around this kind of inflammatory rhetorics.

I hadn't heard about that strip of land. Though considering that the Gaza strip is the most populated area in the entire world, it seems somewhat fair for them to ask for a bit more land. But you're right, the Palestinians agreed to the border set out before, and they should stick to that.




I've done my own research on this issue. I took a few classes solely on this conflict, and when you aren't in the middle of it, it clears up your thoughts quite well. No, all the Americans educated on this issue seem to root for the Palestinians, but the research I did never mentioned the political or cultural feelings of the Israelis, just the politics of Israeli leaders and military personnel. The political climate has been exclusionary, and the military intervention has been endeavored without regard to casualties of the Palestinians. Not to mention that Israeli settlers still aren't burdened by water rationing. That is why I want your opinion. Because Israel is a Republic, and there must have been some reason for these politics. I want to find out about what Israelis think, so that I can understand why they allowed their Officials to practice the politics that they used to.

I don't have a biased opinion on this issue. I thought that Israel was founded on wonderful ideas. I thought Ben-Gurion to be a brilliant socialist, though I hated the exclusionary politics that he practiced. Why aren't Palestinians citizens for instance? Why aren't they allowed to vote? These are only questions that would be asked in any similar situation.

What do Israelis think about this whole mess? Does the attitude that "everyone is an enemy" emerge from the terrorist attacks, or is it the attitudes of surrounding Arab countries?

Just fill me in Holy Womble. I'm objective to everything except where I think democracy has been violated.

I looked up my history, and there was some violence, though the first Intifada started out as peaceful protesting and rock throwing
Peaceful rock throwing...An all new oxymoron :rolleyes:


(nothing wrong with hitting some asshole between the eyes with something that only hurts).
Of course. There's absolutely nothing wrong with pelting cars of innocent people with boulders. And it's not like anyone ever died after their head was hit with a stone or something. Certainly not after being shot with a stone out of a sling. All those slingers in the ancient armies were only there to make noise :rolleyes:


It was the fact that the Intifada was a popular uprising that scared the Israelis into talks, whereas prior to this, their policy did not even include a provincial government for the Palestinians. Bastards, I know.
Bullshit, my friend, pure bullshit. The first Insanityfada didn't scare anyone into anything, the Oslo process was a purely idealistic "progressive" drive, that ended up in a bloody mess just like every other "progressive" initiative throughout history. And autonomy for the Palestinians was being negotiated on already during the Madrid conference.

Gradually, it escalated, though the casualties caused by the Intifada were much less than the terrorism against the same enemy. 90 Israelis died total.
90 PEOPLE?!?!?!
http://www.terrorvictims.com/victims2000.html
Here's your ninety fucking people. Thats an insult to all the families of victims, claiming ninety people. Ninety people is what Israel got in a lucky year. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about, I have not been this disgusted with NS since it emerged that one of the people I debate against didn't know that Israel was founded in '48. I'm retiring from this debate, and again leave questioning why I even came.

EDIT: That link is deaths only from 2002 as well, just to bring that to your attention.

1) Good good, so we have justification to want them out of all Israeli territory.
2) Got proof of this? Otherwise I'm going to take it with the same pinch of salt that I gave "Israel oppresses us" when Arafat was.



Israel and the Palestinians
A major issue of contention between Israel and the Palestinians is the use of groundwater from the Mountain Aquifer, which is divided into three different basins. That aquifer is recharged naturally by rainfall over the West Bank, but flows naturally toward Israel's coastal plain. The Israelis have for many decades been extracting water from the aquifer through a series of wells. Historically, use of the western aquifer by local Palestinian populations was limited to part of the flow of springs and to traditional wells in the coastal area, fed by the runoff of the aquifer. Intensive exploitation of groundwater began when Jewish settlers arrived in the 1920s and 1930s. The remaining potential was developed by Israel between 1948 and 1967, and by Israeli settlements on the West Bank after its occupation during the Six Day War. Because the groundwater is largely of good quality, it is used for municipal supply. Israel is increasingly dependent on the Mountain Aquifer after the deterioration of its coastal aquifer.

An average Israeli has at his or her private disposal about 275 liters of water a day, comparable to that of European countries. Water rationing in private households is very rare, except during extreme droughts. The same standards are typical in Jewish settlements on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. However, domestic water consumption is much lower and rationing is common in Arab states and among Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. This is in part due to lower levels of agricultural and industrial usage, but mainly to constraints imposed by water scarcity and an unequal distribution of resources.

