NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, don't know if anyone did this yet....(i only checked the first two pages :p)

But anyway, Israel Invaded Gaza tonight, here is part of the article:


Article Source (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885868104&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull)
IDF: Operation to continue until release of Gilad Shalit
By GIL HOFFMAN, YAAKOV KATZ AND JPOST STAFF


After exhausting all diplomatic efforts to secure the release of kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, the army launched a major incursion into the Gaza Strip overnight.

An army source said that the purpose of the operation, dubbed Summer Rains, was to place pressure on the Palestinians to the point that they would decide to release Shalit. "We will stay here as long as necessary until we return with the kidnapped IDF soldier," the source said. The other objective was to try to curb the launching of Kassam rockets at Israel.


In response to the offensive, the Popular Resistance Committees threatened they would kill 18-year-old Itamar resident Eliyahu Asheri - whom they claimed to have kidnapped - if Israel did not cease its military activity in the Gaza Strip. Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad also said that the incursion was a mistake and would cost Israel dearly.

Meanwhile, Palestinian residents of the eastern neighborhoods of Rafah began fleeing to western parts of the city. Palestinian television reported that the IAF was indiscriminately bombing the city. Armed men took positions on rooftops and asked remaining residents to leave, Israel Radio reported.

IDF troops took control of the town of Shuka, east of Rafah, and asked residents to leave.

The incursion began shortly before midnight, when IAF aircraft blew up three main bridges, located along the main route connecting between the northern and southern parts of the strip.

Ground forces then began entering the southeastern part of the Gaza Strip and the troops gained control of two key sites near Dahaniya. At the same time, artillery units were shelling areas Kassam launch sites.

The Air Force also struck an electrical transformer station south of Gaza city, cutting the power supply from portions of the region. Palestinian sources said that the IDF shot at least nine missiles at the electric station. A large fire erupted and the turbines and fuel supplies were burned. Still, some of the power was restored through wires connected to an Israeli power supply, Israel Radio reported.
An IDF spokesperson told The Jerusalem Post that there was little Palestinian resistance to the incursion. He denied a report claiming that the Erez crossing had been opened in preparation for entry of troops into the northern Gaza Strip.

Four Kassam rockets were fired around 8 a.m. Wednesday from northern Gaza. They landed in open areas in the western Negev, causing no damage.

In the Saja'iyeh neighborhood of Gaza City, not far from the border fence, armed Palestinian operatives took up positions across from the IDF vehicles. The operatives instructed Palestinian residents to leave the area.







So, anyone taking bets on how long it takes before another Arab country gets involved, sparking another Arab-Israeli war?


-edit, the story should be correct now, and not all messy looking.-

I'll bet that USA just HAVE to get involved, even though Israel has shown that it can take care of itself during the Six Day War.

I'll bet that USA just HAVE to get involved, even though Israel has shown that it can take care of itself during the Six Day War.


I don't know if the US will get involved. Right now PM Olmert says israel will leave once it gets the soldier, BUT if say we have some heavy time fighting then maybe there might be a larger incident...I don't know. I have a bad feeling about all of this.

I have a bad feeling about all of this.

Agreed. :(

...I don't know. I have a bad feeling about all of this.

Don't worry, man.

*breaks seventh seal*

It will be alright.

I'll bet that USA just HAVE to get involved, even though Israel has shown that it can take care of itself during the Six Day War.

In the past, Israel has categorically refused direct military support from the USA, stating that Israel will never have any foreign blood shed for its own conflicts. And, true to that, Israel has never requested the aid of foreign troops.

I'd be shocked if US troops showed up, considering that this invasion is little more than extensive martial law of the Occupied Territories. It isn't tantamount to the United States invading Iraq, or if Israel were to invade a neighboring country (like Jordan and Egypt did).

Don't worry, man.

*breaks seventh seal*

It will be alright.



:p :D

-hears the four horsemen comming, and flees-

I just hope they find the kid alive. My bets are the Pali's are going to be wiped out if he is executed... (Ok maybe not that bad, but there WILL be hell to pay!)

Don't forget that Al-aksa now *supposedly* has WMDs, and have threatened to use them against Israel incase of an invasion.

Don't forget that Al-aksa now *supposedly* has WMDs, and have threatened to use them against Israel incase of an invasion.

Well... at least we'll have fireworks.

I just hope they find the kid alive. My bets are the Pali's are going to be wiped out if he is executed... (Ok maybe not that bad, but there WILL be hell to pay!)

Yes, the Pali's will be made to suffer. Do you guys think this could end up leading to the whole retaking of Pali territory, including all of Jerusalem?

Ok, don't know if anyone did this yet....(i only checked the first two pages :p)

But anyway, Israel Invaded Gaza tonight, here is part of the article:

So, anyone taking bets on how long it takes before another Arab country gets involved, sparking another Arab-Israeli war?

I'm not sure if everyone has this problem, but I'm getting the text twice. It repeats itself word for word, making it look rather long. :confused:

Good, I'm glad Israel is beginning to take back what is rightfully theirs.

Don't forget that Al-aksa now *supposedly* has WMDs, and have threatened to use them against Israel incase of an invasion.
A greater threat to the western world is posed by the rogue terrorist group Al-aska, which occupies a strategic position within missile range of the US border. Unless the US launches a preemptive strike, terrorist nuclear strikes could devastate the west coast or our Canadian allies.

Agreed. :(



I have a good feeling about it, It gives me a tingling feeling all over. I like it!




















I may have a war fetish....:eek:

Yes, the Pali's will be made to suffer. Do you guys think this could end up leading to the whole retaking of Pali territory, including all of Jerusalem?

No, Israel doesn't want the Occupied Territories for a number of reasons. You've got to remember that right now they are still technically occupied and controlled by Israel. Israel could have annexed them at any time, like Jordan, Egypt, and Syria did at one point. It doesn't need to roll in and take land that it has already won in a previous war.

Good, I'm glad Israel is beginning to take back what is rightfully theirs.

Umm, how is it rightfully theirs?

I'm not sure if everyone has this problem, but I'm getting the text twice. It repeats itself word for word, making it look rather long. :confused:


It looks normal to me -shrugs- try refreshing it?

Umm, how is it rightfully theirs?

This guy has a point... Go read how Isreal as a state came to be, it does give abit more light as to the happenings of the region in present day.

A greater threat to the western world is posed by the rogue terrorist group Al-aska, which occupies a strategic position within missile range of the US border. Unless the US launches a preemptive strike, terrorist nuclear strikes could devastate the west coast or our Canadian allies.

You couldn't do that! There's baby seals there :p

Meh, we Canadians would club them anyways.


This is nothing serious though. Terrorists do something to Israel, Israel goes in guns blazing, some civilians get killed, Israel goes home.

You couldn't do that! There's baby seals there :p
The plans for Operation Baby Seal Freedom are already in the works ... of course, they have nothing to do with the large oil supplies Al-aska is using to secretly finance their terrorist activities.

This paragraph:
Meanwhile, Palestinian residents of Rafah began fleeing westward, following reports in the Palestinian media that the IAF was indescriminantly bombing Rafah.
to mention just one, appears twice.


