## Bush tells Palestinean President: "The People Have Spoken, Now Ignore Them" [Archive]

CanuckHeaven

27-01-2006, 07:21

New Rafnaland

27-01-2006, 07:26

Bushlogic 101?

Democracy is okay as long as those that freely partake in any elections elect a government that is not anti-US?

More like Government-logic 101.

The only good government is a government that supports your government. The rest are evil. It's written right on page viii in the text book for the course.

Santa Barbara

27-01-2006, 07:26

Durhammen

27-01-2006, 07:29

Well it's certainly true... it's happened before, I mean look at Nicaragua.

Delator

27-01-2006, 07:31

My coment: WTF !!!

Thu Jan 26, 2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Thursday the Palestinian election in which the militant group Hamas swept to a shock victory were a sign Palestinians were unhappy with the status quo but urged Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to remain in power.

He said the election showed democracy at work, which was positive for the Middle East region. "What was also positive is that it was a wake up call to the leadership, obviously people were not happy with the status quo," Bush told a White House news conference.

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=10986941&src=rss/politicsNews

Yeah...it doesn't make sense to me either.

Afghanistan: "Hey, good job you guys...way to hold an election. Way to go!"
Iraq: "Hey, good job you guys...way to hold an election. Way to go!"
Palestine: "Hey...you guys picked the wrong party. Way to screw it up!"

We're never going to convince fence-sitting arabs that we're sincere about spreading democracy if we're only supporting democracy in a half-assed manner.

I don't like the idea of Hamas being in control of the Palestinian government any more than most people...but they WERE voted in by the Palestinian people.

I say give them a chance...it's not like they won't be voted out if they fuck up.

Durhammen

27-01-2006, 07:34

Well, everyone knows that a pro-US dictatorship is better than an anti-US democracy. </sarcasm>

New Rafnaland

27-01-2006, 07:37

Well, everyone knows that a pro-US dictatorship is better than an anti-US democracy. </sarcasm>

Of course! Pro-US dictatorships stand for freedom and equality, as everyone knows, while anti-US democracies are clearly corrupt, rigged, and run by Muslim Communists.

Myotisinia

27-01-2006, 07:38

A rather silly thing to say by G.W.B. An elected official is an elected official, even if he happens to be a terrorist. The people have spoken. But if I were the Palestinians, I would be getting ready for the Jihad they seem to want so badly. The Israelis will surely give it to them, and I doubt it will take much provocation to get them to spring into action, either.

Durhammen

27-01-2006, 07:46

Oh dear, the Israeli-Palestinian debate...

I sympathize with the Palestinians... if only because my controlling, tightwad father is Israeli.

Brantor

27-01-2006, 08:52

"God damn arabs... your meant to vote for the people we tell you to... thats democracy. what you have is obviously some left wing liberal conspiracy to put down the work'in man."

DubyaGoat

27-01-2006, 09:08

Anarchic Christians

27-01-2006, 09:23

What are you people complaining about? The Hamas are dedicated to the destruction (at all cost mind you, and it's not opinion, it's essentially their "mission statement") but they are dedicated and devoted entirely to the destruction of Israel.

What part of 'sovreignty of the people' do you not understand? It means, the people chooe their representatives. Right or wrong, we have to accept their choice. Or we could invade but that's a Bad Idea right up there with poking Kim Jong-Il with sticks at diplomatic meetings...

That's democracy bitch, live with it.

Genaia3

27-01-2006, 09:38

Bushlogic 101?

Democracy is okay as long as those that freely partake in any elections elect a government that is not anti-US?

Hamas are not simply "anti-US" - they are a terrorist organisation openly committed to the destruction of Israel, you can hardly expect whole-hearted support from the west. The fact that various western countries have declared their opposition to the new regime is perfectly legitimate in the realm of international politics.

I hope you're not going to contend that the intentional slaughter of Israeli civilians is now an acceptable pursuit because it has a democratic mandate.

Olantia

27-01-2006, 09:54

The Squeaky Rat

27-01-2006, 10:11

Hamas are not simply "anti-US" - they are a terrorist organisation openly committed to the destruction of Israel, you can hardly expect whole-hearted support from the west. The fact that various western countries have declared their opposition to the new regime is perfectly legitimate in the realm of international politics.

There is a difference between saying "we do not like your new regime, so we won't deal with you and stop you if you try to attack other nations" and "we do not like your new regime, please have new elections until we do".
First case is international politics. Second is attempting to directly interfere in a countries internal politics.

The Infinite Dunes

27-01-2006, 10:29

What are you talkingabout? Ra'ees Mahmoud Abbas was elected in 2005 for a four-year term. He has three more years tio serve. Clinton didn't resign in 1994 in the wake of the Republican landslide, did he?Yeah, I wondered if anyone would get to this before me. Palestine is like France in it's government. There's the government, cabinet and prime minister elected under one election. And the President is another election. Both with distinct and seperate powers.

Israel says they won't talk to Hamas. Doesn't matter. They'll still be talking to Abbas. Hamas will just be taking care of hospitals, schools and other things. Which, as I'm aware, already had a repuatation for setting these institutions up whilst they were called terrorists.

All Bush was saying is that he was urging Abbas not to resign in the wake of the Hamas victory as this would be pretty stupid and bad for the middle east peace process. Plus it was also a publicity stunt for middle America about not being weak in the face of terrorism. Bush's comment, in all truth, was completely introverted and self-serving.

Red Ensign

27-01-2006, 10:33

Neminefir

27-01-2006, 10:46

Yeah, why not ignore the majority votes?
It has worked before for him.....

Eli Sheol

27-01-2006, 10:48

George W has done it to Australia before as well. He said that if Australians elected Labor as the government then they are doing something bad about security.

I mean, bugger off. If the UN can't tell you to stop going to war, then you shouldn't be able to tell another country's people who to vote for.

And he was right to "do it" to us in Australia. Since when do you not encourage foreign voters to elect like-minded cantidates?

What is this ridiculous thread? I didn't see anyone complaining when Michael Moore came to Australia and told people to oust John Howard. Why? Screwed if he knew, he's riding on the same damn beserker-leftist outrage that people are part of in this very thread.

You know, you can let George W. Bush say words without struggling so desperately to criticise them. It doesn't mean you're less of a hippie. Don't be afraid to breathe between all that rabid hatred...

Aeruillin

27-01-2006, 10:50

Eli Sheol

27-01-2006, 10:56

What the...

So the election, symbolizing democracy, positive for the Middle East, but its outcome should be ignored?

...

Wait.

I think that's how he handles elections in the US, isn't it?

To recap on what OTHER PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY STATED IN THIS THREAD, that man was elected earlier in a seperate election and has the right and duty to remain in power.

President Bush was, infact, addressing a threat the President Abbas made much earlier in which he proposed that he would resign in Hamas got elected and interfered with the peace process he'd been toiling on.

So what President Bush is doing is trying to cling to what remains of the hopes for peace in the middle east. I'm sure you're opposed to that too, of course - George Bush is for it, therefore you're against it.

Think before you post...

Olantia

27-01-2006, 11:01

Yeah, why not ignore the majority votes?
It has worked before for him.....

What the...

So the election, symbolizing democracy, positive for the Middle East, but its outcome should be ignored?

...

Wait.

I think that's how he handles elections in the US, isn't it?
Sigh. Who on Earth has ignored the Hamas win? The Palesitian PM, Qurei, already submitted his resignation.

Does the French president have to resign when the opposition wins a parliamentary election? No, enters into "cohabitation". He may resign, of course, just like de Gaulle did in 1969 after a narrow referendum loss, but on his own volition.

Candelar

27-01-2006, 11:11

Well it's certainly true... it's happened before, I mean look at Nicaragua.
It happens frequently. Even indisputably democratic western nations are villified when their governments listen to the will of their people instead of the dictats of a foreign government, as we saw in the reaction to the opposition of France, Germany et al to the Iraq war.

Neu Leonstein

27-01-2006, 12:08

Nodinia

27-01-2006, 12:43

I hope you're not going to contend that the intentional slaughter of Israeli civilians is now an acceptable pursuit because it has a democratic mandate.

Well, its been good enough to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians by "democratic mandate" so, if its sauce for the goose....

They'll still be talking to Abbas.

No, they'd have to start talking to Abbas, as they've been shunning him for months. And of course, bypassing Hamas entirely means that if agreement is reached, it will not have been reached with those who represent the majority of Palestinian opinion, and thus lack legitamacy.

CanuckHeaven

27-01-2006, 16:41

Hamas are not simply "anti-US" - they are a terrorist organisation openly committed to the destruction of Israel, you can hardly expect whole-hearted support from the west. The fact that various western countries have declared their opposition to the new regime is perfectly legitimate in the realm of international politics.
I guess you never heard of detente? At one time, Russia and the US were "openly committed to the destruction of" each others regimes. At least now they can tolerate each other.

I hope you're not going to contend that the intentional slaughter of Israeli civilians is now an acceptable pursuit because it has a democratic mandate.
I "contend" nothing of the sort, and by trying to put words into my mouth, you demonstrate a lack of ability in debating the matter at hand. Please think before you type.

Candelar

27-01-2006, 16:59

What are you people complaining about? The Hamas are dedicated to the destruction (at all cost mind you, and it's not opinion, it's essentially their "mission statement") but they are dedicated and devoted entirely to the destruction of Israel. Not peaceful coexistence with them, not even for the overall well being of the Palestinian people first, but first and foremost, the very destruction of the Jewish state.
Their first and foremost aim is the creation of an Islamic state in Palestine - the destruction of the State of Israel is a necessary pre-requisite of than aim. However, they also declare in their charter that "Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other."

Personally, I don't see the justification for any religion-based state, whether Jewish or Islamic. The original PLO aim was a secular state of Muslims, Jews and Christians. But compare the Hamas wish for Jews to live in peace within an Islamic state with the original Israeli position, which was to deny that a "Palestinian people" even existed. This conflict is flamed by extremes on both sides.

DubyaGoat

27-01-2006, 17:05

Candelar

27-01-2006, 17:06

Hamas are not simply "anti-US" - they are a terrorist organisation openly committed to the destruction of Israel, you can hardly expect whole-hearted support from the west.
I wouldn't expect whole-hearted support from the west for the creation of an Islamic state, but I don't see why the west should necessarily support the continued existence of a Jewish state, either.

I hope you're not going to contend that the intentional slaughter of Israeli civilians is now an acceptable pursuit because it has a democratic mandate.
Both sides slaughter civilians (the Israelis more so than the Palestinians). It shouldn't happen, but ... the right of armed resistance to an occupying force is recognized by international law. The right to occupy territory obtained in war is not.

Teh_pantless_hero

27-01-2006, 17:07

There is a difference between saying "we do not like your new regime, so we won't deal with you and stop you if you try to attack other nations" and "we do not like your new regime, please have new elections until we do".
First case is international politics. Second is attempting to directly interfere in a countries internal politics.
THE US
Friends of democracy since 1787.. unless you are anti-us, then we have been opposed to democracy since 1964.

Candelar

27-01-2006, 17:10

What part of a sovereign state declaring war do you not understand?
Sovereign states can declare war on other sovereign states. Palestine is not a sovereign state, which is, of course, the whole problem!

WE ARE NOT INDIFFERENT

27-01-2006, 17:10

They deserve a piece of land to have their state. Everyone does. Peace in the Arab world: one step forward , ten giant cliches back. World War ???

Kievan-Prussia

27-01-2006, 17:10

I completely agree with Bush's comments. The palestinians are idiots. They actually voted for the Nazi party, can you believe that?

Corneliu

27-01-2006, 17:10

My coment: WTF !!!

Thu Jan 26, 2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Thursday the Palestinian election in which the militant group Hamas swept to a shock victory were a sign Palestinians were unhappy with the status quo but urged Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to remain in power.

He said the election showed democracy at work, which was positive for the Middle East region. "What was also positive is that it was a wake up call to the leadership, obviously people were not happy with the status quo," Bush told a White House news conference.

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=10986941&src=rss/politicsNews

1) He calls this a wake up call to Fatah

2) Abbas was elected in a seperate election. He is asking that he not resign.

3) This is a legislative election and not a head of state election. Call it a midterm if ya will.

Get your facts straight dude. This is in no way saying to ignore the voice of the people. Nice try though.

Corneliu

27-01-2006, 17:12

Corneliu

27-01-2006, 17:15

What the...

So the election, symbolizing democracy, positive for the Middle East, but its outcome should be ignored?

...

Wait.

I think that's how he handles elections in the US, isn't it?

One thing about OceanDrive3 (when will it be 4? no one knows)! He has a tendency to twist facts as he is doing now. Reading into something that is not there.

Don't give in to it.

Corneliu

27-01-2006, 17:16

To recap on what OTHER PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY STATED IN THIS THREAD, that man was elected earlier in a seperate election and has the right and duty to remain in power.

President Bush was, infact, addressing a threat the President Abbas made much earlier in which he proposed that he would resign in Hamas got elected and interfered with the peace process he'd been toiling on.

So what President Bush is doing is trying to cling to what remains of the hopes for peace in the middle east. I'm sure you're opposed to that too, of course - George Bush is for it, therefore you're against it.

Think before you post...

*applauds*

Well said Eli Sheol.

Maegi

27-01-2006, 17:19

Well, its been good enough to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians by "democratic mandate" so, if its sauce for the goose....

Got some evidence to back that up? All the ethnic cleansing I've seen attempted has been going the other way.

Kyle Bristow

27-01-2006, 17:23

Maegi

27-01-2006, 17:25

But compare the Hamas wish for Jews to live in peace within an Islamic state with the original Israeli position, which was to deny that a "Palestinian people" even existed. This conflict is flamed by extremes on both sides.