As the Palestinians embark on a program of economic development, they will need more water. The needs are especially acute in the crowded Gaza Strip, which has already overdrawn its own aquifer. This need for water enters a peace process already rife with territorial loyalties and religious differences and any resolution involves political questions about Palestinian and Israeli relations. Even if the peace accords become active in the near future, water rights are, according to the negotiation timetable, only to be discussed in the second phase of the peace process, putting off any resolution to the future.


Mentions it in this article, and in this one confirms my statistics, it's actually a third for personal use, but it is a 6th for agricultural use:

Water shortfall
Sharif said the Israelis refused to address a Palestinian shortfall of 483 million cubic metres, and that Palestinians consume one third as much water per capita as Israelis, who also use about six times more for irrigation.
Asked to respond, an Israeli Water Commission spokesperson said Israel itself suffers from a water shortage because of low rainfall and will start importing water in November.
“We are in the middle of negotiations on everything including the issue of water,” she said. “Israel and the Palestinians both have a problem of water.” As for consumption, she said: “It's a way of life. If you take the numbers it's true they are not using the same amount. “But it's not that they are asking and we are not giving.” The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem said 215,000 Palestinians in more than 150 villages are not connected to running water, and that Israel has discriminatory allocation. “At a time when the Israeli public debates whether to water the lawn or wash their car, Palestinians suffer from a shortage of water to meet their most basic needs,” the statement said.
Majdi Khaldi, the Palestinian planning ministry's director general, said it was true that inadequate water access could destabilise any final peace deal. “The water issue is a problem in the whole Middle East but in the case of the Palestinian-Israeli problem, we want to have control of our aquifers in the West Bank and Gaza.”

90 PEOPLE?!?!?!
http://www.terrorvictims.com/victims2000.html
Here's your ninety fucking people. Thats an insult to all the families of victims, claiming ninety people. Ninety people is what Israel got in a lucky year. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about, I have not been this disgusted with NS since it emerged that one of the people I debate against didn't know that Israel was founded in '48. I'm retiring from this debate, and again leave questioning why I even came.

EDIT: That link is deaths only from 2002 as well, just to bring that to your attention.


You don't know your fucking history! The first Intifada and the second Intifada are completely different! The first one was in the late 80s! The modern one? Oh yeah! The Palestinians still get killed in a 2.5:1 ratio to the Israelis! Where's the justice in that? Why defend state terrorists?

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=440

90 PEOPLE?!?!?!
http://www.terrorvictims.com/victims2000.html
Here's your ninety fucking people. Thats an insult to all the families of victims, claiming ninety people. Ninety people is what Israel got in a lucky year. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about, I have not been this disgusted with NS since it emerged that one of the people I debate against didn't know that Israel was founded in '48. I'm retiring from this debate, and again leave questioning why I even came.

EDIT: That link is deaths only from 2002 as well, just to bring that to your attention.


I was EDUCATED on this conflict! I took an entire class on this! WTF are you trying to discredit me for? You are the one who doesn't know your history. Did you know there were TWO Intifadas? No? Then shut your fool self up! Did you know that talks regarding sovereignty didn't start until the mid 90's? No??? Well then you're the idiot Sanctaphrax! Don't you fucking give me this j00 n00b!!!1!1!!1 shit Sanctaphrax, I've been on the forums longer than you have, just with several different names. Remember Comandante? Remember Stop Banning Me Mods? You don't know your shit, and I'm not going to be responsible for that!

I've done my own research on this issue. I took a few classes solely on this conflict, and when you aren't in the middle of it, it clears up your thoughts quite well.
Nope, my friend, it "clears" nothing, it merely makes you conveniently oblivious to some of the most important facts.


No, all the Americans educated on this issue seem to root for the Palestinians,
Depends what you regard as "educated", I suppose. If someone who went through a class based on Chomsky and Edward Said counts as "educated on the issue" in your book, I suppose you would be right. As far as I am concerned, a person "educated on the issue" is one who has thoroughly researched the opinions of both sides from authentic sources and without biased "guidance"- and from my observation, few of such people hold pro-Palestinian views.


but the research I did never mentioned the political or cultural feelings of the Israelis
Well, that's got to tell you something about the "quality" and "objectivity" of your research.


The political climate has been exclusionary,
Define "exclusionary".


and the military intervention has been endeavored without regard to casualties of the Palestinians.
That is a load of bull, of course. Israel has been going to great pains to avoid excessive casualties among the Palestinians. I recall a case several years ago when a wounded Israeli soldier was left to bleed to death in the streets of Nablus because retrieving him would require an extensive army operation that could endanger the lives of local Palestinian population. Show me another army that would show such degree of restraint.