Oh you mean its redundant..Yeah, perhaps there is a bit of that. Its a little bit of sloppy reporting, perhaps because its all happening right now..and its all in the war zone. I dunno?

There's really a terrorist group called Al-aska? Haha. They could be slightly more creative than to name themselves after a state in the nation that they dispise.

Sorry to keep pestering you, but the source doesn't have all that repetition. Page two is really quite short. Sure you didn't paste the first page twice ?


-edit-

Ya I accidently pasted the first page twice... Thanks Nobel Hobos for point that out :)

Here's a question I've been pondering:

WHy the fuck do we even care anymore? We've been working on this Israel/Palestine thing for almost 60 years! Fuck em.

Let's turn some of our attention and money to people who actually want peace enough to work at it. Like Somalia. Or the Sudan. We might actually be able to help them.

There's really a terrorist group called Al-aska? Haha. They could be slightly more creative than to name themselves after a state in the nation that they dispise.


Yep, they are named after the mosque with the same name :)

No, Israel doesn't want the Occupied Territories for a number of reasons. You've got to remember that right now they are still technically occupied and controlled by Israel. Israel could have annexed them at any time, like Jordan, Egypt, and Syria did at one point. It doesn't need to roll in and take land that it has already won in a previous war.

it has not annexed them because it does not want to take care of and be responsible for the Palestinian population living there, while still retaining power and control over the area, creating a situation where Israel recieves all of the benefits of an occupation while not having to bear the responsibilities.

Also, we are passed the age where the winner of a fight is deemed as the person who was right. This links to the proverb "war does not determine who is right, only who is left." Just because Iraq occupied and annexed Kuwait in 1990, it does not mean that Kuwait is part of Iraqs legitamite land. However when Israel doubles its size by taking land not mandated to it by the UN, which it constantly refers to as a symbol of its legitamicy, it is considered fair game. Quite a grievious double standard.

Here's a question I've been wondering:

WHy the fuck do we even care anymore? We've been working on this Israel/Palestine thing for almost 60 years! Fuck em.

Let's turn some of our attention and money to people who actually want peace enough to work at it. Like Somalia. Or the Sudan. We might actually be able to help them.


Why do we care....umm..ermm...oil..no..there is no oil under Israel...crap. I don't know!

While I'm against anti-Semitism, just the same, Israel is definitely wrong here. I'm not sure Israel should be in the Middle East, it's unfair to Islam, which was there first. Also the USA should give back their land to the Native Americans, because they were there first. I hate how bad the world is.

it has not annexed them because it does not want to take care of and be responsible for the Palestinian population living there, while still retaining power and control over the area, creating a situation where Israel recieves all of the benefits of an occupation while not having to bear the responsibilities.

Pfft, what benefits? Israel has been trying to hand the Palestinains a state for years, and they keep refusing. The only ones being benefited are the Palestinian terror leaders, who make huge profits off the terror business. They want to be like Arafat and amass a huge fortune in a Swiss bank account - a huger fortune, I should remind you, than any single Israeli politican has ever had. By hundreds of millions of dollars.

Also, we are passed the age where the winner of a fight is deemed as the person who was right. This links to the proverb "war does not determine who is right, only who is left." Just because Iraq occupied and annexed Kuwait in 1990, it does not mean that Kuwait is part of Iraqs legitamite land. However when Israel doubles its size by taking land not mandated to it by the UN, which it constantly refers to as a symbol of its legitamicy, it is considered fair game. Quite a grievious double standard.

The UN mandate only defined what land was for Israel and what land was to be set aside for a Palestinian state. Try to remember history - Jordan, Egypt, and Syria stole the part of land set aisde for Palestine. They annexed it. It became part of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. The Israel took it from them.

Perhaps you should blame the Arab states that actually stole and annexed the land, not Israel, which only won it from the Arab states in a defensive war.

While I'm against anti-Semitism, just the same, Israel is definitely wrong here. I'm not sure Israel should be in the Middle East, it's unfair to Islam, which was there first. Also the USA should give back their land to the Native Americans, because they were there first. I hate how bad the world is.


Why is it wrong? Its just going to get back a soldier, and possibly a settler, that the terrorists refuse to release. And what dies anti-semitism have to do with this at all? :p And Islam was not their first, Christianity came before Islam, and Judaism before xtianity, and polytheistic religions before the Jews. So technically Israel belongs to Canaan. :p

well in my humble opinion they deserve it, ever since Israel gave them that land back look how they've been repayed

Hamas gets elected

Rockets launched from the strip into Isreal

and that kid gets taken

go Israel!

Why is it wrong? Its just going to get back a soldier, and possibly a settler, that the terrorists refuse to release. And what dies anti-semitism have to do with this at all? :p And Islam was not their first, Christianity came before Islam, and Judaism before xtianity, and polytheistic religions before the Jews. So technically Israel belongs to Canaan. :p

Well, my school teacher supports the Palestine because they were there first. But if Canaan was there first, then it should be given back to them. It's time to make reparations for all the oppression that (mostly white) people have done.

well in my humble opinion they deserve it, ever since Isreal gave them that land back look how they've been repayed

Hamas gets elected

Rockets launched from the strip into Isreal

and that kids gets taken

go Isreal!


*cough* Israel ;), not Isreal :p

Why is it wrong? Its just going to get back a soldier, and possibly a settler, that the terrorists refuse to release. And what dies anti-semitism have to do with this at all? :p And Islam was not their first, Christianity came before Islam, and Judaism before xtianity, and polytheistic religions before the Jews. So technically Israel belongs to Canaan. :p

In Arab schools children are often taught that Arabs were the very first people in that land. They are also taught things such as that the Jews have only been living there for a century or so, and that no Temple actually existed. Because many Arabs are indoctrinated with pseudo-history, much like the Nazis indoctrinated their children with pseudo-biology and pseudo-anthropology (Arabs do the latter, as well), it isn't surprising to hear some people claim "Palestinians were there first."

The reality of it is, of course, like you stated.

While I'm against anti-Semitism, just the same, Israel is definitely wrong here. I'm not sure Israel should be in the Middle East, it's unfair to Islam, which was there first. Also the USA should give back their land to the Native Americans, because they were there first. I hate how bad the world is.

The Hebrews were in the region of Canaan before Islam was a thought.

And the post above this (as I'm writing it), the Arabs were from the Arabian Peninsula.

sorry, 3:00 in the morning here

sorry, 3:00 in the morning here


only 2 here :D

Well, my school teacher supports the Palestine because they were there first. But if Canaan was there first, then it should be given back to them. It's time to make reparations for all the oppression that (mostly white) people have done.

If your teacher does history, shoot him/her.

And you can't just blame white people, if you look at any part of history, there were two sides.

Here's a question I've been pondering:

WHy the fuck do we even care anymore? We've been working on this Israel/Palestine thing for almost 60 years! Fuck em.


Because, it's part of an unbreakable cycle of misery that couldn't reach it's peak potential for suffering if people stopped paying attention.. which only adds to the pile of evidence that suggests that God is an angry Cub fan.