You're joking right? Last I checked the history books, the Arabs started all the wars with Israel except one with Lebanon. Second, there IS no such thing as Palestinian people. At least not in the Arab language. As someone pointed out on another thread, Arabic words all mean something. The Arabic word for Palestinian - "Philistine" is a recent development and taken from the people who lived there thousands of years ago and who no longer exist. They are Lebanese and Syrians who just happened to live in that area. Then when Israel gets formed, they get all upset and say "Hey! We're our own people! This is our land!" Sorry, no.

Corneliu

27-01-2006, 17:25

Hamas is a terrorist group. They celebrated their victory by shooting AK-47's off in the air. Democracy is only good when it doesn't elect nutcases to office. Remember, Hitler was Democratically elected too. Hamas' victory is a defeat for peace. What would you guys say if Al Queda was elected into power?

In the middle east, there is always celebratory gunfire. In Iraq, they had celebratory gunfire during the elections and weddings. I do not know if that is the standard throughout the Middle East but that is what i've been hearing.

Maegi

27-01-2006, 17:28

In the middle east, there is always celebratory gunfire. In Iraq, they had celebratory gunfire during the elections and weddings. I do not know if that is the standard throughout the Middle East but that is what i've been hearing.

It is pretty standard, though it also is a relatively new development. I'll be damned if I can figure out why people would bring fully automatic weapons to a wedding though.

Corneliu

27-01-2006, 17:29

It is pretty standard, though it also is a relatively new development. I'll be damned if I can figure out why people would bring fully automatic weapons to a wedding though.

Ahh thanks :)

Zero Six Three

27-01-2006, 17:32

It is pretty standard, though it also is a relatively new development. I'll be damned if I can figure out why people would bring fully automatic weapons to a wedding though.
To shoot it in the air in celebration, obviously. It's like fireworks but not as pretty.

Maegi

27-01-2006, 17:39

To shoot it in the air in celebration, obviously. It's like fireworks but not as pretty.

But...what happens when the bullets eventually come back down? I can see somebody just randomly driving in the desert, a bullet comes falling down at terminal velocity (whatever that may be for a bullet) and his head explodes. About as likely as getting struck by lightning, I'll admit, but it's stupid and I have a horrendous aversion to stupidity.

Teh_pantless_hero

27-01-2006, 17:40

Hamas is a terrorist group. They celebrated their victory by shooting AK-47's off in the air.
Is that all you have?

East Canuck

27-01-2006, 17:45

Got some evidence to back that up? All the ethnic cleansing I've seen attempted has been going the other way.
Surely you jest. Are you trying to say that Israel is totally without fault?

Israel never would kill innocent civilian as collateral damage. They would never displace population or restrict their movement in an attempt to put an illegal settlement. Of course not, they're the good guys. :rolleyes:

Not that it excuses the terrorist actions of the Hamas in any way, mind you, but to say that the Palestinians are the only one at fault is like calling your neighbour evil because he grows pot in his backyard while you are cultivating pot in your own backyard too.

Zero Six Three

27-01-2006, 17:48

But...what happens when the bullets eventually come back down? I can see somebody just randomly driving in the desert, a bullet comes falling down at terminal velocity (whatever that may be for a bullet) and his head explodes. About as likely as getting struck by lightning, I'll admit, but it's stupid and I have a horrendous aversion to stupidity.
I think you're a lot more likely to be struck by lightning. The chances are miniscule. Besides, I imagine fireworks would be quite dangerous in the hands of a trigger happy arab.

Maegi

27-01-2006, 18:10

Surely you jest. Are you trying to say that Israel is totally without fault?

Israel never would kill innocent civilian as collateral damage. They would never displace population or restrict their movement in an attempt to put an illegal settlement. Of course not, they're the good guys. :rolleyes:

Not that it excuses the terrorist actions of the Hamas in any way, mind you, but to say that the Palestinians are the only one at fault is like calling your neighbour evil because he grows pot in his backyard while you are cultivating pot in your own backyard too.

Oh, I'm not saying Israel is without fault, but calling what they do "ethnic cleansing" is the dumbest thing I've heard in awhile...and on NS General, that's pretty damn hard.

Madnestan

27-01-2006, 18:23

You're joking right? Last I checked the history books, the Arabs started all the wars with Israel except one with Lebanon. Second, there IS no such thing as Palestinian people. At least not in the Arab language. As someone pointed out on another thread, Arabic words all mean something. The Arabic word for Palestinian - "Philistine" is a recent development and taken from the people who lived there thousands of years ago and who no longer exist. They are Lebanese and Syrians who just happened to live in that area. Then when Israel gets formed, they get all upset and say "Hey! We're our own people! This is our land!" Sorry, no.

So it is infact you and Israel who decide when a group forms a people? With the logic of yours, there is no American people, they are just Englishmen, French, Irish, Scots, Swedes, Poles and Germans who happened to go there.

Well, you're wrong.

When a group of people living in a area start to feel they are actually a people and identify themselves to be part of that people, instead of members of a group that happens to live in the mentioned area, they BECOME a people. There is no offcial system of deciding when a Formal People is beeing born. Like every people in this world, Palestinians become Palestinians instead of Syrians Who Live In Palestine when they started to identify themselves as such. Just like Austrians, Germans, Italians and French Living In Western Alps became Swiss when they started to call themselves so and fight for their right to have independence.

Still, this shouldn't count the slightest bit in this issue here. What you're saying is that if the people living in Palestine aren't Palestinians, because Israel, USA, you and the International Institute of Telling People What They Really Are haven't granted them that status, they have no right to complain about Israel's tanks and bulldozers crushing their houses and pushing them away from their lands that have been owned by them and their families for centuries to make room for Israeli colonies and walls?

Madnestan

27-01-2006, 18:26

But...what happens when the bullets eventually come back down? I can see somebody just randomly driving in the desert, a bullet comes falling down at terminal velocity (whatever that may be for a bullet) and his head explodes. About as likely as getting struck by lightning, I'll admit, but it's stupid and I have a horrendous aversion to stupidity.

Oh come on. Like there wasn't any western superpowers in where small arms, legal and unlegal, cause deaths because of careless handling (like letting your kid to take it to school)?

Ekland

27-01-2006, 18:45

Of course! Pro-US dictatorships stand for freedom and equality, as everyone knows, while anti-US democracies are clearly corrupt, rigged, and run by Muslim Communists.

Psst! The term is Islamofascist. Is-lam-o-fasc-ist.

Yathura

27-01-2006, 18:53

I think many of you who say that the Palestinians have voted against the peace process lack understanding of Hamas' election platform and of the extent of Fatah's corruption. A vote for Hamas is not a vote for war on Israel; none of the destruction of Israel, the cessation of the peace process, and a return to violence were part of Hamas' platform. Hamas' platform was concerned with the internal problems of the Gaza Strip as far as violence, corruption and poverty are concerned. As for Fatah, after forty years of uncontested rule, it has become a corrupt, inefficient bureaucratic behemoth that has done little to help its people in any of these areas.

In short, a vote for Hamas was a vote against Fatah and its corruption. It was not a vote for war and violence, but for prosperity and good governance.

Man in Black

27-01-2006, 18:57

Let me invoke Godwins law and remind everyone that Hitler was voted into office too! Maybe we should have respected the German people a bit more?

Yathura

27-01-2006, 19:00

Let me invoke Godwins law and remind everyone that Hitler was voted into office too! Maybe we should have respected the German people a bit more?
Godwin's law doesn't work if you invoke it on purpose, and Hitler has already been mentioned in this thread, anyway.

JuNii

27-01-2006, 19:24

But...what happens when the bullets eventually come back down? I can see somebody just randomly driving in the desert, a bullet comes falling down at terminal velocity (whatever that may be for a bullet) and his head explodes. About as likely as getting struck by lightning, I'll admit, but it's stupid and I have a horrendous aversion to stupidity.
oh, when that happens, they blame it on the Americans [j/k] :D

Me, I'm waiting to see what changes they'll try to push through.

The Mighty Azareth

27-01-2006, 19:37

Well, everyone knows that a pro-US dictatorship is better than an anti-US democracy. </sarcasm>

Yeah..it's better than an anti-US terrorist state too. If Hamas takes power, the UN mandates against terrorist supporting states would hurt it. Unless the Hamas proves to the UN that it's not going to allow suicide bombers, etc. Good luck!

IDF

27-01-2006, 20:19

My summary of this thread

1. Ocean Drive once again ignores facts and makes a total ass of himself.

2. People who agree with OD's ideology also ignore facts stated numerous times in this thread about how Abbas was elected in a seperate election and make asses of themselves.

Maegi

27-01-2006, 20:20

So it is infact you and Israel who decide when a group forms a people? With the logic of yours, there is no American people, they are just Englishmen, French, Irish, Scots, Swedes, Poles and Germans who happened to go there.

Well, you're wrong.

No, I'm not. The thing is, they didn't decide to identify themselves as a "people" until after the Jews started moving in. Kinda hurts their credibility JUST a bit.

-Clarification - Before the establishment of Israel, the people living in that area considered themselves SYRIAN.

Maegi

27-01-2006, 20:22

Oh come on. Like there wasn't any western superpowers in where small arms, legal and unlegal, cause deaths because of careless handling (like letting your kid to take it to school)?

True, but if you noticed on the thead dealing with the 8 year old bringing a gun to class I said the same thing. Stupid people are a blight on the world.

Adriatica II

27-01-2006, 20:30

Bushlogic 101?

Democracy is okay as long as those that freely partake in any elections elect a government that is not anti-US?

More like

Democracy is ok as long as you allow democratic enterents into the process. The logic that says the fact that Hammas's election was democratic, making it good that they came to power, is the same as saying that Hitler being voted into power was good, since it was democratic.

Nodinia

27-01-2006, 20:35

Got some evidence to back that up? All the ethnic cleansing I've seen attempted has been going the other way.

The fact that 51% of Jordans population is Palestinian. The large Palestinian commmunities in Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. The refugee camps in Gaza that were there before the 1967 invasion. Did you think they just went on an outing and forgot where the bus was parked?

Second, there IS no such thing as Palestinian people..

Go try that one in Jordan.

but calling what they do "ethnic cleansing" is the dumbest thing I've heard in awhile...

Beatings, humiliation, attacking farmers in their fields, preventing access to oliver farmers olive crops, ploughing glasshouses and crops into the ground, seizing land and moving your own population in? Why were there 8,000 Israeli settlers in Gaza and why are there about 400,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank both of which are outside Israels internationally recognised borders? Is this another excursion who have "lost" their bus and had to stay?

Nodinia

27-01-2006, 20:37

More like

Democracy is ok as long as you allow democratic enterents into the process. The logic that says the fact that Hammas's election was democratic, making it good that they came to power, is the same as saying that Hitler being voted into power was good, since it was democratic.

But it makes far more sense than referring to Israel as the only democracy in the middle east without the qualification that they have also been brutal occupiers for nearly four decades...........

Adriatica II

27-01-2006, 20:37

No, I'm not. The thing is, they didn't decide to identify themselves as a "people" until after the Jews started moving in. Kinda hurts their credibility JUST a bit.

-Clarification - Before the establishment of Israel, the people living in that area considered themselves SYRIAN.

Indeed. Here's some more info on that issue

Historically there is no such thing as Palestine as a seperate entity, where as there is such a thing as Israel

The term Palestine is derived from the Philistines who settled in the areas now known as Israel and the West bank in aproximately 1200 BCE. The word Palistineia was first applied by the Romans in the second century CE after crushing the Jewish revolt in an attempt to minimise Jewish identification with the land. The Arabic word 'Filistin' (phonetic) derives from this latin name

The Jews arrived in the area now known as Palestine in aproximately 1300 BCE, living in a tribal confederation till united under King Saul. When the kingdoms later split, the Northern kingdom (Israel) lasted till 722 BCE when the Assyrians destroyed it and the Southern kingdom (Judea) lasted till 586 BCE when the Babylonians destroyed them there (Despite warnings from prophets in both cases). After that, when Israel was re-constucted later, they enjoyed varying lengths periods of soverignity up untill 135 CE when they were driven away. Israel has enjoyed over 400 years of independence and if it were not for forigen conquerers, it would be 3000 years old today.

Palestine was never exclusively an Arab country, but Arabic did become the popular language after the Muslim conquests of the seventh century CE. There has never been an independent Palestianian state in the area known as Palestine, it has always been considered as part of Syria. Professer Philip Hitti an Arab-American historian said before the Anglo American commitie in 1946 - "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not"

Before the partition, Palistianian Arabs did not view that they had a seperate identiy to Syria. According to the First Congress of Christian Muslim Asscocations met in Febuary of 1919 they came up with a resolution which said

"We consider Palistine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been seperated from it at any time. We are connected to it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds"

In 1937 a local Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi told the Peel commision

"There is no such country [as Palistine]! 'Palistine' is a term the Zionists invented! The is no Palistine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria"

The representative from the Arab Higher Committe to the UN said "Palistine was part of the province of Syria. Politicaly the Arabs of Palistine were not independent in the sense of forming a seperate political entity" in 1947. And later Ahmed Shuqeiri (later chairman of the PLO) said before the security council "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria"

Adriatica II

27-01-2006, 20:39

But it makes far more sense than referring to Israel as the only democracy in the middle east without the qualification that they have also been brutal occupiers for nearly four decades...........

They occupy that region for one reason. If they didnt, the Arabs there would use it to mount attacks against them

Maegi

27-01-2006, 20:42

They occupy that region for one reason. If they didnt, the Arabs there would use it to mount attacks against them

I have a lot of disagreements with the way the UN does things, but this was the one that I thought was completely asinine. If you are invaded (ie not the aggressor in a war) and you win, you should be able to keep what you took. It will teach the idiots who invaded not to do it again.