People like you simply don't realise what an urban combat is like and how difficult it is to avoid civilian casualties when the battle is raging in residential quarters and terrorists are posing as civilians.


Not to mention that Israeli settlers still aren't burdened by water rationing.
Ahh but should we mention that the entire Palestinian water infrastructure was built and is maintained by Israel? Shall we mention that the only functioning sewer system in the territories is, coincidentally, the only one that still hasn't been transferred to Palestinian control?


That is why I want your opinion. Because Israel is a Republic, and there must have been some reason for these politics. I want to find out about what Israelis think, so that I can understand why they allowed their Officials to practice the politics that they used to.
I am too tired for detailed posts right now. Maybe later. Or send me a telegramm or something.

Why aren't Palestinians citizens for instance?
This kind of questions always make me laugh. Why SHOULD the Palestinians be given Israeli citizenship, if they are not a part of Israel? There is a million Israeli Arabs who are fully fledged citizens with full rights- but why should citizenship be granted to the Palestinians of Ramallah? Unless, of course, you consider the territories Israel's rightful land... ;)


Why aren't they allowed to vote?
Again, Israeli Arabs can elect and be elected, they have three parties in the Knesset right now. As for the non-Israeli Arabs from the territories- see above.

Peaceful rock throwing...An all new oxymoron :rolleyes:


Of course. There's absolutely nothing wrong with pelting cars of innocent people with boulders. And it's not like anyone ever died after their head was hit with a stone or something. Certainly not after being shot with a stone out of a sling. All those slingers in the ancient armies were only there to make noise :rolleyes:


Bullshit, my friend, pure bullshit. The first Insanityfada didn't scare anyone into anything, the Oslo process was a purely idealistic "progressive" drive, that ended up in a bloody mess just like every other "progressive" initiative throughout history. And autonomy for the Palestinians was being negotiated on already during the Madrid conference.


The Madrid conference was a joke! The Palestinians weren't even allowed to attend! They were represented by the damn Jordanians for god's sakes! The original premise of the Madrid conference was for local diplomacy, the Israelis said that they would bail on the talks if Palestinian sovereignty came up. True, peaceful rockthrowing is an oxymoron, but the first Intifada only managed to kill 90 Israelis in the entire conflict. I don't call that a problem. The new Intifada scares me, terrorist attacks are never justified, but the first one was the equivalent of a popular revolution.

And you still haven't answered my questions! You're getting defensive! Well you're not changing my mind into thinking that your leaders weren't the thickest scum from the inside of my toilet, I just want to find out why the Israelis would vote for people whose campaign was to remove the entire Israeli working-class? Are you people that freaking afraid of the Palestinians? Do you forget that you kill 2.5 times as many Palestinians as they kill of you? Or do those deaths not matter to you?

Come on Womble! I just want to talk about this! History is history, and it'll never be undone, but perhaps you can justify the history by telling me what happened from the Israeli perspective?

Nope, my friend, it "clears" nothing, it merely makes you conveniently oblivious to some of the most important facts.


Depends what you regard as "educated", I suppose. If someone who went through a class based on Chomsky and Edward Said counts as "educated on the issue" in your book, I suppose you would be right. As far as I am concerned, a person "educated on the issue" is one who has thoroughly researched the opinions of both sides from authentic sources and without biased "guidance"- and from my observation, few of such people hold pro-Palestinian views.


Well, that's got to tell you something about the "quality" and "objectivity" of your research.


Define "exclusionary".


That is a load of bull, of course. Israel has been going to great pains to avoid excessive casualties among the Palestinians. I recall a case several years ago when a wounded Israeli soldier was left to bleed to death in the streets of Nablus because retrieving him would require an extensive army operation that could endanger the lives of local Palestinian population. Show me another army that would show such degree of restraint.

People like you simply don't realise what an urban combat is like and how difficult it is to avoid civilian casualties when the battle is raging in residential quarters and terrorists are posing as civilians.


Ahh but should we mention that the entire Palestinian water infrastructure was built and is maintained by Israel? Shall we mention that the only functioning sewer system in the territories is, coincidentally, the only one that still hasn't been transferred to Palestinian control?


I am too tired for detailed posts right now. Maybe later. Or send me a telegramm or something.


This kind of questions always make me laugh. Why SHOULD the Palestinians be given Israeli citizenship, if they are not a part of Israel? There is a million Israeli Arabs who are fully fledged citizens with full rights- but why should citizenship be granted to the Palestinians of Ramallah? Unless, of course, you consider the territories Israel's rightful land... ;)


Again, Israeli Arabs can elect and be elected, they have three parties in the Knesset right now. As for the non-Israeli Arabs from the territories- see above.