I don't know if the US will get involved. Right now PM Olmert says israel will leave once it gets the soldier, BUT if say we have some heavy time fighting then maybe there might be a larger incident...I don't know. I have a bad feeling about all of this.

I get this feeling that even if they did get their soldier back, Gaza might have a bunch of new settlements not belonging to the Palestines. And that the IDF would fence in those settlements with the rest of Israel.

Ok, don't know if anyone did this yet....(i only checked the first two pages :p)

But anyway, Israel Invaded Gaza tonight, here is part of the article:


Article Source (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885868104&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull)



So, anyone taking bets on how long it takes before another Arab country gets involved, sparking another Arab-Israeli war?


-edit, the story should be correct now, and not all messy looking.- i declare a world war III release the bombs were fighting against Israel:sniper: :mp5: :sniper: dieediee dieeeeeee bam bam send out the MI7 on fly emirates plans they will drop oil canisters with detinators from above they will blow up within 1 minute power 2 MC Wedge all hail Sam Kersey. ALL COUNTRYS PLEASE TAKE A SIDE AND JOIN IN WORLD WAR III bwahahahahahaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha dieeeeeeee.
MC Wedge makes ration tokens for the rest of the world

If your teacher does history, shoot him/her.

And you can't just blame white people, if you look at any part of history, there were two sides.

Why he is government-certified and, as one of my friends told me, the government makes sure that all the teachers are QUALIFIED individuals. Your religious school teach unobjective stuff based on the bible, which, really should be banned, so that the South can catch up to the the Northeast and California.

Good, I'm glad Israel is beginning to take back what is rightfully theirs.

Israel has no more right than the American Indians have to the whole of North America.

The only difference is that it's got the might to take it. The right? No.

If your teacher does history, shoot him/her.

And you can't just blame white people, if you look at any part of history, there were two sides.


Of course

I get this feeling that even if they did get their soldier back, Gaza might have a bunch of new settlements not belonging to the Palestines. And that the IDF would fence in those settlements with the rest of Israel.

There will probably be new settlements regardless of what happens. I don't think this little conflict is going to effect settlements one way or another. If Israel unilaterally declares borders, which is a very realistic possibility, then numerous settlements are going to be disbanded, but the settlers may have the option of moving to existing settlements and expanding them. While this actually gives up more Palestinian land without taking any, it would result in new settlements to bolster the concentration of them in private areas currently owned and populated by Israeli citizens.

i declare a world war III release the bombs were fighting against Israel:sniper: :mp5: :sniper: dieediee dieeeeeee bam bam send out the MI7 on fly emirates plans they will drop oil canisters with detinators from above they will blow up within 1 minute power 2 MC Wedge all hail Sam Kersey. ALL COUNTRYS PLEASE TAKE A SIDE AND JOIN IN WORLD WAR III bwahahahahahaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha dieeeeeeee.
MC Wedge makes ration tokens for the rest of the world


Dear God, this makes me want to cry.

I get this feeling that even if they did get their soldier back, Gaza might have a bunch of new settlements not belonging to the Palestines. And that the IDF would fence in those settlements with the rest of Israel. Wprld war III has begun :sniper: :sniper: :pow blergh
: :sniper: harharhar

*cough* Israel ;), not Isreal :p

Why not Isfake? :p

Originally Posted by Conscience and Truth
While I'm against anti-Semitism, just the same, Israel is definitely wrong here. I'm not sure Israel should be in the Middle East, it's unfair to Islam, which was there first. Also the USA should give back their land to the Native Americans, because they were there first. I hate how bad the world is.Natives have no more claim to north america than Italians (Romans) have to the majority of Europe, sure they owned it at one time but you just cant go around taking land that hasnt been in your ownership and the only reason you know your supposed to have it is a history book

frankly Natives are out of their minds trying to get land back, if I went and either left my house, got booted out of my house, or sold my house, if my great great grandchild came back demanding it there is no way anybody would support his claim

Why he is government-certified and, as one of my friends told me, the government makes sure that all the teachers are QUALIFIED individuals. Your religious school teach unobjective stuff based on the bible, which, really should be banned, so that the South can catch up to the the Northeast and California.

Yeah, the South has to quit being so stubborn and listen to enlightened instructors who teach their pupils that Islam came before Judaism.. :p

Why he is government-certified and, as one of my friends told me, the government makes sure that all the teachers are QUALIFIED individuals. Your religious school teach unobjective stuff based on the bible, which, really should be banned, so that the South can catch up to the the Northeast and California.


Not all teachers are qualified. Honestly. Plus who says they can't add their bias? I knew teachers in HS that did it ALL the time.

Why not Isfake? :p


:D

How do you square this:

There will probably be new settlements regardless of what happens.

With this?


I don't think this little conflict is going to effect settlements one way or another.

Seems a bit contradictory. Either way, if the IDF hadn't moved in, no way in hell would the settlers have tried moving into the Gaza area. But now that they've occupied chunks of it, new settlements would spring up there depending on how long they are staying.

We've seen it happen before with the West Bank. And I'm willing to bet it would happen again here.

And MC Wedge, go to sleep. Your incoherency is an abomination.

How do you square this:

With this?

Seems a bit contradictory. Either way, if the IDF hadn't moved in, no way in hell would the settlers have tried moving into the Gaza area. But now that they've occupied chunks of it, new settlements would spring up there depending on how long they are staying.

We've seen it happen before with the West Bank. And I'm willing to bet it would happen again here.

New settlements will probably occur independently of this event. Just because more settlements would be built to bolster bloc areas doesn't mean that it has anything to do with this event. The current plan is to bolster settlement blocs that already exist. I think most settlers know that moving into Gaza would be a disaster, based on current plans. This isn't the first time Israel has moved into Gaza during operations like this, and usually they don't stay long. I can't imagine a big settler movement to go back to Gaza, when every settlement was forcefully disbanded there, on such a flimsy and temporary operation.

Settlers, while extreme, have generally been very intelligent and interprizing in regards to their settlements. They have produced ones that were good opportunities at the times and appeared to be viable. Again, its hard to imagine settlers even considering Gaza at this point. Just try to put yourself in their shoes, if you were a settler, would you try to settle in Gaza as a result of a short military operation to rescue a hostage?

Not all teachers are qualified. Honestly. Plus who says they can't add their bias? I knew teachers in HS that did it ALL the time.

Well, some people feel that it shouldn't be allowed because its funded by the government. And, if parents want to opt-out of the bias, they should have a right to refund of their tax so that they can take their kids to another school of there choosing.

But, anyway, how are my teachers biased?

While new settlements are a possibility, I think that it's probibally going to end up the same way that it has before.

Isreal plants settlements, palis complain, Isreal doesn't want a war so they back down.

But any way that this goes down, if that soldier is found dead. There will be hell to pay about it. And if the IDF was looking for a reason to start cracking skulls, this is it.

Well, some people feel that it shouldn't be allowed because its funded by the government. And, if parents want to opt-out of the bias, they should have a right to refund of their tax so that they can take their kids to another school of there choosing.