Addition - http://www.historyguy.com/arab_israeli_wars.html
Upon independence, Israel was invaded by the armies of six Arab nations: Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia - oh yes, Israel's Arab neighbors all just want to play nice.

Nodinia

27-01-2006, 20:43

They occupy that region for one reason. If they didnt, the Arabs there would use it to mount attacks against them

So thats why they moved all those civilians in amongst those attack-mad Arabs...like strapping your grandmother to the bumper of your car for extra protection....its all starting to make sense now....

By the way, if the Palestinians were part of southern Syria, why have they not campaigned to be allowed merge with that state, instead of looking for a distinctly independent identity?

Nodinia

27-01-2006, 20:46

I have a lot of disagreements with the way the UN does things, but this was the one that I thought was completely asinine. If you are invaded (ie not the aggressor in a war) and you win, you should be able to keep what you took. It will teach the idiots who invaded not to do it again.

So France owns Germany, and had Iraq won the war, it would own America.

Maegi

27-01-2006, 20:47

So thats why they moved all those civillians in amongst those attack-mad Arabs...like strapping your grandmother to the bumber of your car for extra protection....its all starting to make sense now....

By the way, if the Palestinians were part of southern Syria, why have they not campaigned to be allowed merge with that state, instead of looking for a distinctly independent identity?

Simple, if they campaigned for a merger with Syria, they would have to give Israel legitimacy, which they refuse to do. On a related note, since we're SO concerned with people being oppressed, why exactly is northern Iraq(you know, the place with all the Kurds) still being included in Iraqi borders instead of being given its own country? :rolleyes:

Maegi

27-01-2006, 20:50

So France owns Germany, and had Iraq won the war, it would own America.

First, France did not take any property from Germany after they were liberated (they LOST against Germany, if you'll recall) and Iraq has no ability to seize American property, unless you're referring to the naval bases we have in the area. And IF Iraq had managed to win (and invade the surrounding countries where those bases actually are) I imagine they would keep them. You completely and probably deliberately misread my post to take it to an extreme. Oh btw, we DID take parts of Germany after winning that war. We eventually gave them back, but Germany wasn't exactly ruling itself for quite awhile.

Olantia

27-01-2006, 20:51

So France owns Germany, and had Iraq won the war, it would own America.
Actually, de Gaulle was one of the heads of state of Germany after 1945, alongside Truman, Kalinin and George VI. The German sovereignty was transferred to those four countries by the act of German unconditional surrender.

Genaia3

27-01-2006, 21:19

I guess you never heard of detente? At one time, Russia and the US were "openly committed to the destruction of" each others regimes. At least now they can tolerate each other.

I "contend" nothing of the sort, and by trying to put words into my mouth, you demonstrate a lack of ability in debating the matter at hand. Please think before you type.

I don't have to put words in your mouth, it's the only logical extension of what you say. Hamas are committed to the destruction of Israel, in condemning the US' refusal to acknowledge Hamas as a legitimate government you seem to be claiming that they, and their policies, ought to be viewed as legitimate.

The Soviet Union and the US were never openly committed to each others destruction. Although surely you must admit that the fact that now neither the Israeli government or the PA acknowledge each other is a massive step in the wrong direction, i.e. back about 15 years.

Nodinia

27-01-2006, 21:33

Simple, if they campaigned for a merger with Syria, they would have to give Israel legitimacy, which they refuse to do. On a related note, since we're SO concerned with people being oppressed, why exactly is northern Iraq(you know, the place with all the Kurds) still being included in Iraqi borders instead of being given its own country? :rolleyes:

Thats a question you'd have to ask the US. As far as I can gather its because Turkey has said that it wont stand for a seperate Kurdish state, and because the central Iraqi state will want to hang on to the oil-fields. I think there should be a Kurdish state however, if thats what you're asking. And a Tibet free from China and an end to the slaughter of the Chechens etc. You'll find attempted justification of those two escapades rare in the extreme on english language message boards however.

You completely and probably deliberately misread my post to take it to an extreme. Oh btw, we DID take parts of Germany after winning that war. We eventually gave them back, but Germany wasn't exactly ruling itself for quite awhile.:

Well the war ended in 1967. It wasnt 3 plus decades for the Germans and the state where the second world war originated was it? Just 10 years after WWII ended in fact.

Corneliu

27-01-2006, 21:37

Well the war ended in 1967. It wasnt 3 plus decades for the Germans and the state where the second world war originated was it? Just 10 years after WWII ended in fact.

Historical note, a Unified Germany officially signed the treaty to end the 2nd World War in the 1990s.

Kievan-Prussia

27-01-2006, 21:42

Historical note, a Unified Germany officially signed the treaty to end the 2nd World War in the 1990s.

The Oder-Neisse line?

Nodinia

27-01-2006, 21:52

Simple, if they campaigned for a merger with Syria, they would have to give Israel legitimacy, which they refuse to do. :

Almost forgot - the people Israel wouldnt negotiate with properly before (the PLO) recognised the right of Israel to exist in 1993....

Invidentias

27-01-2006, 22:42

What part of 'sovreignty of the people' do you not understand? It means, the people chooe their representatives. Right or wrong, we have to accept their choice. Or we could invade but that's a Bad Idea right up there with poking Kim Jong-Il with sticks at diplomatic meetings...

That's democracy bitch, live with it.

I dont belive i've heard of anyone asking for the outing of those election results.. do you have evidence otherwise? The international community (not just Bush) are giving harsh words to coax hamas to soften its tone and cometo the peace table... After comming so far from 20 years of endless violence, comming so close to finally ending it... the election of hamas to a majority was the one thing that will most likely throw all the good that has come in the past year to the furnas.

You should be supporting the internnational communities efforts, unless you want to see the palistineans suffer for another 20 years as hamas follows their radical agenda

CanuckHeaven

27-01-2006, 23:36

I don't have to put words in your mouth, it's the only logical extension of what you say.
Perhaps by your logic, but not mine. It is illogical for you to suggest what my thoughts might be and then use them as a point of debate. Try again. :rolleyes:

Hamas are committed to the destruction of Israel, in condemning the US' refusal to acknowledge Hamas as a legitimate government you seem to be claiming that they, and their policies, ought to be viewed as legitimate.
How in God's name do you really know what the new government wants? Rejecting their democratic election as bogus flies in the face of reality. Bush does a huge dis-service to the diplomatic process by rejecting the election of Hamas. Bush is guilty of contempt prior to investigation, and should rethink his position on this matter.

Negotiations is the name of the game and if Bush doesn't want to negotiate with "terrorists", then perhaps he should check out the feelings of the Israelis?

"The state of Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian administration if even part of it is an armed terrorist organization calling for the destruction of the state of Israel,'' Olmert said in a statement Thursday.

However, polls published Friday in Israeli newspapers showed support among Israelis for talks with a Palestinian government led by Hamas.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060127/israel_hamas_060127)

The Soviet Union and the US were never openly committed to each others destruction.
Yeah, that is why both those countries ended up with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at each other? How about Bay of Pigs, Vietnam and Afghanistan?

Although surely you must admit that the fact that now neither the Israeli government or the PA acknowledge each other is a massive step in the wrong direction, i.e. back about 15 years.
Only time will tell? In the meantime, perhaps everyone needs to chill and wait and see exactly what direction the process will take?

Bush's comments so far, are inappropriate to say the least.

Kecibukia

27-01-2006, 23:42

Hamas, Fatah gunmen battle over election results

By Nidal al-Mughrabi 37 minutes ago

GAZA (Reuters) - Hamas and
Fatah gunmen exchanged fire on Friday amid political turmoil as the long-dominant Fatah faction was threatened with a violent backlash from within after its crushing election defeat by the Islamic militant group.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060127/ts_nm/mideast_dc_79;_ylt=Amwh8CWiC.VN.LNlt_c54swUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Yathura

28-01-2006, 00:10

I have a lot of disagreements with the way the UN does things, but this was the one that I thought was completely asinine. If you are invaded (ie not the aggressor in a war) and you win, you should be able to keep what you took. It will teach the idiots who invaded not to do it again.
Preventing war is not the only goal; the people who live in the occupied region will probably not be happy with the occupation, they may revolt, and it will cost time, money and political capital to continue the occupation.

Yathura

28-01-2006, 00:14

Bush's comments so far, are inappropriate to say the least.

I haven't heard Bush make any inappropriate comments so far. He has not rejected the legitimacy of the election nor has he encouraged any illegal or violent action by either side. He has said that the US will stop sending direct aid if Hamas does not disarm and accept Israel's right to exist, but he has little choice since it is against US law to fund known terrorist groups.

The Atlantian islands

28-01-2006, 00:19

Bushlogic 101?

Democracy is okay as long as those that freely partake in any elections elect a government that is not anti-US?

I dont think "anti-US" does them justice. They are a fucking terrorist organization, why the hell would anyone not an arab want a fucking terrorist group in power?

Yathura

28-01-2006, 00:23

I dont think "anti-US" does them justice. They are a fucking terrorist organization, why the hell would anyone not an arab want a fucking terrorist group in power?
Actually, it's very similar to the recent Canadian election. Fatah was corrupt and had been in power for too long. Hamas was the only viable competitor.

Nodinia

28-01-2006, 00:23

I dont think "anti-US" does them justice. They are a fucking terrorist organization, why the hell would anyone not an arab want a fucking terrorist group in power?

Because some of us will support whoever does the best for the Palestinians, and brings a Palestinian state into existence. The Israelis are barely one generation away from a number of "fucking terrorist" organisations. This how states are born in reality, outside of your smug notions.

The Atlantian islands

28-01-2006, 00:30

Because some of us will support whoever does the best for the Palestinians, and brings a Palestinian state into existence. The Israelis are barely one generation away from a number of "fucking terrorist" organisations. This how states are born in reality, outside of your smug notions.

Ah, I see. Your one of those pro-Arab guys, alright well until you go to the middle east and see the arabs, then see the Israelis, then come back and tell me what you learned...you have no credible say on it.

The Atlantian islands

28-01-2006, 00:31

Actually, it's very similar to the recent Canadian election. Fatah was corrupt and had been in power for too long. Hamas was the only viable competitor.

Only the Canadian wasnt a known terrorist and head of a terrorist organization. But yeah...I see your point.

Nodinia

28-01-2006, 00:36

Ah, I see. Your one of those pro-Arab guys, alright well until you go to the middle east and see the arabs, then see the Israelis, then come back and tell me what you learned...you have no credible say on it.

Would you mind explaining that remark further, or was it just an ill thought out jibe thrown out in a little fit at the validity of my comment?

Yathura

28-01-2006, 00:37

Ah, I see. Your one of those pro-Arab guys, alright well until you go to the middle east and see the arabs, then see the Israelis, then come back and tell me what you learned...you have no credible say on it.
You're kidding, right? You're saying that no one can have a view on this issue unless they have been to the Middle East and "seen" the "arabs" (just so you know, not everyone there is Arab) and the Israelis?

Okay, how about I play your game. My father has not only seen both the Palestinians and the Israelis, but he has lived with, worked with, and been shot at by both, and he considers the Israelis to be equivalent to the Nazis. Since he fits your criteria, I guess his opinion must automatically be correct, so no more discussion is needed.</sarcasm>

The Atlantian islands

28-01-2006, 00:43

You're kidding, right? You're saying that no one can have a view on this issue unless they have been to the Middle East and "seen" the "arabs" (just so you know, not everyone there is Arab) and the Israelis?

Okay, how about I play your game. My father has not only seen both the Palestinians and the Israelis, but he has lived with, worked with, and been shot at by both, and he considers the Israelis to be equivalent to the Nazis. Since he fits your criteria, I guess his opinion must automatically be correct, so no more discussion is needed.</sarcasm>

What did your father do and is he an arab?

The Atlantian islands

28-01-2006, 00:44

Would you mind explaining that remark further, or was it just an ill thought out jibe thrown out in a little fit at the validity of my comment?

I said...until you go there and see the Arabs and the Israelis you arent credible.

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 00:44

What did your father do and is he an arab?

Whta do you do and are you an arab?

The Atlantian islands

28-01-2006, 00:48

Whta do you do and are you an arab?

I'm a student and no, I'm not an arab.

Neu Leonstein

28-01-2006, 00:48

The Oder-Neisse line?
Among other things.
The division meant that no side could really sign a treaty concerning the whole of Germany...it hadn't been done before, so people didn't know how to handle this situation. When Germany was defeated in 1945, it just signed a surrender of forces, but not a peace treaty specifically.
As a result, there was defacto peace, but no official treaty until much later, when the unified German government (or close to it) signed a treaty, thus accepting the oder-neisse line for all eternity as the eastern border of Germany. Partly because the French and the British apparently had all sorts of issues with Germany getting bigger again...

Except for a few crackpots, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Treaties%2C_1947
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_With_Respect_to_Germany

CanuckHeaven

28-01-2006, 00:50

I dont think "anti-US" does them justice. They are a fucking terrorist organization, why the hell would anyone not an arab want a fucking terrorist group in power?
Before there has been any kind of dialogue between the newly elected goverrnment and the other powers on the world stage, you are condemning them instantly. How undemocratic is that? Perhaps the people of Israel should have a say in all of this?

An opinion poll in Israel's Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper showed 48 percent of Israelis favored talking to a Hamas-led Palestinian government, while 43 percent were opposed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060127/ts_nm/mideast_dc_79;_ylt=Amwh8CWiC.VN.LNlt_c54swUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Sometimes being pro US doesn't do them justice either? Look what happened to Saddam Hussein?

Nodinia

28-01-2006, 00:51

I said...until you go there and see the Arabs and the Israelis you arent credible.