First off, I read a book with more than 300 primary sources and documents, that presented all of the facts (without any opinions being offered by the author) that is considered to be the most objective source of information gathered for this entire conflict. That book is found at this site.

http://www.bestprices.com/cgi-bin/vlink/0312404085BT?source=froogle

The recent turn of events has made the Israelis act with much more tact on this issue, but during the conflicts which I speak of (like the Lebanese conflict) there was (from a Western source) a noticable lack of concern for Palestinian casualties. Granted, this is not the case anymore, but it once was.

I can completely understand that Urban fighting kills innocent civilians. The tragic (and unjust) casualties were those during the Lebanese conflict when the PLO was still in existence. I don't have the source, but if you buy that book (hey, I could send you $50 to buy that one for yourself) you'll find out that during some air raids, tightly packed refugee camps were carpet-bombed, despite Israeli intel knowing the precise location of the PLO HQ.

This kind of questions always make me laugh. Why SHOULD the Palestinians be given Israeli citizenship, if they are not a part of Israel? There is a million Israeli Arabs who are fully fledged citizens with full rights- but why should citizenship be granted to the Palestinians of Ramallah? Unless, of course, you consider the territories Israel's rightful land...

True in that sense, it just seems appropriate that the backbone of the Israeli economy (as the working class always is) should be given more representative rights.

Here is another issue though: If Palestine is being controlled by the Israelis, and the Israeli settlers living amongst the Palestinians are allowed to vote, and since Israel holds political ownership of the West Bank (though it is not officially Israeli territory) why aren't the Palestinians represented?

The Madrid conference was a joke! The Palestinians weren't even allowed to attend! They were represented by the damn Jordanians for god's sakes!
Who, did you say, taught you that infamous class of yours?

Was there a Palestinian delegation? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Conference_of_1991)
The Palestinian team, due to Israeli objections, was not directly from the PLO, was initially instead formally a part of a joint Palestinian-Jordanian delegation, and was represented by Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza like Faisal Husseini, Hanan Ashrawi and Haidar Abdel-Shafi, who were however in constant communication with the PLO leadership in Tunis.
In other words, you were fed a creatively distorted half-truth. There WERE authentic Palestinian representatives at the conference, even though they were not formally a team of their own.


The original premise of the Madrid conference was for local diplomacy, the Israelis said that they would bail on the talks if Palestinian sovereignty came up.
Again half-true in a slanted way.

The first-ever public bilateral talks between Israel and its neigbbors (except Egypt) were aimed at achieving peace treaties between the 3 Arab states and Israel, while the talks with the Palestinians were based on a 2-stage formula, the first consisting of negotiating interim self-government arrangements, to be followed by permanent status negotiations. (This formula was essentially followed in the later Oslo process.)

In other words, Madrid conference worked out the same formula of establishing Palestinian souvereignity as was later proposed in the Oslo accords. Nobody "bailed out" of anything.


True, peaceful rockthrowing is an oxymoron, but the first Intifada only managed to kill 90 Israelis in the entire conflict. I don't call that a problem.
Of course. Since when was a hundred dead Jews ever a problem. It's just a nuisance. Now if those were Palestinians... :rolleyes:


And you still haven't answered my questions! You're getting defensive!
Most of your questions were answered in my posts above.


Well you're not changing my mind into thinking that your leaders weren't the thickest scum from the inside of my toilet,
I think you have just officially declared our discussion pointless, and yourself hopelessly biased.


I just want to find out why the Israelis would vote for people whose campaign was to remove the entire Israeli working-class?
Ahh so THAT is what worries you, my commie friend. Let me guess, you got that "remove the Israeli working class" idea from the World Socialist website or some other cyber trash heap of this kind. You don't have half a clue about the nature of economic reforms suggested by the current Israeli government, nor do you have the vaguest idea about the labour union politics here.


Are you people that freaking afraid of the Palestinians?
No, we're freaking angry because we're being bombed. We happen to not respond too kindly to terrorist blackmail.


Do you forget that you kill 2.5 times as many Palestinians as they kill of you? Or do those deaths not matter to you?
What is this, a freaking math exersise?

The "total" number of fatalities reflects nothing. At all. To evaluate it correctly, you have to know how many of the dead were non-combatants and how many were legitimate targets. You have to know the circumstances of deaths.