But, anyway, how are my teachers biased?


Saying that the palestinians were there first. Totally wrong.

Argh and also crap.

Syria and Egypt'll probably get involved, which won't help proceedings. The US'll also interfere a bit.

All in all, the world is generally quite fucked.

"Argh and also crap.

Syria and Egypt'll probably get involved, which won't help proceedings. The US'll also interfere a bit.

All in all, the world is generally quite fucked."


We've been down this road twice before. In the 6 day war and the Yom Kippur war. If anything, I think that isreal needs to step it up and become a major player. They have the abilites to be a major world player if they just would use them.

"Argh and also crap.

Syria and Egypt'll probably get involved, which won't help proceedings. The US'll also interfere a bit.

All in all, the world is generally quite fucked."


We've been down this road twice before. In the 6 day war and the Yom Kippur war. If anything, I think that isreal needs to step it up and become a major player. They have the abilites to be a major world player if they just would use them.


But they'd be in the same boat as the US if they become a major world player; they'd be hated by everyone.:(

But they'd be in the same boat as the US if they become a major world player; they'd be hated by everyone.:(
I'll just add to that last statement "even more so".

But they'd be in the same boat as the US if they become a major world player; they'd be hated by everyone.:(


Good point. But aren't they already?

And I've got to correct myself about them being a world player. If Isreal stretches themselves too much and absorbs too many of the arabic world, then it will fall apart from the inside.

We've been down this road twice before. In the 6 day war and the Yom Kippur war. If anything, I think that isreal needs to step it up and become a major player. They have the abilites to be a major world player if they just would use them.
That's kind of like saying "The US won the Great War and World War II, so it had to win the Korean War and Vietnam" (which it didn't at all).

Who knows what'll happen. All I do know is that it won't be pleasant.

And I've got to correct myself about them being a world player. If Isreal stretches themselves too much and absorbs too many of the arabic world, then it will fall apart from the inside.
They don't need to take it all, just the bits with oil. ;)

They don't need to take it all, just the bits with oil. ;)


I hear some people joke "The only place in the middle east without oil, and our(the jews) ancestors had to settle and fight over this land" :p

I hear some people joke "The only place in the middle east without oil, and our(the jews) ancestors had to settle and fight over this land" :p

When Israel won the entire Sinai peninsula from Egypt, in the defensive war when it was attacked, it had oil fields. It returned them to Egypt in exchange for a peace deal. Ever since, there has been peace between Egypt and Israel.

Which goes to show you, if peace was that easy with Egypt, and Israel cooperated so honestly and well, which side is keeping Israel from peace today (hint hint, Palestinians).

When Israel won the entire Sinai peninsula from Egypt, in the defensive war when it was attacked, it had oil fields. It returned them to Egypt in exchange for a peace deal. Ever since, there has been peace between Egypt and Israel.

Which goes to show you, if peace was that easy with Egypt, and Israel cooperated so honestly and well, which side is keeping Israel from peace today (hint hint, Palestinians).
Totally agree. :fluffle:

When Israel won the entire Sinai peninsula from Egypt, in the defensive war when it was attacked, it had oil fields. It returned them to Egypt in exchange for a peace deal. Ever since, there has been peace between Egypt and Israel.

Which goes to show you, if peace was that easy with Egypt, and Israel cooperated so honestly and well, which side is keeping Israel from peace today (hint hint, Palestinians).


The pali's are the trouble makers???:eek: no way! :rolleyes: :p

Shorely shum mishtake. Israel a major world power? History is obviously important, but arguing over who was there first is sheer lunacy. The fact is that both sides of this conflict can present a reasonable argument as to their claim to the land. At least until Sumerians turn up.

Yes, Israel was drawn into this conflict as a result of what you could describe as a defensive war. It's actions since can hardly be described as defensive. It has illegally occupied land for some time now. Palestinian leaders have hardly been ideal representatives of their people - but the same could be said of the US and quite a number of other nations too.

This is a mistake on Israel's part. This is a new leader being drawn into overreacting in the first real test of his leadership. He is perceived as being too liberal and is compensating. For a nation that has recently appeared to be trying to extricate itself from a horrible legacy and situation to be re-occupying land it doesn't want to hold is foolishness.

Strong arm tactics like this are hardly going to encourage Hamas to renounce violence and recognise the state of Israel, are they? Thus rocket attacks continue and intensify and more IDF soldiers are lost (not to mention countless Palestinians.) This is a black day for common sense.

Well, my school teacher supports the Palestine because they were there first. But if Canaan was there first, then it should be given back to them. It's time to make reparations for all the oppression that (mostly white) people have done.

Well if a high school teacher says it mst be true.:rolleyes:

Are you even capable of independent thought? Every post you make is "my teacher says this and I agree."

Yes, Israel was drawn into this conflict as a result of what you could describe as a defensive war. It's actions since can hardly be described as defensive. It has illegally occupied land for some time now. Palestinian leaders have hardly been ideal representatives of their people - but the same could be said of the US and quite a number of other nations too.israel most actions were defensive.
we din't occupied the palastinians since they were occupied even before we take over those areas.
the settlements may were mistake, but it isn't unbackable movement. still the palastinian terror make them lose in the past oppurtunities to get back most of this area, and establish independent state.
in this situation, every thing we did in order to keep our citizens live is defence.

This is a mistake on Israel's part. This is a new leader being drawn into overreacting in the first real test of his leadership. He is perceived as being too liberal and is compensating. For a nation that has recently appeared to be trying to extricate itself from a horrible legacy and situation to be re-occupying land it doesn't want to hold is foolishness.

Strong arm tactics like this are hardly going to encourage Hamas to renounce violence and recognise the state of Israel, are they? Thus rocket attacks continue and intensify and more IDF soldiers are lost (not to mention countless Palestinians.) This is a black day for common sense.
we were trying to pullout and we got terror.
we were trying to let it over and we get terror.
what common sense is to do nothing while they kidnap two israeli citizens which definitely level up their terror attacks?

Man, I hate the middle east.

Funny thing with our world, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.

Yep, they are named after the mosque with the same name :)

No, is al-Aksa, so has nothing so see with Alaska.

Good, I'm glad Israel is beginning to take back what is rightfully theirs.


*grins* Right On!

israel most actions were defensive.
we din't occupied the palastinians since they were occupied even before we take over those areas.

You didn't occupy them as they were already occupied? This is nonsense. Israel occupied land that did not belong to it in any sensible secular sense of the phrase.


we were trying to pullout and we got terror.
we were trying to let it over and we get terror.

Israel has started to pull out of some of the territory that it has been occupying, and has been met by a ceasefire that has been kept by all the major Palestinian groups. Their central government simply does not have the control to reign in everyone within their borders, perhaps as their infrastructure has been deliberately kept at such a massively eroded level. This is regrettable, certainly, but Israel needs to ask itself what will be the Palestinian response to its current actions. That is what matters - does this lead down the path Israel wants to walk?

what common sense is to do nothing while they kidnap two israeli citizens which definitely level up their terror attacks?