How do you know he hasn't? How do we know that you have? Should we all announce the enormity of our respective genitalia and await the throngs of adoring posts that will no doubt follow? This is straw man rubbish brought on by your fit of pique. Either address the issues, or spare us your attempts at racial profiling.

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 00:52

I'm a student and no, I'm not an arab.

I'm a student myself. A student of Politics no less. I know I don't know much about this conflict.

So I'll ask you what makes u such an expert?

Yathura

28-01-2006, 00:52

What did your father do and is he an arab?
I'm not at liberty to say and no.

Neu Leonstein

28-01-2006, 00:54

So I'll ask you what makes u such an expert?
I've got the impression that he believes we really are at war with Arabs as a people. I don't think he really makes the distinction between people who blow someone up and people who don't.

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 00:55

I've got the impression that he believes we really are at war with Arabs as a people. I don't think he really makes the distinction between people who blow someone up and people who don't.

I'm getting that impression myself.

Nodinia

28-01-2006, 00:57

I said...until you go there and see the Arabs and the Israelis you arent credible.

To get us somewhere back near topic.......

I dont think "anti-US" does them justice. They are a fucking terrorist organization, why the hell would anyone not an arab want a fucking terrorist group in power? .

Because some of us will support whoever does the best for the Palestinians, and brings a Palestinian state into existence. The Israelis are barely one generation away from a number of "fucking terrorist" organisations. This how states are born in reality, outside of your smug notions.(Moi)

Yathura

28-01-2006, 00:58

I'm getting that impression myself.
I'm also getting the impression that he thinks everyone in the Middle East who isn't Israeli is an Arab.

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 00:59

I'm also getting the impression that he thinks everyone in the Middle East who isn't Israeli is an Arab.

Yea, that can be a problem.

Straughn

28-01-2006, 01:04

One thing about OceanDrive3 (when will it be 4? no one knows)! He has a tendency to twist facts as he is doing now. Reading into something that is not there.

Don't give in to it.
Wha-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hahaHAHAHAhaha
HAhahahaHAHAHAHAHA(et cetera, literally ad nauseum)

Kievan-Prussia

28-01-2006, 01:05

Among other things.
The division meant that no side could really sign a treaty concerning the whole of Germany...it hadn't been done before, so people didn't know how to handle this situation. When Germany was defeated in 1945, it just signed a surrender of forces, but not a peace treaty specifically.
As a result, there was defacto peace, but no official treaty until much later, when the unified German government (or close to it) signed a treaty, thus accepting the oder-neisse line for all eternity as the eastern border of Germany. Partly because the French and the British apparently had all sorts of issues with Germany getting bigger again...

Except for a few crackpots, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Treaties%2C_1947
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_With_Respect_to_Germany

You know that we're going to take all that land back, right? Oh yes. We're going to grind the Polish military into a fine dust. And for all the suffering they inflicted on the German people, we'll take the rest of Poland too.

But enough about the future. Back on topic.

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 01:06

Wha-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hahaHAHAHAhaha
HAhahahaHAHAHAHAHA(et cetera, literally ad nauseum)

:D

I do love providing entertainment :D

Straughn

28-01-2006, 01:08

:D

I do love providing entertainment :D
Stitches, man!!!

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 01:11

Stitches, man!!!

*bows*

Straughn

28-01-2006, 01:13

*bows*
I don't have much seriousness to add here.
I know what i like and don't like, but i'm not NEARLY versed enough in this squabble to give a reasonable discourse on it. Besides, most of my points have already been covered on both sides.

Bobs Own Pipe

28-01-2006, 01:14

Nodinia

28-01-2006, 01:16

I know what i like and don't like, but i'm not NEARLY versed enough in this squabble to give a reasonable discourse on it. Besides, most of my points have already been covered on both sides.

And you see that holding others back....?

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 01:20

Well, if G.W. Bush, as fearless leader of half the United States, can thumb his nose at the democratic process, why on Earth can't some innocuous non-entity in a natty suit do the same?

I mean, really.

Bush never thumbed his nose at the democratic process Bobs Own Pipe.

Bobs Own Pipe

28-01-2006, 01:22

I'll stick by my statement, thanks all the same.

Straughn

28-01-2006, 01:25

And you see that holding others back....?
Point taken. *nods*
Honestly, i'm distracted by Ripley's Believe It Or Not! right now.
And i'm in a position to agree with both sides of this debate (as it's become) for certain aspects, as i'd said have already been covered.

Neu Leonstein

28-01-2006, 01:26

You know that we're going to take all that land back, right?
Quit talking about "we" as if you were German.

If I recall correctly, you are Australian, have never in your life set foot into Germany, and call yourself "Allemannic" because being German isn't special enough for you.

Straughn

28-01-2006, 01:27

Bush never thumbed his nose at the democratic process Bobs Own Pipe.
Hey Corny, remember that Wiki-quote issue on that other thread? Might want to see what i said there. It's pertinent to your comment here.
*nods*
*holds back chortle, pinches ... tears flow*
Wahhahahahaha*snort*hahahahahahaha ho hahahaha

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 01:30

Hey Corny, remember that Wiki-quote issue on that other thread? Might want to see what i said there. It's pertinent to your comment here.
*nods*
*holds back chortle, pinches ... tears flow*
Wahhahahahaha*snort*hahahahahahaha ho hahahaha

LOL

OceanDrive3

28-01-2006, 01:37

http://schildersmilies.de/noschild/daumen_rauf.gif

How embarrassing, OD3, hey?and exactly why should I be embarrassed?

For Copy pasting a Reuters article that came up on Yahoo.News ??

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 01:38

and exactly Why should I be embarrased?

For Copy pasting a Reuters article that came up on Yahoo.News ??

For being wrong.

OceanDrive3

28-01-2006, 01:39

For being wrong.use the Quote Function to show us where was I supposedly wrong...

Unless.. You cant ..CAN YOU?

Neu Leonstein

28-01-2006, 01:41

and exactly why should I be embarrassed?
Because your point was that Bush was trying to get Abbas to ignore the result and illegitimately stay in power.

In fact, Abbas wants to resign as a protest action, which Bush said he shouldn't do (rightly so, IMHO).

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 01:42

use the Quote Function to show us where was I supposedly wrong...

Unless.. You cant ..CAN YOU?

Go back to page one and read your commentary. Nice try dude but you couldn't be more wrong if ya tried.

1) Bush didn't say ignore the elections. He is asking the President not to resign.

2) The President was elected IN 2004 BY A SEPERATE VOTE!!!!! There is no point to him to resign.

3) This was a legislative vote and not a presidential vote.

OceanDrive3

28-01-2006, 01:44

Go back to page one and read your commentary. Nice try dude but you couldn't be more wrong if ya tried.my commentary is 3 letters... "WTF"

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 01:47

my commentary is 3 letters... "WTF"

Read through the whole thread. I bet you also didn't post the whole article. You put in red that he asked the PRESIDENT NOT TO RESIGN. In case you haven't noticed but last I checked, he was elected in 2004. The legislature was elected a few days ago by those same people.

They are TWO SEPERATE BRANCHES.

Kievan-Prussia

28-01-2006, 01:47

Quit talking about "we" as if you were German.

If I recall correctly, you are Australian, have never in your life set foot into Germany, and call yourself "Allemannic" because being German isn't special enough for you.

1) I have been to Germany.

2) Quiet, traitorous Allied puppet.

Invidentias

28-01-2006, 01:48

Can someone show me the qoute where President George Bush tried to delegitmize the Palestinean election ? From the Qoute that OceanDrive3 brought forth.. it actually says the exact opposite. Bush Hailed the Election as positive... his urging Abbas to stay in power he is trying to keep the peace process going. Abbas dosn't lose power because Hamas got a majority in Congress.. like the system in the United States, Abbas was elected in a seperate election last year. Bush was urging him to remain as PRESIDENT and not resign, because by resigning the Palestineans would lose the last figure in which the Israeli's will work with diplomatically.

If he were to step down, the entire peace process would do an about face and arguably, with little provication, Israel could re-invade Gaza. Hamas wouldn't have to do much to provoke this action (being a terrorist organization who proclaims the death of the Israeli state). Stop skewing the facts please people!!

Bobs Own Pipe

28-01-2006, 01:49

my commentary is 3 letters... "WTF"
Wait, I got it... WTF! Of course... "Dubya Tells Falsehoods"? "Washington Torches Freedoms"? "Werewolves Try Freebasing"? What?

WTF?

OceanDrive3

28-01-2006, 01:49

In fact, Abbas wants to resign as a protest action, which Bush said he shouldn't do (rightly so, IMHO).You are wrong.. it is not a "Protest action" ..It did not take place AFTER THE VOTE...

It Took place BEFORE THE VOTE... Abbas promised to "Respect the will of the People" and resign if the Palestineans do not vote his way... and they Did not vote his way.

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 01:50

You are wrong.. it is not a "Protest action" ..It did not take place AFTER THE VOTE...

It Took place BEFORE THE VOTE... Abbas promised to "Respect the will of the People" and resign if the Palestineans do not vote his way... and they Did not vote his way.

Actually he threatened. He did not promise.

Invidentias

28-01-2006, 01:51

Read through the whole thread. I bet you also didn't post the whole article. You put in red that he asked the PRESIDENT NOT TO RESIGN. In case you haven't noticed but last I checked, he was elected in 2004. The legislature was elected a few days ago by those same people.

They are TWO SEPERATE BRANCHES.

thank you... exactly correct. President Bush hasn't thumbed his nose at the democratic process, in fact he's promoting it, even when it leads to these unfavorable results.

The action now the international community is taking (not just Bush) is to put pressure on hamas to moderate its retoric and disarm, so they can actually come into the peace process. So many of you claim to have concern for the Palestinean people... but fail to realize Hamas is in a position to do the most damage to them, more so then Fatah has done of late.

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 01:52

OceanDrive3

28-01-2006, 01:52

Read through the whole thread. you are the one telling me I am wrong.. You read the whole thread.. and use the QUOTE FUNCTION proving me wrong... IF YOU CAN ;)

OceanDrive3

28-01-2006, 01:55

Wait, I got it... WTF! Of course... "Dubya Tells Falsehoods"? "Washington Torches Freedoms"? "Werewolves Try Freebasing"? What?

WTF?LOL.. Your impatience is showing...:D just be a good sport and admit you lost.. get over it.

this is you :mad: :mad: :headbang:
this is me :p :D :D

the more upset you get.. the more you lose :p

Invidentias

28-01-2006, 01:57

Its OceanDrive. Most of the time he is wrong but sometimes he is right. He is wrong in this case. Something that hasn't sunk in yet apparently.

From what I can tell.. he isn't wrong.. cause he hasn't said anything significant.. its other people misinterpreting his qouting. The reality is, Bush and the administration has supported the election, even though Hamas has won. Washington hasn't called for a recall of votes, or to invalidate the election, but rather has acted to put pressure on Hamas to coax them into moderation.

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 02:01

From what I can tell.. he isn't wrong.. cause he hasn't said anything significant.. its other people misinterpreting his qouting. The reality is, Bush and the administration has supported the election, even though Hamas has won. Washington hasn't called for a recall of votes, or to invalidate the election, but rather has acted to put pressure on Hamas to coax them into moderation.

Actually he is wrong:

##Bush tells Palestinean President: The People have Spoken, Now ignore them

Sorry but he didn't tell him to ignore them. The President is a seperate Branch of government with its own election. This was the legislative election.

I guess OceanDrive here forgot about that tidbit. It would be one thing to say this if it was the President being elected in Palestine. However, this was a legislative vote so it holds no weight.

Bobs Own Pipe

28-01-2006, 02:03

LOL.. Your impatience is showing...:D just be a good sport and admit you lost.. get over it.

this is you :mad: :mad: :headbang:
this is me :p :D :D

the more upset you get.. the more you lose :p
I'll assume your comments aren't actually directed at me... 'cause otherwise, I'm totally confused by 'em.

OceanDrive3

28-01-2006, 02:10

I'm totally confused Yeah.. I get a lot of that..

Dont worry.. Take a couple of prozacs.. and you should be good tomorrow :D

Novoga

28-01-2006, 02:12

I wouldn't expect whole-hearted support from the west for the creation of an Islamic state, but I don't see why the west should necessarily support the continued existence of a Jewish state, either.

Both sides slaughter civilians (the Israelis more so than the Palestinians). It shouldn't happen, but ... the right of armed resistance to an occupying force is recognized by international law. The right to occupy territory obtained in war is not.

The Israelis kill more civilians? Since when? Oh, I forgot. Even if a Palestinian belongs to a terrorist group once he is killed by an Israeli he is a civilian.

Yathura

28-01-2006, 02:13

You know, it defeats the purpose of me having OceanDrive on ignore if you people keep quoting him :p

OceanDrive3

28-01-2006, 02:14

Sorry but he didn't tell him to ignore them.Abbas made a promise to the Palestinean people.. He promised to respect "the will of the people"... Maybe he tried to scare some.. but now since he made such a serious Promise to the People.. he should resign.

If I was in his place... I would Resign.. just on dignity grounds

Neu Leonstein

28-01-2006, 02:15

The Israelis kill more civilians? Since when? Oh, I forgot. Even if a Palestinian belongs to a terrorist group once he is killed by an Israeli he is a civilian.
It would be interesting to find out though...I'd be pretty certain that there have been a lot more incursions, targeted killings with big missiles and so on, all with "collateral damage" than there have been suicide bombings.

Bobs Own Pipe

28-01-2006, 02:16

Yeah.. I get a lot of that..

Dont worry.. Take a couple of prozacs.. and you should be good tomorrow :D
Hunh - wahh? *scratches head* Erm...

Whatever, dude. :confused:

Invidentias

28-01-2006, 02:19

Abbas made a promise to the Palestinean people.. He promised to respect "the will of the people"... Maybe he tried to scare some.. but now since he made did Promise that.. he should now resign.
If I was in his place... I would Resign.