Go to the same website you have cited in your previous posts- www.ict.org.il and take a GOOD look at the numbers of fatalities. Notice that the difference in the number of non-combatants killed is not that big. Notice that three times more innocent Israeli women were killed than Palestinian women. Notice that three to four times more elderly Israeli people were killed than elderly Palestinians. Notice that the overwhelming majority of Palestinian non-combatant fatalities are young males, who under certain circumstances could reasonably be mistaken for terrorists- and if you read the research methodology, you'll see that many of them actually fall into the "unknown" category rather than the "proven non-combatant" one. Finally, notice the insanely high- OVER TEN PERCENT- of the Palestinian casualties are people killed BY THE PALESTINIANS THEMSELVES. Now sit down and think it over, and understand what it means.

First off, I read a book with more than 300 primary sources and documents, that presented all of the facts (without any opinions being offered by the author) that is considered to be the most objective source of information gathered for this entire conflict. That book is found at this site.

http://www.bestprices.com/cgi-bin/vlink/0312404085BT?source=froogle
Well, if you've read a BOOK, it must be true. I mean, it's not like a BOOK could possibly present falsehoods as facts, or just pick and choose the facts in order to create a specific impression on a reader.
:rolleyes:

True in that sense, it just seems appropriate that the backbone of the Israeli economy (as the working class always is) should be given more representative rights.
What does that have to do with anything? What's with your constant "working class" bragging, anyway?


Here is another issue though: If Palestine is being controlled by the Israelis, and the Israeli settlers living amongst the Palestinians are allowed to vote, and since Israel holds political ownership of the West Bank (though it is not officially Israeli territory) why aren't the Palestinians represented?
And when the Allies were occupying the Nazi Germany, were they obliged to grant the Germans voting rights so they could, say, overthrow Churchill and replace him with the more "peace-minded" Chamberleign?

Not even the Geneva convention compells the occupying power to grant voting rights to the subjects of occupation. There is no legal -or logical- basis whatsoever for that.

Well, if you've read a BOOK, it must be true. I mean, it's not like a BOOK could possibly present falsehoods as facts, or just pick and choose the facts in order to create a specific impression on a reader.
:rolleyes:


This book had nothing but facts. And so many facts that I couldn't keep track of them all. This is how the book was constructed:

First Sentence of Paragraph:Fact
Second:Fact
Third:Quote
Fourth:Fact
Fifth:Fact
and so on and so forth

Now, this book took facts in equal amounts from both sides, but it wasn't constructed to create opinions. Read about the book, then decide if it is a credible source.

This is how the book you're thinking of is written:

First Sentence:Opinion or declaration
Second:Fact
Third:Opinion
Fourth:Opinion
Fifth:Quote or fact

And so on and so forth. The class I took was by the esteemed professor John Damis, the highest up in my department. These are his credentials: http://www.hatfieldschool.pdx.edu/documents/DAMIS.pdf

What does that have to do with anything? What's with your constant "working class" bragging, anyway?


And when the Allies were occupying the Nazi Germany, were they obliged to grant the Germans voting rights so they could, say, overthrow Churchill and replace him with the more "peace-minded" Chamberleign?

Germany was an independent country. And they voted for their own local government. Up until recently, the Palestinians haven't even had a provincial government for the managing of policing and local affairs! Technically, the West Bank is Israel,

Not even the Geneva convention compells the occupying power to grant voting rights to the subjects of occupation. There is no legal -or logical- basis whatsoever for that.


Nothing wrong with saying that the Palestinians are an advantage to the Israeli economy. They get paid around 1/2 what the Israelis do for the same job (they aren't unionized, and they go for a lower rate).

Germany was an independent country. And they voted for their own local government. Up until recently, the Palestinians haven't even had a provincial government for the managing of policing and local affairs! Technically, the West Bank is Israel, it's administered by Israel, it's occupied by Israel, the police are Israeli, the roads are funded by Israeli tax dollars, come on!

Whether or not the Geneva Convention requires sovereignty for the occupied is not an issue. The issue is that the Palestinians are living where everything is controlled by Israel. Shouldn't they have a part in the process? Or are you worried about what their vote would do to Israel? For some reason, I think that sounds like Ancient Rome. Most of the population couldn't vote, they were slaves, and hell, if slaves voted, they might not vote to be slaves anymore! (note, I'm not equating the Palestinians with slavery, just saying that it is a politically bad move for the Jewish Israelis)

In Gaza Hamas has continued to use kassam rockets and mortars to target Israeli neighborhoods despite Sharon's continued work to uproot the settlements and give the land back to the palestinians. This makes me wonder if the Palestinians actually want peace or if they just want to kill Israelis.