What does it say about somebody's mindstate that the only options they can see are 'armed conflict' and 'nothing'? At no point did I advocate doing nothing - I merely suggested that this response will solve nothing.

You didn't occupy them as they were already occupied? This is nonsense. Israel occupied land that did not belong to it in any sensible secular sense of the phrase.


SNIP



The Wars began with the Arab aggression of the 47/48 period.
The Arabs lost the war of aggression they started.

The question of return of territory that they lost as the result of their aggression need not be adressed until AFTER the Unconditional Surrender of these Arabic states to Israel.

One thing that always bothers me about news reports regarding Israel (This is in reference to innumerable previous occassions.) is that they almost always say things like: "Israeli troops entered a house outside Gaza; two of the residents died." What they don't say is that it was a raid on a safe house for terrorists and the two who died were either terrorists or other residents caught in the crossfire. Without this information, the meaning of the news story is skewed. When I get the news, I want the whole news, and the stuff I'm getting here in America is crap.

(A good example would be the pre-2004 presidential election's Republican National Convention, during which (as those of you who are well informend would know) a school in Beslan (Russia- about 120 miles from the border with Chechnya) was actually taken hosage by terrorists for most of a week with catastrophic results (massive death toll; most of the victims were children). This news was actually completely ignored by American television until the actual military invasion of the school. That's not okay. I want real news, and nothing Rupert Murdoch can supply will ever quench that desire.

Pfft, what benefits? Israel has been trying to hand the Palestinains a state for years, and they keep refusing.

Perhaps you should blame the Arab states that actually stole and annexed the land, not Israel, which only won it from the Arab states in a defensive war.

First of all, Israel gets benefits, although I think less than problems. The first of all, strategic deepth, second, lands for growing and populate and ,last but not least, water, the most important resource for the Middle East population (not govs, who prefer oil).

Second, I can blame both sides, Israel and Arab govs. They were both wrong, but now the Arab league has offered a peace treaty on the 1967 borders and the general recognition of Israel. (Geneve proposal). Israel want a bantustan, not a Palestinian state, keeping East Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and some important colonies.

The Wars began with the Arab aggression of the 47/48 period.
The Arabs lost the war of aggression they started.

True.

The question of return of territory that they lost as the result of their aggression need not be adressed until AFTER the Unconditional Surrender of these Arabic states to Israel.

Fatuous dribble. Do you want an end to this conflict or not? That is the question at hand. Hamas needs to recognise Israel. Israel needs to recognise the democratically-elected government of the Palestinian people, and re-occupying territory inhabited by millions of people who hate it is not Israel's best hope for peace.

First of all, Israel gets benefits, although I think less than problems. The first of all, strategic deepth, second, lands for growing and populate and ,last but not least, water, the most important resource for the Middle East population (not govs, who prefer oil).

What strategic depth? The strategic depth needed to protect itself from the very territories that it occupies to protect itself? It seems like your argument is circular here. Israel doesn't need any strategic depth except to deal with Palestinian terror.

The vast majority of arable land is already in Israel. In addition, Israel is vastly underpopulated. It needs no land. Only water is a valuable resource and a viable argument. Then again, Israel had no problem with water long before the State was formed, when Zionist settlers turned barren desert into the only good land in Palestine.

While these are questionable, what isn't questionable is that the terrorist leadership of Palestine is making themselves filthy rich on the blood of their own people. It makes no sense to pretend the conflict is a result of Israel wanting resources, none of which it needs, and none of which Palestine has that is better than those in Israel, when the main parties pushing the conflict are making themselves multi-millionaries as a result.

Second, I can blame both sides, Israel and Arab govs. They were both wrong, but now the Arab league has offered a peace treaty on the 1967 borders and the general recognition of Israel. (Geneve proposal). Israel want a bantustan, not a Palestinian state, keeping East Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and some important colonies.

The 1967 borders are unreasonable and undefensable. Nor is Israel required to return to the 1967 borders via UN Resolution 242. Israel simply has to return some territories. In fact, Russia proposed for Resolution 242 that Israel be required to return all the territories, and this was rejected. The drafters of Resolution 242 explictly stated that Israel need not return to the 1967 borders.

Nor does the Arab League have the authority to offer a peace treaty of such. Hamas hasn't accepted it, nor have the various other terror groups that make up the Palestinian leadership. Its a token gesture from the Arab League with no actual political authority behind it.

I'm also starting to question if the anti-Israeli crowd knows what the term "Bantustan" means, or where it comes from. Its an extremist term used to demonize Israel, and none of Israel's offers resemble anything remotely similiar to a bantustan in any form.

You didn't occupy them as they were already occupied? This is nonsense. Israel occupied land that did not belong to it in any sensible secular sense of the phrase.it didn't belonge the palastinians either. we take land from the arab states, on which there were refugee camps.
from that time we were trying over and over to give back the occupied lands, but they didn't want to take them, and prefer to mainstrate in terror.


Israel has started to pull out of some of the territory that it has been occupying, and has been met by a ceasefire that has been kept by all the major Palestinian groups. Their central government simply does not have the control to reign in everyone within their borders, perhaps as their infrastructure has been deliberately kept at such a massively eroded level. This is regrettable, certainly, but Israel needs to ask itself what will be the Palestinian response to its current actions. That is what matters - does this lead down the path Israel wants to walk?what ceasefire?
the main terrorists just let their child-organization do the terror founded and ordered for them, but on the name of small organization.
dozens of missles launched on israeli city for years. how is that ceasefire?


What does it say about somebody's mindstate that the only options they can see are 'armed conflict' and 'nothing'? At no point did I advocate doing nothing - I merely suggested that this response will solve nothing.
let see what "solutions" we had? feel free to had one by yourself.
pullout?tried, and the strip didn't stop the coming terror.
nothing?tried, and didn't help that much.
diplomacy?they won't we give in and let thousands of their terrorist out of the jail. unacceptable. also, they can't control the area as you said, so it won't help.
what we still had? military action which will free the kidnaped soldier, and catch the bastards who take him over, and going out after it ends. if they will kill him, we may rightfully act against the terrorists in the strip.

True.



Fatuous dribble. Do you want an end to this conflict or not? That is the question at hand. Hamas needs to recognise Israel. Israel needs to recognise the democratically-elected government of the Palestinian people, and re-occupying territory inhabited by millions of people who hate it is not Israel's best hope for peace.


I don't want an end per se - I want victory for Israel.

What does it say about somebody's mindstate that the only options they can see are 'armed conflict' and 'nothing'? At no point did I advocate doing nothing - I merely suggested that this response will solve nothing.

So you don't think that Israel will get its kidnapped soldier back? That is the only thing this conflict is intended to do. Israel went in to rescue a kidnapped hostage and prevent the potential transfer of the hostage out of the Occupied Territories.

Israel also has a wonderful track record, one of the best in the world, for hostage rescues.

You didn't occupy them as they were already occupied? This is nonsense. Israel occupied land that did not belong to it in any sensible secular sense of the phrase.