Thats still not "ignoring " the people... perhaps realizing what is at stake, he sees his place in the government is more important then being politically correct. He does his people more good by staying in office and trying to make the process work... and actually what he REALLY said if you look at major news sources like CNN, BBC etc.. is that he would resign if he coudn't get his peace process moving. In other words, he said he will resign if Hamas interferes with his efforts to hash out peace with Israel... and he is still saying this.

This is irrigardless of what your article says... if the article was actually worded this way, then it was misleading.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1517399

he might resign if the government formed after a Jan. 25 parliament elections opposes his policies, including peace talks with Israel

after seeing your position now.. i must agree, your incorrect

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 02:19

Abbas made a promise to the Palestinean people.. He promised to respect "the will of the people"... Maybe he tried to scare some.. but now since he made did Promise that.. he should now resign.
If I was in his place... I would Resign.

To use an example from earlier in thread.

If we use that logic then Clinton should've resigned in 1994 when the republicans retook Congress.

OceanDrive3

28-01-2006, 02:24

If we use that logic then Clinton should've resigned in 1994 when the republicans retook Congress.Did Clinton Promise to resign if the Republicans win the Congress?

If Clinton Promised to resign... he should have resigned

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 02:27

Did Clinton Promise to resign if the Republicans win the Congress?

If Clinton Promised to resign... he should have resigned

He didn't and neither did Abbas. Not directly anyway.

He threatened to resign if Hamas interfered with the Peace Process. Doesn't sound to me that he threatened to resign if Hamas won the elections. Something your trying to spin.

Invidentias

28-01-2006, 02:27

Did Clinton Promise to resign if the Republicans win the Congress?

If Clinton Promised to resign... he should have resigned

quite right... and that example was a poor one to illustrate this situation.. in face Abbas never said however, that he would resign if his party lost the elections.. only if he could not conduct his policies

CanuckHeaven

28-01-2006, 03:11

I do believe that the following article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html) sums up this debate quite neatly:

Steven R. Weisman writes in the New York Times: "The Hamas victory was the fifth case recently of militants' winning significant gains through elections. They included the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon, a radical president in Iran, and Shiites backed by militias in Iraq.

"As these elections unfolded, there has been increasing criticism in some quarters -- notably among the self-described 'realists' in foreign policy, many of them veterans of past Republican administrations -- that President Bush has naively pushed for democracy in countries without the civil society components to support it."

Juan Cole writes in an opinion column in Salon: "The stunning victory of the militant Muslim fundamentalist Hamas Party in the Palestinian elections underlines the central contradictions in the Bush administration's policies toward the Middle East. Bush pushes for elections, confusing them with democracy, but seems blind to the dangers of right-wing populism. At the same time, he continually undermines the moderate and secular forces in the region by acting high-handedly or allowing his clients to do so. As a result, Sunni fundamentalist parties, some with ties to violent cells, have emerged as key players in Iraq, Egypt and Palestine.

So aptly stated indeed!!

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 03:24

Invidentias

28-01-2006, 03:40

Alot of commentary is all that this is.

quite right... these are all opinion based statements, and not facts. Inreality that article is being extremely short sighted focusing on isolated incidents rather then looking at the long term effects. Egypt held extremely limited elections including only local, and even then extreme candiates did not gain a majority like in Palestine. In Palestine, Hamas (the only other major social force the state) was elected into power not because of support for their radical national ambitions (in relation to Israel) but more of a dissent vote against the corruption of Fatah. And Iran's previous adminsitration was hardly moderate or secular.. as well lebonon previously were slaves to Syria who neither served the lebonese people nor our interests.

As individuals gain more power over their governments they will be less likely to surrender it and more likely to rebel if its taken away. Given past history of middle eastern nations (and a bloody one that it is) these nations were in no better position previously. With International support and the reality that many of these nations now rely on outside forces to support themselves (palestine, Egypt, Lebonon) and so are more suseptiable to influence. With assistance these fledginly democracies may intime be successful.

Also the article interestingly fails to address afganistan and Iraq who are representative of far more successful democracies at work.

CanuckHeaven

28-01-2006, 03:41

Alot of commentary is all that this is.
And being a Bushite, it appears that the veracity of the comments escape your ability to decipher their importance?

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 03:47

And being a Bushite, it appears that the veracity of the comments escape your ability to decipher their importance?

As I told Straughn yesterday, I'm just playing a right wing person. I'm actually more moderate in real life.

And yes, this is all commentary and nothing else but. The comments do not escape me whatsoever! What I do understand is to know your biases. I can see the bias in this commentary. That is all commentary is. Its a person's opinion on a particular subject.

Invidentias

28-01-2006, 03:51

And being a Bushite, it appears that the veracity of the comments escape your ability to decipher their importance?

you mean the importance of comments like "he confuses them with democracy" .. that sounds rather belittling to me.

After the fall of the iron curtin, satilite nations got their first taste of deomocracy.. some taking on more authoritian elements, others not... did they not deserve the opprotunity ? Today most if not all are rather moderate democracies quite compatiable with ours

CanuckHeaven

28-01-2006, 04:04

As I told Straughn yesterday, I'm just playing a right wing person. I'm actually more moderate in real life.
I don't buy that at all. You truly seem to support almost anything that is Bush like. :rolleyes:

And yes, this is all commentary and nothing else but.
And I say that you are not paying attention. Several months ago, you were proclaiming that everything was falling into place in the Middle East due to the tough US foreign policy stance.

I suggest that you take another look at what you simply dismiss as "commentary".

The comments do not escape me whatsoever! What I do understand is to know your biases. I can see the bias in this commentary. That is all commentary is. Its a person's opinion on a particular subject.
It is only "commentary" if you choose to ignore the facts, and that would be the root cause of your problem.

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 04:11

I don't buy that at all. You truly seem to support almost anything that is Bush like. :rolleyes:

What part of "I'm just playing a right wing person" didn't filter through your brain?

And I say that you are not paying attention. Several months ago, you were proclaiming that everything was falling into place in the Middle East due to the tough US foreign policy stance.

No one predicted Hamas winning. Not even Hamas! This was totally unexpected. Everyone thought that Fatah was going to have a slight majority.

Its going to be interesting to see what transpires now.

I suggest that you take another look at what you simply dismiss as "commentary".

I did. I still not seeing anything concrete in there. Welcome to the world of Democracy where the people actually choose who wants to lead them. I applaud the election in Palestine just as President Bush did. Not happy with the result but guess what? They voted for their own leaders. This was more of a protest vote against Fatah anyway. Now the WORLD COMMUNITY is pressuring Hamas to moderate what they say and to continue the peace process. I'm talking about the WORLD here and not just the US.

It is only "commentary" if you choose to ignore the facts, and that would be the root cause of your problem.

Commentary does not equal facts. We've already established that.

Genaia3

28-01-2006, 04:45

Perhaps by your logic, but not mine. It is illogical for you to suggest what my thoughts might be and then use them as a point of debate. Try again. :rolleyes:

How in God's name do you really know what the new government wants? Rejecting their democratic election as bogus flies in the face of reality. Bush does a huge dis-service to the diplomatic process by rejecting the election of Hamas. Bush is guilty of contempt prior to investigation, and should rethink his position on this matter.

Negotiations is the name of the game and if Bush doesn't want to negotiate with "terrorists", then perhaps he should check out the feelings of the Israelis?

"The state of Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian administration if even part of it is an armed terrorist organization calling for the destruction of the state of Israel,'' Olmert said in a statement Thursday.

However, polls published Friday in Israeli newspapers showed support among Israelis for talks with a Palestinian government led by Hamas.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060127/israel_hamas_060127)

Yeah, that is why both those countries ended up with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at each other? How about Bay of Pigs, Vietnam and Afghanistan?

Only time will tell? In the meantime, perhaps everyone needs to chill and wait and see exactly what direction the process will take?

Bush's comments so far, are inappropriate to say the least.

It certainly is not illogical for a person to look at the implications of what you say, especially when your position seems to lack substance and be more orientated around taking pot shots at the Bush administration than actually looking at the Middle East situation for what it is.

Do you believe that the US and Israel should recognise the Hamas government when not only is it openly hostile towards them, but makes claims in its charter such as: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." With more than 350 Israeli civilians having been murdered by terrorist actions from Hamas (who do not distinguish between civilian and military targets as a matter of policy) in the last four years it is hardly surprising that they are a tad reluctant to acknowledge their legitimacy.

Bush has not gone so far as to contest the legitimacy of the elections, merely express his disapproval at their outcome. Their is nothing inappropriate or illegal about his doing so and is a perfectly normal feature of international relations.

The bay of pigs, the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Korea, the civil disputes in Tanzania, Cambodia and Greece, to name but a few were all proxy conflicts rather than direct encounters. The cold war was epitomised by brinksmanship, secrecy and verbal hostility, neither party claimed overtly that they intended to destroy the other and had they done so, you could hardly claim that would bode well for the prospects of peace, even by the most spurious of reasoning.

I'm glad the Israeli citizens feel the need to talk, as demonstrated by Northern Ireland peace process, the only way the situation is ever going to develop is through open negotiations. However, it seems rather obvious to say that so long as one party maintains the open goal of destroying the other there is a relatively fixed limit on what can be achieved through such a process.

OceanDrive3

28-01-2006, 06:08

Also the article interestingly fails to address afganistan and Iraq who are representative of far more successful democracies at work.Afghanistan and iraq are more succesful democracies than Palestine?

How?

Nodinia

28-01-2006, 09:22

The Israelis kill more civilians? Since when? Oh, I forgot. Even if a Palestinian belongs to a terrorist group once he is killed by an Israeli he is a civilian.

Actually it seems that everybody thats killed by an Israeli (a)shouldnt have been there (b) deserved it (c) was an understandable accident due to the "sneaky nature" of Arabs. This apparently includes everything from Foreign reporters to 5 year olds, to unarmed protestors in broad daylight. And yes, the Palestinian casualties outnumber the Israeli by four to one. Property destroyed is 99.9% Palestinian. Land seized is 100% Palestinian.

With more than 350 Israeli civilians having been murdered by terrorist actions from Hamas (who do not distinguish between civilian and military targets as a matter of policy) in the last four years it is hardly surprising that they are a tad reluctant to acknowledge their legitimacy..

See above, and try to remember who is occupying whom.

Afghanistan and iraq are more succesful democracies than Palestine?

How?..

They didn't choose the wrong people. The Palestinians will only be accepted as fine democrats when they first clear all the candidates with the Whitehouse and stop acting like a bunch of Venezulans.

Maegi

28-01-2006, 09:35

They didn't choose the wrong people. The Palestinians will only be accepted as fine democrats when they first clear all the candidates with the Whitehouse and stop acting like a bunch of Venezulans.

This last bit here gives me some hope that many of your comments are sarcastic and simply deliberately inflammatory.

Nodinia

28-01-2006, 09:41

This last bit here gives me some hope that many of your comments are sarcastic and simply deliberately inflammatory.

When I say only 6% of what was then Palestine was owned by Jewish settlers/et al in 1946, I'm just telling you how it was. Likewise when I point out who is driving tanks down whose streets on a regular basis, I'm telling you how it is. The sarcasm usually is just a bit of fluff at the end.

Maegi

28-01-2006, 09:47

When I say only 6% of what was then Palestine was owned by Jewish settlers/et al in 1946, I'm just telling you how it was. Likewise when I point out who is driving tanks down whose streets on a regular basis, I'm telling you how it is. The sarcasm usually is just a bit of fluff at the end.

*sigh* well that's what I get for hoping. Since you have such a plethora of knowledge, maybe you could help me out with a few questions. How many Jewish settlers actually drove Arabs off their land, instead of purchasing it? How many Jewish children(under 15) have gotten on a public bus and blown it up? Don't get me wrong, Israel has overreacted about some things, but I will stand firmly against the group of people that gives their CHILDREN guns and bombs and sends them to die. There is nothing that will ever convince me that getting on a bus at lunchtime and blowing up civilians with no pretense at a military target is the "right" thing to do.

Genaia3

28-01-2006, 10:03

See above, and try to remember who is occupying whom.

Do you think that attacks by groups such as Hamas serve to lengthen or shorten the likely period of Israeli occupation? Do you think that they make peace more or less likely? Do you think they increase or reduce civilian casualties on both sides?

Nodinia

28-01-2006, 10:21

Do you think that attacks by groups such as Hamas serve to lengthen or shorten the likely period of Israeli occupation? Do you think that they make peace more or less likely? Do you think they increase or reduce civilian casualties on both sides?

I think that they may make no difference whatsoever. The suicide bomb phenomena is relatively recent, as is Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. The occupation is primarily driven by the efforts of some amongst Israel and its supporters to enlarge its borders, not security. There was no sign of a let up before they emerged. Should Palestinian violence lull, or cease, the settlements will go on consolidating, the hold tightening as they have in the past.

Likewise there has been a long standing history of massacre and indiscrimate attack on both sides that predate the 1967 war. What the actions of Hamas certainly try to do is make the suffering less one sided. One might call this quite reprhensible, and it certainly strikes me as dubious. However it is understandable. My own feeling is that they should concentrate on making the settlements undefendable and unsustainable, but given the vast strength and resources arrayed against them, thats not so easy to acheive.

The realiy is that as long as the US protects Israel at an international political level, there will be neither peace, nor a just resolution.

Nodinia

28-01-2006, 19:48

*sigh* well that's what I get for hoping. Since you have such a plethora of knowledge, maybe you could help me out with a few questions. How many Jewish settlers actually drove Arabs off their land, instead of purchasing it? How many Jewish children(under 15) have gotten on a public bus and blown it up?