Why is Hamas trying to threaten the disengagement from Gaza? Do they actually want to prolong and escalate the conflict?


tough question.
i think the palestinians are in a bit of a quandry.on one hand,they have a bitter hatred for the jews that have killed there mothers/brothers/fathers/sisters.
that said,the jews are in the same situation,it's a viscous circle of hatred,if i was god for a day i would erase there memories.
and this might not be popular or correct.but i have worked in some very bad places,and sometimes it seems...it is all they know.it is how they grew up,they are uneducated,they get one side of the story...and all they know is the"fight"
it is horribly tragic for both sides...and i cant presume too know who is right and wrong.
it seems alot of hatred towards the west for supporting the jews is founded,yet does that justify blowing up children,and on the flip side,if i was an arab i would be pissed at the west for supporting people who attack your own...what a mess.
i think both sides are wrong,but i do not know the full history,but i would love to see it stop.
there has to be a way for them to work it out somehow.
i will dissagree with hamas for breaking the ceasefire...it is almost like they want to fight no matter what....but i may be wrong,just seems like there is this bitter hatred that won't go away....but it can,hell the ira and britain have seemed to sort things out.
at least the violence has seems to have subsided some.
i think the world would be a far better place if they could work things out..obviously...but i also think that for some arabs and some jews..they will never let go of the hatred...and honestly,if my child was blown up on a bus,or some superiour force snapped a rocket into my room gunning for me and killed my kid,i dont know if i could let it go either.
thank god i hope i never find out that kind of hatred.
too sound corny.."cant we all just get along?"

It is not a legitimate question when you take the actions of a few and use them to reflect the whole.

Does Hamas want peace? Probably not. What would they do with it?

Do Palestinians in general want peace? Do humans in general want peace? Do you possibly doubt that they do?

amen and amen to that...succinct and correct

Who, did you say, taught you that infamous class of yours?

Was there a Palestinian delegation? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Conference_of_1991)
The Palestinian team, due to Israeli objections, was not directly from the PLO, was initially instead formally a part of a joint Palestinian-Jordanian delegation, and was represented by Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza like Faisal Husseini, Hanan Ashrawi and Haidar Abdel-Shafi, who were however in constant communication with the PLO leadership in Tunis.
In other words, you were fed a creatively distorted half-truth. There WERE authentic Palestinian representatives at the conference, even though they were not formally a team of their own.


Again half-true in a slanted way.

The first-ever public bilateral talks between Israel and its neigbbors (except Egypt) were aimed at achieving peace treaties between the 3 Arab states and Israel, while the talks with the Palestinians were based on a 2-stage formula, the first consisting of negotiating interim self-government arrangements, to be followed by permanent status negotiations. (This formula was essentially followed in the later Oslo process.)

In other words, Madrid conference worked out the same formula of establishing Palestinian souvereignity as was later proposed in the Oslo accords. Nobody "bailed out" of anything.


Of course. Since when was a hundred dead Jews ever a problem. It's just a nuisance. Now if those were Palestinians... :rolleyes:


Most of your questions were answered in my posts above.


I think you have just officially declared our discussion pointless, and yourself hopelessly biased.


Ahh so THAT is what worries you, my commie friend. Let me guess, you got that "remove the Israeli working class" idea from the World Socialist website or some other cyber trash heap of this kind. You don't have half a clue about the nature of economic reforms suggested by the current Israeli government, nor do you have the vaguest idea about the labour union politics here.


No, we're freaking angry because we're being bombed. We happen to not respond too kindly to terrorist blackmail.


What is this, a freaking math exersise?

The "total" number of fatalities reflects nothing. At all. To evaluate it correctly, you have to know how many of the dead were non-combatants and how many were legitimate targets. You have to know the circumstances of deaths.

Go to the same website you have cited in your previous posts- www.ict.org.il and take a GOOD look at the numbers of fatalities. Notice that the difference in the number of non-combatants killed is not that big. Notice that three times more innocent Israeli women were killed than Palestinian women. Notice that three to four times more elderly Israeli people were killed than elderly Palestinians. Notice that the overwhelming majority of Palestinian non-combatant fatalities are young males, who under certain circumstances could reasonably be mistaken for terrorists- and if you read the research methodology, you'll see that many of them actually fall into the "unknown" category rather than the "proven non-combatant" one. Finally, notice the insanely high- OVER TEN PERCENT- of the Palestinian casualties are people killed BY THE PALESTINIANS THEMSELVES. Now sit down and think it over, and understand what it means.