You might need a little history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. When Israel declared its independence, it was attacked by its neighboring Arab countries. Israel managed to hold them off, but the land set aside for a Palestinian state was annexed by Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Those Arab countries stole the land from the Palestinians. Over time, through various conflicts, Israel took the land from these Arab states.

Strange that you would single out Israel, by saying "Israel occupied land that it did not belong to", when it was Jordan, Egypt, and Syria that not only occupied, but annexed, the land set aside for a Palestinian state. Israel took the newly annexed land from these countries in a defensive war.

Israel has started to pull out of some of the territory that it has been occupying, and has been met by a ceasefire that has been kept by all the major Palestinian groups. Their central government simply does not have the control to reign in everyone within their borders, perhaps as their infrastructure has been deliberately kept at such a massively eroded level. This is regrettable, certainly, but Israel needs to ask itself what will be the Palestinian response to its current actions. That is what matters - does this lead down the path Israel wants to walk?

This is either a lie, or uninformed. The major Palestinian groups have not kept a ceasefire. Only Hamas has declared a ceasefire - the Martyrs' Bregades, etc. have all continued terror attacks. Even Hamas has continued terror attacks without taking official responsibility. It is the same thing Arafat did when he ran the PLO.

These groups wear two hats - politician and terrorist. All major Palestinian groups have a political wing and a "militant" wing as well. The political wing can claim a ceasefire, while the militant wing continues operations. Then, the political wing can deny offical responsibility. However, no firing has ceased. The ceasefire is truly a myth.

Good, I'm glad Israel is beginning to take back what is rightfully theirs.

No part of Palestine is rightfully Israel's.

I don't want an end per se - I want victory for Israel.

Then it is you and people who think like you - on both sides of this conflict - who are responsible for the deaths of untold thousands, and misery for half a century.

Intelligent people - again on both sides of this conflict, and there are many - need to dissociate themselves from this kind of belligerence if they want to see their children and grandchildren living in peace.


You could argue that Israel has the right to try to recover its lost IDF soldiers. It is certainly very good at that kind of operation. But this action will not bring the end of this conflict any closer. Neither, I might add, will it bring about Israeli 'victory'.

No part of Palestine is rightfully Israel's.

Not even the parts granted to it by the UN regarding the formation of the State and UN Resolution 242? Not the desert land that it turned into farms? Or the major cities that it built from ground up?

You could argue that Israel has the right to try to recover its lost IDF soldiers. It is certainly very good at that kind of operation. But this action will not bring the end of this conflict any closer. Neither, I might add, will it bring about Israeli 'victory'.

This specific action isn't meant to end the conflict. Its only meant to get the kidnapped soldier home safe to his family. I don't think anyone is asserting it will end or help the conflict, so bringing it up becomes a strawman.

Good, I'm glad Israel is beginning to take back what is rightfully theirs.
Since when. You'd be pissed off if the land you've lived in for thousands of eyars was suddenly taken off you by a group of guys just becuase they lived there a few thosuadn years before you? Wouldn't you.

After all, you took the land of the Native Americans so maybe we shoudl start a NAtive American state up and throw all the Americans off there acesterol land.

Then it is you and people who think like you - on both sides of this conflict - who are responsible for the deaths of untold thousands, and misery for half a century.

Intelligent people - again on both sides of this conflict, and there are many - need to dissociate themselves from this kind of belligerence if they want to see their children and grandchildren living in peace.


You could argue that Israel has the right to try to recover its lost IDF soldiers. It is certainly very good at that kind of operation. But this action will not bring the end of this conflict any closer. Neither, I might add, will it bring about Israeli 'victory'.

The responsibility for all those deaths lies with the Arab aggressors.
Each and every 'erg' of it.

...the land set aside for a Palestinian state was annexed by Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Those Arab countries stole the land from the Palestinians. Over time, through various conflicts, Israel took the land from these Arab states.

SNIP


And how is that not illegally occupying land? If you are going to take such a patronising tone then at least make a valuable point.

And how is that not illegally occupying land? If you are going to take such a patronising tone then at least make a valuable point.

Since when is taking possession of enemy territory in a war that the other guys started illegal?

I'm sure that Eisenhower and Zhukov and Montgomery will be very surprised to hear so.

Since when. You'd be pissed off if the land you've lived in for thousands of eyars was suddenly taken off you by a group of guys just becuase they lived there a few thosuadn years before you? Wouldn't you.

Anyone would be pissed. Except that isn't what happened with Israel. Thats the blanket version that is the sum total knowledge of the anti-Israeli crowd, and the general statement that gets passed around in those circles. A cursory reading of the history of Israel gives a radically different story.

To begin, when Zionists began to emigrate to Israel in the late 19th century up until 48, very few Palestinians were displaced. No land was "taken off" of them. Benny Morris is a historian of Israel known for his pro-Palestinian slant, and he wrote that less than 2,000 families were displaced by Israeli settlement during this time period. Those 2,000 families were felaheen - they didn't own land, they worked on the land owned by Arab landowners. When Jews bought the land from Arab landowners, they were thus displaced. Not to mention how many felaheen stayed on working for the Zionists, because of how well they were treated and how their quality of life improved.

The vast majority of the land was barren and uninhabited, the Zionists turned it into the best farmland in the Middle East. It was not owned by any "Palestinian" groups. It was known as Crown Land - owned by the British under mandate.

It wasn't until 1948, when Israel declared its independence, that Arabs began to get displaced. And this was not because Israel displaced them, but because three neighboring Arab countries invaded the land set aside for a Palestinian state. It was a result of this war that Palestinians were displaced. Some by Israel, some by Arabs. However, the moral fault for every last Palestinian lies on the Arab states, for starting the war unprovoked, and out of a pure desire to kill Jews and remove a state which had been legally mandated.

These three Arab states annexed the land set aside for a Palestinian state, as well. This is why today there is no Palestinian state - the land was stolen by Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. When Israel was attacked, unprovoked, again, then it took the land from these states.

So who is really to blame for the displacement of Palestinians? History would dictate that Arabs are to blame for the blood of their Arab brothers, not the Jewish Zionists.

This specific action isn't meant to end the conflict. Its only meant to get the kidnapped soldier home safe to his family. I don't think anyone is asserting it will end or help the conflict, so bringing it up becomes a strawman.

Ok. Fair point. But actions do not exist in a vacuum. They need to be part of a larger coherent strategy. And the goal of that strategy clearly needs to be the end of this conflict.

Ok. Fair point. But actions do not exist in a vacuum. They need to be part of a larger coherent strategy. And the goal of that strategy clearly needs to be the end of this conflict.

End of conflict is pretty much pointless unless End of conflict entails the victory of Israel over the Arab aggressors.

PS: don't bother to tell me about arab grievances, casualties, or suffering.
I care no more for their wellbeing that I would care about the wellbeing of the inhabitants of the 3rd Reich.