The overwhelming majority of land was taken by Israeli forces and then given out to settlers. The evidence for this can been seen in the statistics contained in these books, which you may either buy, or seek the data from on-line, from whichever source you feel comfortable with.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0887282113/002-9329140-5155238?n=283155

As to the specifics of your second question I cannot answer, but I am aware of 123 children killed by Palestinians since 2000, by one means or another. The current number of Palestinian children in the same period is 750 or so.

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 20:08

The overwhelming majority of land was taken by Israeli forces and then given out to settlers. The evidence for this can been seen in the statistics contained in these books, which you may either buy, or seek the data from on-line, from whichever source you feel comfortable with.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0887282113/002-9329140-5155238?n=283155

As to the specifics of your second question I cannot answer, but I am aware of 123 children killed by Palestinians since 2000, by one means or another. The current number of Palestinian children in the same period is 750 or so.

*yawns*

And yet, the Israelis did buy land from the Palestinians to establish the Nation of Israel. Then the Arabs got it into their heads to destroy Israel and got the Palestinians who were still in Israel to leave thus having a palestinian refugee problem that the Arabs are ignoring.

They got them to leave to destroy Israel and ya know what? They did not succeed.

Those are the facts of history my friend.

Bobs Own Pipe

28-01-2006, 20:11

*yawns*

And yet, the Israelis did buy land from the Palestinians to establish the Nation of Israel. Then the Arabs got it into their heads to destroy Israel and got the Palestinians who were still in Israel to leave thus having a palestinian refugee problem that the Arabs are ignoring.

They got them to leave to destroy Israel and ya know what? They did not succeed.

Those are the facts of history my friend.
I don't see the point in responding to Corneliu's posts anymore. Considering he's just playing at having an opinion and all.

Frangland

28-01-2006, 20:12

Actually, President Bush gave the new leaders some pretty good advice:

We know you won, and hope you do a good job. But don't mess with Israel.

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 20:12

I don't see the point in responding to Corneliu's posts anymore. Considering he's just playing at having an opinion and all.

As opposed to your posts? ALl of these posts are opinions with facts inside them.

Frangland

28-01-2006, 20:13

(and now for the obligatory post)

Let's not forget that this was Israel and/or Judah loooooong before any Arabs drove the Jews out of their promised land.

Here's an honest question:

Are present day Palestinians descended from the ancient Phillistines (sp?)?

Bobs Own Pipe

28-01-2006, 20:17

As opposed to your posts? ALl of these posts are opinions with facts inside them.
Hey at least I don't adopt fake online persona and spout off inanities. I stay myself and spout off inanities.

And who's Ali, anyway?

Nodinia

28-01-2006, 20:41

And yet, the Israelis did buy land from the Palestinians to establish the Nation of Israel. Then the Arabs got it into their heads to destroy Israel and got the Palestinians who were still in Israel to leave thus having a palestinian refugee problem that the Arabs are ignoring.

They got them to leave to destroy Israel and ya know what? They did not succeed.

Those are the facts of history my friend.

As opposed to your posts? ALl of these posts are opinions with facts inside them.

I included your second quote for its Irony value when juxtaposed to the first.

The myth of the organised flight should be thrown on the fire with the "Jews run the world" crap and its ashes later scatterd to the winds. Its true that the first settlers intended to buy the land, and its also true that the attack by neigbouring Arabs enabled the more extreme element (engendered by the holocaust and Nazi atrocities) to capture the land and drive out the inhabitants. The Arabs took in hundreds of thousands little knowing that they would be there for decades. The refugees are a problem, however, of Israels making -

"I do not accept the version [i.e. policy] that [we] should encourage their return. . . I believe we should prevent their return . . . We must settle Jaffa, Jaffa will become a Jewish city. . . . The return of [Palestinian] Arabs to Jaffa [would be] not just foolish." If the [Palestinian] Arabs were allowed to return, to Jaffa and elsewhere, " and the war is renewed, our chances of ending the war as we wish to end it will be reduced. . . . Meanwhile, we must prevent at all costs their return," he said, and, leaving no doubt in the ministers' minds about his views on the ultimate fate of the [Palestinian] refugees, he added: "I will be for them not returning after the war."

David Ben-Gurion to cabinet, June 1948 from "The First Israelis"

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 20:48

I included your second quote for its Irony value when juxtaposed to the first.

The myth of the organised flight should be thrown on the fire with the "Jews run the world" crap and its ashes later scatterd to the winds. Its true that the first settlers intended to buy the land, and its also true that the attack by neigbouring Arabs enabled the more extreme element (engendered by the holocaust and Nazi atrocities) to capture the land and drive out the inhabitants. The Arabs took in hundreds of thousands little knowing that they would be there for decades. The refugees are a problem, however, of Israels making -

I love alternet history as much as the next person however, the palestinians didn't leave because of Israel. They left because the Arab world wanted to crush Israel. That my friend is a fact of history that cannot be disputed. It was the Arab world that caused the Palestinian Refugee problem because they did not take those people in. Even Syria admits we made a mistake but has done nothing to correct it.

"I do not accept the version [i.e. policy] that [we] should encourage their return. . . I believe we should prevent their return . . . We must settle Jaffa, Jaffa will become a Jewish city. . . . The return of [Palestinian] Arabs to Jaffa [would be] not just foolish." If the [Palestinian] Arabs were allowed to return, to Jaffa and elsewhere, " and the war is renewed, our chances of ending the war as we wish to end it will be reduced. . . . Meanwhile, we must prevent at all costs their return," he said, and, leaving no doubt in the ministers' minds about his views on the ultimate fate of the [Palestinian] refugees, he added: "I will be for them not returning after the war."

David Ben-Gurion to cabinet, June 1948 from "The First Israelis"

I noticed he is talking about return and NOT HOW THEY LEFT. Big difference between the two.

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 20:48

Hey at least I don't adopt fake online persona and spout off inanities. I stay myself and spout off inanities.

And who's Ali, anyway?

Which Ali are you talking about? Mohammed Ali the famous Boxer?

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 20:49

Here's an honest question:

Are present day Palestinians descended from the ancient Phillistines (sp?)?

If they are then they don't have any right to the land either because they lost a war to the Israelites thanks to Goliath's challenge and David slaying him.

Aust

28-01-2006, 20:54

If they are then they don't have any right to the land either because they lost a war to the Israelites thanks to Goliath's challenge and David slaying him.
If you balive that actually happened.

Kreitzmoorland

28-01-2006, 20:57

If you balive that actually happened.
I think it was a metaphor.

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 20:57

If you balive that actually happened.

Anythings possible :D

Some people actually think that skull mountain is the skull of Goliath. I just do not know since I do not have a time machine.

Aust

28-01-2006, 21:02

Anythings possible :D

Some people actually think that skull mountain is the skull of Goliath. I just do not know since I do not have a time machine.
Persoanlly I think most of the old testoment is a joke. tehres hsitory in there but since when did thougnsads of men turn up, armed and ready to fight. See some peasent kid kill there leader by a sling shot(Which would ahve been seen as cheating-it was a challange and therefore a fight to the death in armour and weapons) and then walk off saying "yeah, you guys won, see you?"

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 21:12

Persoanlly I think most of the old testoment is a joke. tehres hsitory in there but since when did thougnsads of men turn up, armed and ready to fight. See some peasent kid kill there leader by a sling shot(Which would ahve been seen as cheating-it was a challange and therefore a fight to the death in armour and weapons) and then walk off saying "yeah, you guys won, see you?"

Just going by what it says in the Bible. As I said, I do not know what transpired there as I was not there.

I do know this! The challenge didn't mention anything about swords or spears. Just the Bravest among you. There was no prerequisits for weapons.

Frangland

28-01-2006, 21:23

Just going by what it says in the Bible. As I said, I do not know what transpired there as I was not there.

I do know this! The challenge didn't mention anything about swords or spears. Just the Bravest among you. There was no prerequisits for weapons.

...well David was the son of King Saul, right?

And wee David became King David, one of the most famous of the kings of Israel.

it's not like the Fairy Prince Moishe killed Goliath -- David was flesh and bone.

(maybe they met in the middle and played a game of chess... and David won... hehe)

seriously, single combat was popular back in the day... pick one guy from each side and let them battle it out. That way one guy dies instead of hundreds or thousands.

Corneliu

28-01-2006, 21:25

...well David was the son of King Saul, right?

No he was not the son of King Saul.

And wee David became King David, one of the most famous of the kings of Israel.

For the most part.

it's not like the Fairy Prince Moishe killed Goliath -- David was flesh and bone.

Yes?

(maybe they met in the middle and played a game of chess... and David won... hehe)

LMAO!

seriously, single combat was popular back in the day... pick one guy from each side and let them battle it out. That way one guy dies instead of hundreds or thousands.

I'm going to say this before someone else does. Proof?

IDF

28-01-2006, 23:01

Straughn

28-01-2006, 23:05

Hey at least I don't adopt fake online persona and spout off inanities. I stay myself and spout off inanities.

*FLORT*
This is f*cking CLASSIC. :D

I hope you don't mind me quoting you on this. It rocks.

Nodinia

29-01-2006, 00:05

I love alternet history as much as the next person however, the palestinians didn't leave because of Israel. They left because the Arab world wanted to crush Israel. That my friend is a fact of history that cannot be disputed. It was the Arab world that caused the Palestinian Refugee problem because they did not take those people in. Even Syria admits we made a mistake but has done nothing to correct it. .

They did take them in. They're still there. Same in Jordan.

Many of them decided to not lose a home twice and stayed in the West Bank after 1967.

Would you mind sharing a few names, dates and places regarding this "fact of history that cannot be disputed"? Because though I keep hearing mentioned, its a tale short on specifics so far.

I noticed he is talking about return and NOT HOW THEY LEFT. Big difference between the two.

"We have to examine, first, if this transfer is practical, and secondly, if it is necessary. It is impossible to imagine general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion, There are of course sections of the non-Jewish population of the Land of Israel which will not resist transfer under adequate conditions to certain neighboring countries, such as the Druze, a number of Bedouin tribes in the Jordan Valley and the south, the Circassians and perhaps even the Metwalis [the Sh'ite of the Galilee]. But it would be very difficult to bring about resettlement of other sections of the [Palestinian] Arab populations such as the fellahin and the urban populations in neighboring Arab countries by transferring them voluntarily, whatever economic inducements are offered to them" - David Ben Gurion "Eretz Yisrael"

David Ben-Gurion and the "Transfer proposals"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7854/transfer04.html

Nodinia

29-01-2006, 00:13

Actions have consequences.

Philosophical insight of the first order there.........

Corneliu

29-01-2006, 00:15

They did take them in. They're still there. Same in Jordan.

So what nation took them in? Why do we still have a Palestinian Refugee Problem if nations have taken them in?

Many of them decided to not lose a home twice and stayed in the West Bank after 1967.

Then its their fault that they are in this situation and NOT the Israelis.

Would you mind sharing a few names, dates and places regarding this "fact of history that cannot be disputed"? Because though I keep hearing mentioned, its a tale short on specifics so far.

Go ready history. The first Arab-Israeli war, AKA Israel's war for independence.

Nodinia

29-01-2006, 00:24

So what nation took them in? Why do we still have a Palestinian Refugee Problem if nations have taken them in?

Then its their fault that they are in this situation and NOT the Israelis.

Go ready history. The first Arab-Israeli war, AKA Israel's war for independence.

Evasion, followed by illogic (similar to blaming Jewish refugees feeling from Russia for choosing Germany in the early 1900s as a place of refuge) followed by illogical feckless evasion. Or maybe you're just lazy. If you're "role playing" you do the job of a clueless rightwinger well, but perhaps should make more spelling errors.

Corneliu

29-01-2006, 00:31

Evasion, followed by illogic (similar to blaming Jewish refugees feeling from Russia for choosing Germany in the early 1900s as a place of refuge) followed by illogical feckless evasion. Or maybe you're just lazy. If you're "role playing" you do the job of a clueless rightwinger well, but perhaps should make more spelling errors.

Slander and nothing else but.

I suggest you study this issue before opening up your big yap. I guess you do not understand that it was the Arabs back in the mid 1940s who told the Palestinians to leave so that the arab states could attack Israel. I guess you did not know that the Arab States violated a UN Resolution to stop such actions.

I guess you do not understand that Syria even admitted they are partly to blame for the Palestinian Refugee problem either.

I'm not the one that is evading. I'm the one that is using facts.

Nodinia

29-01-2006, 02:22

Slander and nothing else but.

I suggest you study this issue before opening up your big yap. I guess you do not understand that it was the Arabs back in the mid 1940s who told the Palestinians to leave so that the arab states could attack Israel. I guess you did not know that the Arab States violated a UN Resolution to stop such actions.

I guess you do not understand that Syria even admitted they are partly to blame for the Palestinian Refugee problem either.

I'm not the one that is evading. I'm the one that is using facts.

You have yet to name a name, supply a date, or outline any sort of cohesive argument, just inanely spout "it was the Arabs". I do believe the last time I came across such a tactic was rather ironically some Australian anti-semite racist whose answer to most questions was either some variation on "thats what the jews want you to think" or "the jews did it". That didnt impress me particularily and the "arabs did it" doesnt cut it with me either. Either put up, or shut up.

Corneliu

29-01-2006, 05:58

CanuckHeaven

29-01-2006, 06:42

It certainly is not illogical for a person to look at the implications of what you say, especially when your position seems to lack substance and be more orientated around taking pot shots at the Bush administration than actually looking at the Middle East situation for what it is.
My position is straight forward. Bush should deal with the cards that have been dealt in a professional manner instead of fueling the propaganda machine.