The 90 dead Israelis is a tragedy. All the deaths in this conflict are a tragedy. But a greater tragedy is that more Palestinians have died than Israelis. Innocent or viable target, it truly doesn't matter. Israeli troop casualties are frighteningly low. In a military exchange, comparable troop deaths are supposed to occur. A combatant is considered someone who is resisting the military forces, whether or not they are a legitimate threat. So what's the difference between a dead rock thrower and a dead gunman? Nothing, except that there are 10 rock throwers to every gunman!
Do you really consider a kid chucking a rock a military target? A combatant? Most people wouldn't.

I don't get my opinions from anywhere but facts and my own logic. The truth of the matter is that the Palestinians are the Israeli working-class. That the political muscles of Ben-Gurion and the likes have been flexed so many times in an effort to relocate the refugees of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to Jordan and other countries, that there is no other word for it but "Exclusion". That up until recently, an Israeli border that stretched all the way between the Mediterranian [Sp] and the Jordan river was the expected outcome in this political conflict.

I have my own opinion on the conduct of your leaders. The facts of the matter remain that what your PMs and Defense Ministers have done in the past are inexcusable. There is no saving the soul of David Ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin for the military atrocities committed during their time in office. All I asked of you is to divulge why, oh why the supposed smartest and holiest group of people in the world would vote for such assholes! And I wanted your opinion. I was hoping you could justify yourself. But you haven't tried, and I doubt that you can.

I can understand that you get pissed off by the suicide bombers. I do too. There's no justification for that form of terrorism. But another question I have is this: What is your opinion on the Zionist claims that Israel belongs exclusively to them? And what is your opinion of the settlement of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in an effort to push out the local Palestinian populations? And lastly, how much land do you think the your people are entitled to? Does it include the western bank of the Jordan river?

Israel is the source of war.

Israel is the source of war.


My thoughts as well.

Not true either. You don't know the history of this conflict at all.



(a barren, desert "paradise")
At this point the history is irrelevant. I outlined the current situation.



Which is exactly what israel was before they turned it into it's current incarnation.

Just generally...anyone who would even remotely want to understand what was happening here should read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
It's a good summary of what the idea of an Israel is all about.

Interesting bits:
Before 1917 some Zionist leaders took seriously proposals for Jewish homelands in places other than Palestine. Herzl's Der Judenstaat argued for a Jewish state in either Palestine, "our ever-memorable historic home", or Argentina, "one of the most fertile countries in the world". In 1903 British cabinet ministers suggested the British Uganda Program, land for a Jewish state in "Uganda" (actually in modern Kenya). Herzl initially rejected the idea, preferring Palestine, but after the April 1903 Kishinev pogroms Herzl introduced a controversial proposal to the 6th Zionist Congress to investigate the offer as a temporary measure for Russian Jews in danger.

Despite Herzl's efforts to have German proclaimed the official language of the Zionist movement, the use of Hebrew was adopted as official policy by Zionist organisations in Palestine, and served as an important unifying force among the Jewish settlers, many of whom also took new Hebrew names.

Mainly this whole business with Zionism is basically the same Romanticism that caused WWI and to an extent WWII and the holocaust...

This book had nothing but facts. And so many facts that I couldn't keep track of them all. This is how the book was constructed:

First Sentence of Paragraph:Fact
Second:Fact
Third:Quote
Fourth:Fact
Fifth:Fact
and so on and so forth
Let me try this approach.

First Sentence: Mods Can Be So Cruel (further referred to as MCBSC :p ) drives a SUV.
Second: MCBSC sometimes forgets to turn off the lights in his room when he leaves, thus burning more energy than he really needs.
Third: On a daily basis, MCBSC consumes ten times more energy and eight times more petroleum based products than an average African
Fourth: MCBSC likes long showers.
Fifth: A large percent of world population is deprived of access to drinking water.
Sixths: MCBSC can afford college and university education.
Seventh: A large percent of people in South America cannot afford a decent meal every day, let alone education.
Eights: SUVs are believed to be one of the major sources of car related air pollution.

And I can go on and on flooding the audience with facts about you that will make you look as an incarnation of the devil himself. The problem is that this list of facts (pure facts, mind you, no opinions here ;)) are:

1)Unconfirmed: I don't know whether you really do drive a SUV
2)Carefully selected for a specific purpose: I did not include any facts that could show you in a favorable light or even do you justice. If I was to mention that you love your little sister, it could generate a more favorable reaction from the readers
3)Juxtaposed to create false comparisons. You liking long showers is a perfectly innocent fact in and of itself, but when you juxtapose it with something completely unrelated, it can be made to look like a crime against humanity.

THIS is what I suspect your beloved book may be doing.