While I'm against anti-Semitism, just the same, Israel is definitely wrong here. I'm not sure Israel should be in the Middle East, it's unfair to Islam, which was there first. Also the USA should give back their land to the Native Americans, because they were there first. I hate how bad the world is.


hmm, interesting thought, but the israelites were there long before islam and such existed, so i'm not sure where this "it's unfair to islam" stuff is coming from.
silly people not thinking in long enough terms...

And how is that not illegally occupying land? If you are going to take such a patronising tone then at least make a valuable point.

Soverign states are, according to international law and the rules of war, allowed to occupy land in defense as necessary to defend their borders. This is exactly what Israel did.

And, note, international law has never declared that Israel's occupation of the OT is illegal. Nor has it declared that Israel must return all of it. Resolution 242 calls for Israel's removal from some territories, while implictly allowing it to keep what is necessary as Israel sees fit. In addition, Israel has complied, by withdrawing from some territories. The current occupation is not illegal under international law.

Ok. Fair point. But actions do not exist in a vacuum. They need to be part of a larger coherent strategy. And the goal of that strategy clearly needs to be the end of this conflict.

Well, the overall goal is the end of the conflict. But when it comes down to a life on the line, right here and now, I think this is the proper action. It may be in opposition to the larger goal, but Israeli ethics (as demonstrated time and time again in the Supreme Court) really don't allow for cracking a few eggs to make the proverbial omelet.

This is what the (real) UN has to say on the matter:

"In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon with the declared intention to eliminate the PLO. A cease-fire was arranged. PLO troops withdrew from Beirut and were transferred to neighboring countries after guarantees of safety were provided for thousands of Palestinian refugees left behind. Subsequently, a large-scale massacre of refugees took place in the camps of Sabra and Shatila.

In September 1983, the International Conference on the Question of Palestine, which was widely attended, adopted inter alia the Geneva Declaration containing the following principles: the need to oppose and reject the establishment of settlements in the occupied territory and actions taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem, the right of all States in the region to existence within secure and internationally recognized boundaries, with justice and security for all the people, and the attainment of the legitimate, inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

In December 1987, a mass uprising against the Israeli occupation began in the occupied Palestinian territory (the intifadah). Methods used by the Israeli forces during the uprising resulted in mass injuries and heavy loss of life among the civilian Palestinian population. "


Israel's actions throughout this conflict have not all been 'defensive,' the establishment of settlements in OT is long rejected by the international community, and the methods employed by Israel in response to the intifadah have been heavy-handed at best.

For those who wish to see this conflict ended with justice for both sides, this current action is a depressing leap in the wrong direction.

it seems to me that israelis seem to have read some of machiavelli, and taken particular note of passages that suggest crushing any and all resistance or disturbance with overwhelming force. this is quite sad as strategies such as that will only result in an ever escalating loss of life. in this situation both sides believe, and are both correct to a certain extent, that they are just in their particular position.

such a waste of human life.

The Wars began with the Arab aggression of the 47/48 period.
The Arabs lost the war of aggression they started.

The question of return of territory that they lost as the result of their aggression need not be adressed until AFTER the Unconditional Surrender of these Arabic states to Israel.

Wars began with the partition of the territory between two states, passing over the volunty of the former population.

And, is funny to see how Israel repit the worst part of the war right. Mayb, with the law on the hand could be right but it leads nowhere. If Israel wants to survive, is have to sign a peace, like the one with egypt, so we come back to peace for territories, all of them (1967 borders), with no limitation.

This is what the (real) UN has to say on the matter:

*snip*


Israel's actions throughout this conflict have not all been 'defensive,' the establishment of settlements in OT is long rejected by the international community, and the methods employed by Israel in response to the intifadah have been heavy-handed at best.

For those who wish to see this conflict ended with justice for both sides, this current action is a depressing leap in the wrong direction.

You've slipped into the fallacy of the slippery slope. From what happened in 1982, you're attemping to revise the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, the snippets you posted didn't claim that 1982 wasn't defensive. In fact, it was as well. The PLO was making attacks on Israel from Lebanon, and Israel responded. Thats defense, by definition. In the same respect, Israeli action against terror groups during the intifada was defensive.

All you have to do is ask the question "who attacked first?" for each of these incidents. You will find, every single time, that Palestinian or Arab groups have attacked or threatened to attack first. Any military action in the face of hostility or threat is defense.

In addition, what you posted doesn't even tell the whole story. Yes, Israeli responses were harsh, but Palestinian responses toward other Palestinians were far worse - more Palestinians were killed by other Palestinians in the history of the conflict than by Israelis.

it seems to me that israelis seem to have read some of machiavelli, and taken particular note of passages that suggest crushing any and all resistance or disturbance with overwhelming force. this is quite sad as strategies such as that will only result in an ever escalating loss of life. in this situation both sides believe, and are both correct to a certain extent, that they are just in their particular position.

such a waste of human life.

I think the Machiavellian thing to do here would be to let the kidnapped Israeli to his own fate, as it costs more to rescue him than the pragmatic benefits. Rather, Israel risking a further roadblock to peace as well as the lives of more Israeli soldiers for one life is distinctly humanitarian, and not Machiavellian in any way.

I think the Machiavellian thing to do here would be to let the kidnapped Israeli to his own fate, as it costs more to rescue him than the pragmatic benefits. Rather, Israel risking a further roadblock to peace as well as the lives of more Israeli soldiers for one life is distinctly humanitarian, and not Machiavellian in any way.

I think you mean 'OTT'.

Not even the parts granted to it by the UN regarding the formation of the State and UN Resolution 242? Not the desert land that it turned into farms? Or the major cities that it built from ground up?

I hate the last argument, no matter what they do with the land, or if they built the fucking Great Library. We can disagree but this one is a stupid reason to recognize rights on a land. Even more than "we used to live here two thousands years ago".

And you cannot play both cards. If you use the international law to legitimate Israel, you have to accept it for the legal borders of Israel, that doesn't includes Gaza, Cisjordania and Golan Heights.

Not posting snippets:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

I hate the last argument, no matter what they do with the land, or if they built the fucking Great Library. We can disagree but this one is a stupid reason to recognize rights on a land. Even more than "we used to live here two thousands years ago".

Lets see, it was unsettled, unowned land. Zionists came and developed it. That sounds like a pretty good reason why if anyone deserves it, its the settlers and developers. Much moreso than a group of people who didn't work on the land, live on the land, or own the land.

Lets see, it was unsettled, unowned land. Zionists came and developed it. That sounds like a pretty good reason why if anyone deserves it, its the settlers and developers. Much moreso than a group of people who didn't work on the land, live on the land, or own the land.

By that argument you could say that the Italians have a right to re-take Britain, as they were the first to develop the land.

But that's just downright nutty, eh?

By that argument you could say that the Italians have a right to re-take Britain, as they were the first to develop the land.

But that's just downright nutty, eh?

No, not by that argument. Lets see where they are different:

1. British lands are owned, Palestinian lands were unowned

Do I have to continue? The fact is, Palestine was mostly a desert. Zionists did not come in and steal land from Arabs, according to all modern accounts, even the radical pro-Palestinian accounts. They settled on unowned land and developed it and have consistently owned it up until today.