It is easy to take pot shots at Bush because IMHO, his foreign policy, especially concerning the Middle East is a disaster. The ME is far worse off today than it was when he came to power in 2000.

Do you believe that the US and Israel should recognise the Hamas government when not only is it openly hostile towards them, but makes claims in its charter such as: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." With more than 350 Israeli civilians having been murdered by terrorist actions from Hamas (who do not distinguish between civilian and military targets as a matter of policy) in the last four years it is hardly surprising that they are a tad reluctant to acknowledge their legitimacy.
You accuse me of not "actually looking at the Middle East situation for what it is", and then go on about "350 Israeli civilians having been murdered by terrorist actions", and yet you seem to not recognize what the circumstances are in regards to the Palestinian situation. Do you only care about the 350 Israelis (actually it is 1,084) that have died or do you also have some concern for the 3,786 Palestinians that have been murdered as well (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html)?

Don't even get me going about the number of civilians that have died in Iraq.

And you have the gall to suggest that my position "lacks substance".

Bush has not gone so far as to contest the legitimacy of the elections, merely express his disapproval at their outcome. Their is nothing inappropriate or illegal about his doing so and is a perfectly normal feature of international relations.
I quite disagree. His actions are totally inappropriate and unprofessional. Before passing judgment, Bush should have waited until the new government took office and then rolled up his sleeves, approached them in a professional manner and then ask them straight out about their proposals for a peaceful solution to the current crisis.

I'm glad the Israeli citizens feel the need to talk, as demonstrated by Northern Ireland peace process, the only way the situation is ever going to develop is through open negotiations. However, it seems rather obvious to say that so long as one party maintains the open goal of destroying the other there is a relatively fixed limit on what can be achieved through such a process.
No, what seems obvious is that you also suffer from contempt prior to investigation. The Israelis, according to the poll, want to negotiate with Hamas, but YOU don't think they should. How arrogant is that?

Perhaps it would be better to negotiate with Fatah, even though it appears that they want to shun the democratic results of their own election?

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060128/palestinian_ambush_060128

Meanwhile, dozens of armed police officers loyal to Fatah briefly stormed a parliament building in Gaza City to protest any transfer of security responsibility to Hamas.

"Everybody should know that we are not going to allow the Interior Ministry to belong to Hamas," the police said, referring to the government body that controls the security forces.

Ahhh, democracy in action!!

Maegi

29-01-2006, 07:01

Maegi

29-01-2006, 07:11

You have yet to name a name, supply a date, or outline any sort of cohesive argument, just inanely spout "it was the Arabs". I do believe the last time I came across such a tactic was rather ironically some Australian anti-semite racist whose answer to most questions was either some variation on "thats what the jews want you to think" or "the jews did it". That didnt impress me particularily and the "arabs did it" doesnt cut it with me either. Either put up, or shut up.

You like using old quotes, so here you go. http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_un_arabrejection.php
Apparently the UN boundaries weren't good enough for them until AFTER Israel won their war of independance, but to quote the Arab league secretary general of the time - "Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions." They asked for war, and when they got it, they complained. Too fucking bad.

Saint Jade

29-01-2006, 07:26

Corneliu

29-01-2006, 07:29

You mean like how the Western world created the problems between Israel and Palestine by refusing to take the Jewish refugees from the Holocaust at the end of World War Two? Coz, you know, they took Germans, and Dutch, and Lithuanians, and Poles. But they refused to take many Jews.

Agreed. We are partly Responsible just as the UN is as well as the Arab World. Did you know that when Israel was created, they recognized their Arab neighbors?

Bobs Own Pipe

29-01-2006, 07:31

*FLORT*
This is f*cking CLASSIC. :D

I hope you don't mind me quoting you on this. It rocks.
I am honoured, kind reader.

Saint Jade

29-01-2006, 07:59

Seriously, to be really honest, I don't blame the Palestinians for being pissed. If someone had marched in and taken my house and my land and sent me to live somewhere else, with little compensation, so some people from really far away could have my land, I'd do anything in my power to get rid of them. If my family was killed by a foreign army, I'd go over to their country and blow myself up on a bus. I wouldn't have anything to live for, so why should they? Now this is obviously not the thinking of governments and politicians, but it is the thinking of the people who join these radical organisations.

The problem is that any solution does not take into account the little people. The everyday people who have to live with it. Who shouldn't have had to live with it in the first place. A better solution to the refugee problem at the end of World War Two should have been found. One that didn't involve riding roughshod over the basic human rights of a large group of people in one region of the world.

Sarros

29-01-2006, 09:16

"Werewolves Try Freebasing"?

Silly Bobs Own Pipe, Richard Nixon is dead :p

Seroisly though folks we (the US) should remove our selves form the peace procese After they start lauching attacks.

Nodinia

29-01-2006, 22:17

You have yet to dispute the fact that the Arabs requested the Palestinians to leave Israel. You have yet to dispute the fact that Syria took some responsibility for having those same Palestinians leave but did NOTHING to assist them as refugees.

I have provided evidence showing there was a deliberate removal of the Arab population. You have as of yet provided no evidence whatsoever for your claim. None.

They asked for war, and when they got it, they complained. Too fucking bad..

I was unaware that the action of Governments was reason to ethnically cleanse a population. I find your attitude to the Palestinian population disturbing, but sadly not atypical.

Corneliu

29-01-2006, 22:20

I have provided evidence showing there was a deliberate removal of the Arab population. You have as of yet provided no evidence whatsoever for your claim. None.

Syria admitted they were partly responsible for asking the palestinians to leave and to not do anything to help them. I guess you want to overlook that fact.

I was unaware that the action of Governments was reason to ethnically cleanse a population. I find your attitude to the Palestinian population disturbing, but sadly not atypical.

I'm still waiting for evidence of this.

Nodinia

29-01-2006, 22:25

Syria admitted they were partly responsible for asking the palestinians to leave and to not do anything to help them. I guess you want to overlook that fact.

I'm still waiting for evidence of this.

Syria did not drive out Palestinians by gun point.

And now you're either (a) confused or (b) trying to be inflamatory.

The Cat-Tribe

29-01-2006, 22:26

Slander and nothing else but.

I suggest you study this issue before opening up your big yap. I guess you do not understand that it was the Arabs back in the mid 1940s who told the Palestinians to leave so that the arab states could attack Israel. I guess you did not know that the Arab States violated a UN Resolution to stop such actions.

I guess you do not understand that Syria even admitted they are partly to blame for the Palestinian Refugee problem either.

I'm not the one that is evading. I'm the one that is using facts.

1. You have yet to offer any proof of these assertions.

2. I guess since all Arabs are the same, if some Arabs are to blame, they all are. That way the Palestinians are to blame for the actions of Arab nations.

Corneliu

29-01-2006, 22:27

Syria did not drive out Palestinians by gun point.

And now you're either (a) confused or (b) trying to be inflamatory.

Ignore history then. I do not care. However, I'm still waiting on evidence of ethnic cleansing done by Israel. You have not provided any.

Nodinia

29-01-2006, 22:33

Ignore history then. I do not care. However, I'm still waiting on evidence of ethnic cleansing done by Israel. You have not provided any.

Then I suggest you reread this thread paying attention to my posts where I mention populations, land ownership figures pre 1948 and current population figures for Jordan in particular. For further reading you could note the statements of Ben-Gurion on the matter as well.

I note that I am not the only one to question your lack of evidence.

Corneliu

29-01-2006, 22:35

Then I suggest you reread this thread paying attention to my posts where I mention populations, land ownership figures pre 1948 and current population figures for Jordan in particular. For further reading you could note the statements of Ben-Gurion on the matter as well.

I note that I am not the only one to question your lack of evidence.

So where's the evidence of ethnic cleansing?

Nodinia

29-01-2006, 23:04

Post 164, 171, 177.

In addition, the effect on the make up of the population of Jordan can be gleaned from here.http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/jo.html

The Cat-Tribe

29-01-2006, 23:11

So where's the evidence of ethnic cleansing?

Classic Corny.

You make statements you cannot and never will prove.

You continue to demand evidence from others in the face of such evidence.

Sorry, Nodinia, he'll continue to do this ad infinitum.

Corneliu

29-01-2006, 23:24

http://www.mideastweb.org/refugees2.htm

Apparently, they are not welcomed in Lebanon either.

And this here:

The war that ensued was won by Israel, creating a large number of Arab refugees. Estimates vary from about 520,000 (Israeli sources) to 726,000 (UN sources) to over 800,000 (Arab sources) refugees, Palestinian Arabs who fled or were forced out of their homes during the fighting. This number has grown to include over 4.6 million displaced persons, about 3.7 million of whom are currently registered as refugees with the UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees). Of these, somewhat over a million live in camps run by the UNRWA (see www.un.org/unrwa/pr/pdf/figures.pdf ) Generally, refugees living in the camps live in conditions of abject poverty and overcrowding. The refugees of the 1948 Israeli war of independence and the lesser number of refugees of the 1967 war constitute a real monumental humanitarian and political problem, and no resolution of the conflict can ignore them. The issue has also been deliberately exploited by Arab and Palestinian politicians in their war with Israel. The refugee problem has been at the heart of peace negotiations ever since 1949.

I'll compromise. Both sides, Jews and Arabs were responsible for the refugee problem.

Source: http://www.mideastweb.org/refugees1.htm

Only Jordan has allowed them to resettle there. No other Arab nation has: "With the exception of Jordan, no country has allowed permanent resettlement of Palestinian refugees"

Source: http://www.mideastweb.org/refugees1.htm

This website has alot of info on it. Looks like both sides forcibly expelled eachother from Conquered lands:

As early as December, 1947, Arabs had begun abandoning their homes and leaving Palestine. The exodus began earliest in Arab neighborhoods of West Jerusalem such as Rumeima (now Romema). By the time the British left Palestine, about a quarter of a million Arabs had become refugees. Another half million, approximately, fled or were forced to leave during the war. The reasons for leaving varied. In Beersheba and Safed, the Arabs left before Jewish troops had entered. In Lod and Ramlah, the Arab population was expelled by force, as were Arabs who remained in Isdood (Ashdod) and other towns. Subsequently Israel enacted a law that forbade the return of refugees. During the war, Jews fled from areas conquered by Arabs without exception, or were escorted out as in the old City of Jerusalem. No Jews at all were allowed to return to the the West Bank areas conquered by Jordan in 1948, and all their property was turned over to a Custodian of Absentee property, as the Israeli did for property of Arabs who had fled.

Its an interesting history. One that both sides were committing warcrimes left and right.

Nodinia

29-01-2006, 23:35

http://www.mideastweb.org/refugees2.htm

Apparently, they are not welcomed in Lebanon either.
And this here:
I'll compromise. Both sides, Jews and Arabs were responsible for the refugee problem.
Source: http://www.mideastweb.org/refugees1.htm
Only Jordan has allowed them to resettle there. No other Arab nation has: "With the exception of Jordan, no country has allowed permanent resettlement of Palestinian refugees"

Source: http://www.mideastweb.org/refugees1.htm
This website has alot of info on it. Looks like both sides forcibly expelled eachother from Conquered lands:
Its an interesting history. One that both sides were committing warcrimes left and right.

No country is entirely enthusiastic about large groups arriving en masse, let alone in such a short period and armed. Lebanon was very unstable before they arrived and they were the straw that broke the back. However as to whether or not the various states want them or otherwise, they should have a state of their own to go to. There is no denying that the various Arab states have been "less than helpful" when it comes to the Palestinians. They indeed committed massacres and were in the wrong in attacking Israel.

The problem now though, is the occupation. A single state/right of return solution is unworkable, therefore withdrawal and a Palestinian state in the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem is the only viable alternative.

OceanDrive3

29-01-2006, 23:40

So where's the evidence of ethnic cleansing?Posts 164, 171, 177.

Corneliu

29-01-2006, 23:50

No country is entirely enthusiastic about large groups arriving en masse, let alone in such a short period and armed. Lebanon was very unstable before they arrived and they were the straw that broke the back. However as to whether or not the various states want them or otherwise, they should have a state of their own to go to. There is no denying that the various Arab states have been "less than helpful" when it comes to the Palestinians. They indeed committed massacres and were in the wrong in attacking Israel.

I agree with you 100%

The problem now though, is the occupation. A single state/right of return solution is unworkable, therefore withdrawal and a Palestinian state in the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem is the only viable alternative.

Again I agree with you 100%

Nodinia

30-01-2006, 14:53

One down - 200,999,999 or so to go.

Lionstone

30-01-2006, 15:22

Hamas are not simply "anti-US" - they are a terrorist organisation openly committed to the destruction of Israel, you can hardly expect whole-hearted support from the west. The fact that various western countries have declared their opposition to the new regime is perfectly legitimate in the realm of international politics.

Give them their due they have changed their tune slightly and would not mind co-existing with Israel. several decades of knocking seven bells out of each other and getting nowhere have finally started sinking inot people minds.

I see it as a very positive thing. Now they are in government they will soon end up happily on the fiddle and comitted to the staus quo, just like every democracy. This is progress.

Maegi

30-01-2006, 15:59

Posts 164, 171, 177.

Those posts are evidence of nothing, ethnic cleansing included. There seem to be several people that believe that just because people left their homes, they were forced to do it at gunpoint. As I posted earlier, the Arab League representative stated the Arabs were unwilling to give up any land as demanded by the UN, and flat out challenged Israel to take it by force of arms.

Aeruillin

30-01-2006, 16:19

Sigh. Who on Earth has ignored the Hamas win? The Palesitian PM, Qurei, already submitted his resignation.

Does the French president have to resign when the opposition wins a parliamentary election? No, enters into "cohabitation". He may resign, of course, just like de Gaulle did in 1969 after a narrow referendum loss, but on his own volition.