The class I took was by the esteemed professor John Damis, the highest up in my department. These are his credentials: http://www.hatfieldschool.pdx.edu/documents/DAMIS.pdf
Whoever he is, his word isn't gospel. Besides, perhaps you just weren't much of a student ;)

The 90 dead Israelis is a tragedy. All the deaths in this conflict are a tragedy. But a greater tragedy is that more Palestinians have died than Israelis. Innocent or viable target, it truly doesn't matter. Israeli troop casualties are frighteningly low. In a military exchange, comparable troop deaths are supposed to occur. A combatant is considered someone who is resisting the military forces, whether or not they are a legitimate threat. So what's the difference between a dead rock thrower and a dead gunman? Nothing, except that there are 10 rock throwers to every gunman!
Do you really consider a kid chucking a rock a military target? A combatant? Most people wouldn't.the children don't were the aim. israel aimed only to the gunmen behind them (which is diffuclt, because they hide behind children).

I don't get my opinions from anywhere but facts and my own logic. The truth of the matter is that the Palestinians are the Israeli working-class. no, it almost stop because the terror. the israeli working class is foriegeners from eastern europe, africa, and east asia. while they really were the working-class, they enjoy good terms, except when few criminals used them in lesser paid.
That the political muscles of Ben-Gurion and the likes have been flexed so many times in an effort to relocate the refugees of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to Jordan and other countries, that there is no other word for it but "Exclusion". the "transfer", never was israeli policy, and he thought only by israeli radicals.
I have my own opinion on the conduct of your leaders. The facts of the matter remain that what your PMs and Defense Ministers have done in the past are inexcusable.this is some generalization to say that all the israeli leaders are like sharon (who is also the one who give the palastinians gaza strip).
There is no saving the soul of David Ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin for the military atrocities committed during their time in office. in the time of ben-gurion (the first years of the country), the arabs attack us. he did nothing wrong. in addition, he destroyed weapon ship of jewish radicals, in order to get stabilize country. the palastinians refused to fight their radicals.
menachem begin give the eygeptians the whole area of sinai, until the international border. what wrong with that?
All I asked of you is to divulge why, oh why the supposed smartest and holiest group of people in the world would vote for such assholes! And I wanted your opinion. I was hoping you could justify yourself. But you haven't tried, and I doubt that you can.israeli leaders choose by israeli people, and there is no reason to give you excuses for the israeli choices. furthermore, every decision is one man decision, and no one can give you all the reasons of all the voters.
btw, every country had great leaders and lousy leaders. surprisingly, you choose the leaders (that with rabin), were the greatest leaders in israel.
I can understand that you get pissed off by the suicide bombers. I do too. There's no justification for that form of terrorism.isn't that what you tried to do?
But another question I have is this: What is your opinion on the Zionist claims that Israel belongs exclusively to them?you have no idea what Zionist is. zionist is every one who is for jewish democratic country in the land of israel (not had to be all the land). I am zionist and most of the country is too, but huge majority of the israelis agree to give land in peace agreement.
And what is your opinion of the settlement of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in an effort to push out the local Palestinian populations? the settlements never meant to be and never were an effort to push out the palastinians. most of them had built in order to get benefits in future peace agreement. the present situation when, they prevent the peace, is disaster. I, personally, for the destruction of most of them (except some territories with tens of thousands of jewish popolution, and almost no palastinians). the israeli problem is the radicals settlers, as the palastinian problem is the terrorists.
And lastly, how much land do you think the your people are entitled to? Does it include the western bank of the Jordan river?67's borders with some changes.
it will not include the most of the west bank. as for the jordan river, they may get only the areas at the west bank. this river pass the west bank, and in the end it come to the salt sea and the salt sea factories

Israel is the source of war.

Like all wars ever?
So Napoeleon was influenced, nay forced by Isreal to forge his empire? Who knew?
And it has absolutetly no redeeming features, even though it still has a tourist trade?
Easily the most general and unfounded statement i've read today.

(Oh, and I do believe, deep down, a lot of Palestinians want peace. But the violent minority opresses them, and prevents them from speaking out.)

Israel is the source of war.
Like all wars ever?
So Napoeleon was influenced, nay forced by Isreal to forge his empire? Who knew?
And it has absolutetly no redeeming features, even though it still has a tourist trade?
Easily the most general and unfounded statement i've read today.

(Oh, and I do believe, deep down, a lot of Palestinians want peace. But the violent minority opresses them, and prevents them from speaking out.)Israel is the Source of War in Palestine...and the sourronding area.

Furthermore...Israel is a source on the ongoing AQ-US war.