I was not accusing the world of ignoring the Hamas win; I was accusing Bush of calling for it to be ignored. Vehemently so; in fact, he has threatened to cut aid (the first resort that the US has when it comes to bullying less developed nations).

Even for that, I would have cared less about his statement if he had not added hypocrisy by also calling the elections a positive signal for the Middle East.

If the only purpose of elections is to act as a symbol for democracy, then why do we even have them?

Corneliu

30-01-2006, 16:36

I was not accusing the world of ignoring the Hamas win; I was accusing Bush of calling for it to be ignored. Vehemently so; in fact, he has threatened to cut aid (the first resort that the US has when it comes to bullying less developed nations).

Even for that, I would have cared less about his statement if he had not added hypocrisy by also calling the elections a positive signal for the Middle East.

If the only purpose of elections is to act as a symbol for democracy, then why do we even have them?

Nice twist of the Facts Aeruillin.

1) He isn't calling for it to be ignored.

2) We do not give aide to terrorist organizations. Hamas has been labeled a terrorist organization by Israel, The EU, and the USA.

New Mitanni

30-01-2006, 16:56

My coment: WTF !!!

Thu Jan 26, 2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Thursday the Palestinian election in which the militant group Hamas swept to a shock victory were a sign Palestinians were unhappy with the status quo but urged Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to remain in power.

He said the election showed democracy at work, which was positive for the Middle East region. "What was also positive is that it was a wake up call to the leadership, obviously people were not happy with the status quo," Bush told a White House news conference.

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=10986941&src=rss/politicsNews

Elections are a necessary condition for a democratic state, but not a sufficient condition. There are a few other things that go with democracy, like the rule of law, restraints on the power of the majority to act against the minority, etc. And need I remind you that Hitler was "democratically elected"?

The so-called Palestinians have democratically elected a terrorist organization to represent them. They will now be democratically held responsible for the consequences of their choice. If that bothers some people, like the knee-jerk hate-America crowd and the anti-Semitic European left, too damn bad.

Teh_pantless_hero

30-01-2006, 16:57

2) We do not give aide to terrorist organizations.
Not when the public is looking anyway.

Nodinia

30-01-2006, 19:15

Those posts are evidence of nothing, ethnic cleansing included. There seem to be several people that believe that just because people left their homes, they were forced to do it at gunpoint. As I posted earlier, the Arab League representative stated the Arabs were unwilling to give up any land as demanded by the UN, and flat out challenged Israel to take it by force of arms.

They were forced out by threat, actual violence, and fear of massacre. It was deliberate and co-ordinated. The statistics, notes etc are there to prove it, from the memoirs of Gurion to Begin to Dayan to the Haggannah documents. Thats the facts of the matter. And it doesnt really matter if the the Grand Tufti himself had a hissy fit and said "wigs on the green" it doesnt excuse driving the civillian population out.

I note that you are again doing the old there was no expulsion/it was their fault anyway routine. Trying to both have ones cake and eat it can lead to choking, you know.

and the anti-Semitic European left,.

People who criticise Israels actions are unlikely to be anti-semitic because (a)Arabs are semites (so why would anti-semite give a crap about them?) (b)many are themselves Jewish and resent the fact that Israel acts in their name. Please do come back with some genuine comments, and spare us the jaded "you just hate jews" nonsense.

Corneliu

30-01-2006, 19:17

They were forced out by threat, actual violence, and fear of massacre.

And the Israelis were forced out by threat, actual violence and fear of massacre during the war themselves.

Nodinia

30-01-2006, 19:18

2) We do not give aide to terrorist organizations. Hamas has been labeled a terrorist organization by Israel, The EU, and the USA.

The Contras. I also think that Latin American governments who use rape squads/death squads qualify. Plus systematic torturers like Pinochet.

Nodinia

30-01-2006, 19:20

And the Israelis were forced out by threat, actual violence and fear of massacre during the war themselves.

I've no doubt many were. At the end of the war there was an Israeli homeland to go to though, and the same couldn't be said for a few hundred thousand Palestinians.

Corneliu

30-01-2006, 19:21

I've no doubt many were. At the end of the war there was an Israeli homeland to go to though, and the same couldn't be said for a few hundred thousand Palestinians.

That's because the Arabs actually took that away from them when they attacked Israel.

OceanDrive3

30-01-2006, 19:24

Elections are a necessary condition for a democratic state, but not a sufficient condition.a necessary condition is that they elect the candidate chosen by the White House..

You are just like the morons calling Chavez a dictator..

Corneliu

30-01-2006, 19:25

a necessary condition is that they elect the candidate chosen by the White House..

You are just like the morons calling Chavez a dictator..

I'm glad that the palestinians voted. Now the question is, will they have another one?

OceanDrive3

30-01-2006, 19:26

I'm glad that the palestinians voted. Now the question is, will they have another one?another what?

Corneliu

30-01-2006, 19:28

another what?

Another election perhaps when the time comes to have another? :rolleyes:

OceanDrive3

30-01-2006, 19:33

I'm glad that the Palestinians voted. Now the question is, will they have another one?will they have Fraud-less election again?... Sure
they have much better chances that Iraq, Afghanistan, and Egypt.
They have better Democracy than any of the US Arab Friends in the region..
They have better democracy than any country in the region.. with 2 exceptions.. Iran and Israel.

Corneliu

30-01-2006, 19:35

will have Fraud-less election again?... their have much better chances that Iraq, Afghanistan, and Egypt.
They have better Democracy than any of the US Arab Friends in the region..
They have better democracy than any country in the region.. with the possible exceptions of Iran and Israel.

You think Iran has a great democracy? Despite the fact that they always cut out moderates and those that want to see real change done in the nation? Don't make me laugh.

Iraq has a better chance, as does Afghanistan, to be a much better democracy than Iran does.

OceanDrive3

30-01-2006, 19:37

You think Iran has a great democracy? better than in my Country .. Where a chimp was elected by a kangoroo Court.

The Atlantian islands

30-01-2006, 19:54

better than in my Country .. Where a chimp was elected by a kangoroo Court.

Well according to you, he wasnt so much elected as he was placed by the Jews pulling all the strings behind the American government..:rolleyes:

OceanDrive3

30-01-2006, 20:01

Well according to you, he wasnt so much elected as he was placed by the Jews pulling all the strings behind the American government..:rolleyes:use the QUOTE FUNCTION to prove i ever said that..

Corneliu

30-01-2006, 20:10

better than in my Country .. Where a chimp was elected by a kangoroo Court.

We do not keep people from running for public office. Our election is actually better than Iran's.

OceanDrive3

30-01-2006, 21:11

.
Our election is actually better than Iran's.And thats why 5 neocon Judges Decided who was going to be President.

Corneliu

30-01-2006, 21:12

And thats why 5 neocon Judges Decided who was going to be President.

*yawns*

I'm getting tired of this arguement considering it is patently false.

OceanDrive3

30-01-2006, 21:17

*yawns*

I'm getting tired of this arguement considering it is patently false.You can Ignore the facts if you want... But I wont.

Corneliu

30-01-2006, 21:25

You can Ignore the facts if you want... But I wont.

I'm not ignoring any facts whatsoever.

Deep Kimchi

30-01-2006, 21:27

IMHO, the Palestinians threw Fatah out of office because they have been screwing the Palestinians worse than the Israelis. If you think simply of the money spent by Arafat on himself, and the corruption in Fatah, you can get quite angry.

Hamas has spent a lot of time working on having a good public face - they fight "the enemy", they build and run schools and hospitals, and they haven't been in government enough to be corrupted by it.

It doesn't really matter whether Fatah or Hamas was in charge - the Israeli policy today is to simply ignore the Palestinians - and where they cause trouble, build a wall around them.

OceanDrive3

30-01-2006, 21:50

I'm not ignoring any facts whatsoever.
Special report: the US elections

Thursday December 14, 2000

The US supreme court rules for Mr Bush, halting recounts of disputed Florida presidential ballots ordered by the Florida supreme court, after concluding in a 7-2 vote that the decision violates the US constitution's protections of due process and equal protection under the law. But the supreme court splits by a 5-4 vote along ideological conservative and liberal lines in deciding that new recounts should not be ordered to remedy the problem.

Nodinia

30-01-2006, 21:52

That's because the Arabs actually took that away from them when they attacked Israel.

No, they did not and don't start trying to wriggle around it either. It was Israeli forces who expelled the majority of the Palestinian population in a planned episode of ethnic cleansing. Either show otherwise or role-play an asshole elsewhere.

If you think simply of the money spent by Arafat on himself,.

Yes, in the three rooms in his HQ in glamorous Gaza, the place to be in the Mid east. No exile in shabby Paris with the missus for Yasser....

the Israeli policy today is to simply ignore the Palestinians -,.

As well as law, decency, logic and consequences, with not a thought for the day when the US decides it doesnt need it anymore and stops using the Veto to protect it.

Deep Kimchi

30-01-2006, 21:54

I say again, this is all moot.

As soon as Iran has a few nuclear warheads on top of their already existing ICBMs and IRBMs, not only will most of the people in Israel cease to exist, the Palestinians, whose territories are intermingled with the Israeli state, will also cease to exist.

Let's just wait a year or two, and there won't be anything to argue over except some highly radioactive craters.

Corneliu

30-01-2006, 21:56

Special report: the US elections

Thursday December 14, 2000

The US supreme court rules for Mr Bush, halting recounts of disputed Florida presidential ballots ordered by the Florida supreme court, after concluding in a 7-2 vote that the decision violates the US constitution's protections of due process and equal protection under the law. But the supreme court splits by a 5-4 vote along ideological conservative and liberal lines in deciding that new recounts should not be ordered to remedy the problem.

I guess no one looks at all the facts. I guess people don't realize that there were many different recounting mechnasizms being employed. I guess no one could understand how to count a punch ballot that wasn't completely punched through. I guess no one understands the fact that counting measures were changed midway through the recount process.

There was more to this then a simple supreme court case. The recounting methods used were so various that the Supreme Court had not choice but to stop it.

Go back and look at all the facts before saying something like this.

OceanDrive3

30-01-2006, 21:58

I say again, this is all moot.Then why is CodomSleeza scramblimg her ass all over Europe.. begging for international support against Hamas?

Corneliu

30-01-2006, 21:58

No, they did not and don't start trying to wriggle around it either. It was Israeli forces who expelled the majority of the Palestinian population in a planned episode of ethnic cleansing. Either show otherwise or role-play an asshole elsewhere.

I didn't dispute that, but I suggest you take alook at the UN Resolution that would've created a two state solution. Guess what? The Arab States didn't want that and prevented it from being implemented. Why? They don't like jews. So yes, they did prevent a two state solution by not adhering to the UN Resolution that would've made Jeruslem an international city and would've created both Israel and Palestine.

Corneliu

30-01-2006, 21:59

Then why is CodomSleeza scramblimg her ass all over Europe.. begging for international support against Hamas?

Why did the EU tell Hamas to moderate and to disarm or lose most of their funding from them? Oh yea, the Palestinians will now more than likely lose Israeli money too since they also help fund the Palistinian government.

Kecibukia

30-01-2006, 21:59

I guess no one looks at all the facts. I guess people don't realize that there were many different recounting mechnasizms being employed. I guess no one could understand how to count a punch ballot that wasn't completely punched through. I guess no one understands the fact that counting measures were changed midway through the recount process.

There was more to this then a simple supreme court case. The recounting methods used were so various that the Supreme Court had not choice but to stop it.

Go back and look at all the facts before saying something like this.

Like maybe some news reports:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

Florida recount study: Bush still wins

Study reveals flaws in ballots, voter errors may have cost Gore victory

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

or even:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/recount/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

Deep Kimchi

30-01-2006, 22:01

Then why is CodomSleeza scramblimg her ass all over Europe.. begging for international support against Hamas?

Something tells me she's not begging. And I think her topic of conversation is Iran, not the Palestinians.

As a problem, the Palestinians are confined and, internationally speaking, completely weak.

Sure, the US aid that was being paid by the millions to the Palestinian Authority will now be cut off. And some European countries are likely to cut off their aid as well.

Can't go around directly supporting a known terrorist organization, you know. Especially one that in the past year has made promises to extend the war against Israel to include both European and US targets in their native countries.

Hamas, sometimes, is its own worst PR nightmare. The US hardly needs to say a thing.

OceanDrive3

30-01-2006, 22:08

Go back and look at all the facts before saying something like this.I already looked at all the Facts several dozens of times... and I fully stand by my stetemens..

The Floridagate Facts are written on stone.. you cannot change the Facts.. You cant rewrite history.. no matter how hard you try.

Corneliu

30-01-2006, 22:09

I already looked at all the Facts several dozens of times... and I fully stand by my stetemens..

The Floridagate Facts are written on stone.. you cannot change the Facts.. You cant rewrite history.. no matter how hard you try.

Apparently, you haven't since you do not understand the basics of the case.

Nodinia

30-01-2006, 22:11

I didn't dispute that, but I suggest you take alook at the UN Resolution that would've created a two state solution. Guess what? The Arab States didn't want that and prevented it from being implemented. Why? They don't like jews. So yes, they did prevent a two state solution by not adhering to the UN Resolution that would've made Jeruslem an international city and would've created both Israel and Palestine.

Thats because the Arab states are, generally speaking, run by a shower of gobshites, then and now. And whatever about now, it wasnt so much about "Jews" then, as a bunch of Europeans arriving in and grabbing a country. Where peoples are very close to an agrarian society, that strikes a very deep chord.

Then why is CodomSleeza scramblimg her ass all over Europe.. begging for international support against Hamas?.

70 million comes from the US, 600 or so from the EU. In other words, if Europe stay in, they can scrape by.

NationStates Jolt Archive

## Bush tells Palestinean President: "The People Have Spoken, Now Ignore Them"