Now, where do you get anything about re-taking land that is currently owned from that?

No, not by that argument. Lets see where they are different:

1. British lands are owned, Palestinian lands were unowned

Do I have to continue? The fact is, Palestine was mostly a desert. Zionists did not come in and steal land from Arabs, according to all modern accounts, even the radical pro-Palestinian accounts. They settled on unowned land and developed it and have consistently owned it up until today.

Now, where do you get anything about re-taking land that is currently owned from that?

I'm deeply confused by your consistent use of 'unowned'. Palestine was owned by the Ottoman empire until the 1918 battle of Meggido, after which it fell (effectively) under British control. Balfour then set up the Jewish state, effectively using the spoils of British victory to solve the 'Jewish question' facing Britain. Enter feelings of discontent from Arabs.

In fact, I'd quite like you to name any piece of land on the face of the planet that doesn't have a claim to it.

Anyone would be pissed. Except that isn't what happened with Israel. Thats the blanket version that is the sum total knowledge of the anti-Israeli crowd, and the general statement that gets passed around in those circles. A cursory reading of the history of Israel gives a radically different story.

To begin, when Zionists began to emigrate to Israel in the late 19th century up until 48, very few Palestinians were displaced. No land was "taken off" of them. Benny Morris is a historian of Israel known for his pro-Palestinian slant, and he wrote that less than 2,000 families were displaced by Israeli settlement during this time period. Those 2,000 families were felaheen - they didn't own land, they worked on the land owned by Arab landowners. When Jews bought the land from Arab landowners, they were thus displaced. Not to mention how many felaheen stayed on working for the Zionists, because of how well they were treated and how their quality of life improved.

The vast majority of the land was barren and uninhabited, the Zionists turned it into the best farmland in the Middle East. It was not owned by any "Palestinian" groups. It was known as Crown Land - owned by the British under mandate.

It wasn't until 1948, when Israel declared its independence, that Arabs began to get displaced. And this was not because Israel displaced them, but because three neighboring Arab countries invaded the land set aside for a Palestinian state. It was a result of this war that Palestinians were displaced. Some by Israel, some by Arabs. However, the moral fault for every last Palestinian lies on the Arab states, for starting the war unprovoked, and out of a pure desire to kill Jews and remove a state which had been legally mandated.

These three Arab states annexed the land set aside for a Palestinian state, as well. This is why today there is no Palestinian state - the land was stolen by Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. When Israel was attacked, unprovoked, again, then it took the land from these states.

So who is really to blame for the displacement of Palestinians? History would dictate that Arabs are to blame for the blood of their Arab brothers, not the Jewish Zionists.


Please, we can argue about politics but if you want to talkabout history let's be scientific. I've made my degree in History. And there's many fakes and wide spaces in your argumentation, not for talking about your misinterpretation of the facts.
Sure, arabs had any problems about some jews stablishing in Palestine, they have welcome jews in the Otoman Empire since the XVI century, and they became in very good subjects. Even more if it rise their living standards. Late, in the XX century (1919) Palestine came to be a mandate, that's the opposite to a Crown's Land, England has just to be the keeper for the population in their way to independence. But years before they had promised a jew home in Palestine. As a result from that, and specially from the 30's with Hitler's jewish policy, inmigration became very important and arabs started to be angry against both jews and England. Later, after the war, England, wich main interest was to secure Suez Channel saw Zionism as a problem and forbid more jew inmigration, that continued illegally.

You play with the property idea in a misleading way. I don't own any land in my country but as an inhabitant in my land. Inmigrants are coming right now to my country but they have to accept our legality, they cannot change it, as jews made. And the british rules were no legitimate, as they weren't democratic.

I'm deeply confused by your consistent use of 'unowned'. Palestine was owned by the Ottoman empire until the 1918 battle of Meggido, after which it fell (effectively) under British control. Balfour then set up the Jewish state, effectively using the spoils of British victory to solve the 'Jewish question' facing Britain. Enter feelings of discontent from Arabs.

In fact, I'd quite like you to name any piece of land on the face of the planet that doesn't have a claim to it.

You're confusing political ownership with private ownership. Each state controls land in a different way, but virtually all draw the distinction between the two. Zionist settlers before 1920 settled on land that was not inhabited or owned by Arabs. They didn't displace Arabs in doing so, and they developed the land. In addition, these Zionists fought alongside the British during the war with the Ottomans.

Balfour didn't set up a Jewish state per se, but laid the framework and promised it. The land that had no private ownership, the land that Jews were settling, came under British control and was known as 'Crown Lands.' The British then controlled Jewish immigration to Palestine, but Jews did not displace Arabs or kick them off privately owned land.

Discontent from Arabs didn't arise en masse until the late 20s. During early settlement, between the late 1800s up until the 20s, Arab felaheen loved Zionist settlers. They improved the quality of life for Arab workers. Arab villages began to develop around Jewish kibbutzim.

The Arab antagonistm toward Jews arose from something other than settlement of land that wasn't privately owned. It arose from what is called the Islamic Reformation. Extremism in Islam surged, and so did anti-Semitism as a result. Arabs did not care about Jews "stealing land" as many people today claim. It simply didn't occur. What they wanted was to be a part of an Islamic state, and thus you have statements like that given to the Peel Comission by major Arab leaders, such as Auni Bey Abdul Hadi, "There is no such country as Palestine! Palestine is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries a part of Syria."

The Arabs were rejectionist on this religious basis. Not due to a land problem, or due to a desire for independence.

Lets see, it was unsettled, unowned land.That's a lie, and you know that very well.

The current invasion is only a means for Olmert to show that he is not weaker than Sharon.

.

Please, we can argue about politics but if you want to talkabout history let's be scientific. I've made my degree in History. And there's many fakes and wide spaces in your argumentation, not for talking about your misinterpretation of the facts.
Sure, arabs had any problems about some jews stablishing in Palestine, they have welcome jews in the Otoman Empire since the XVI century, and they became in very good subjects. Even more if it rise their living standards. Late, in the XX century (1919) Palestine came to be a mandate, that's the opposite to a Crown's Land, England has just to be the keeper for the population in their way to independence. But years before they had promised a jew home in Palestine. As a result from that, and specially from the 30's with Hitler's jewish policy, inmigration became very important and arabs started to be angry against both jews and England. Later, after the war, England, wich main interest was to secure Suez Channel saw Zionism as a problem and forbid more jew inmigration, that continued illegally.

The mandate, while technically saying that England was the keeper, effectively made it the owner. The British census of the time made a reference distinctly to over 90% of the land being "Crown Lands", and the remaining 10% split up as privately owned between Jew and Arab owners. "Crown Lands" is the term used in every census.

You play with the property idea in a misleading way. I don't own any land in my country but as an inhabitant in my land. Inmigrants are coming right now to my country but they have to accept our legality, they cannot change it, as jews made. And the british rules were no legitimate, as they weren't democratic.

Depends what country you're in. Theories of land ownership vary. But, Jews did not usurp privately owned land from Arabs during this time period. That is the essential point.

What is strange is that you claim "British rules were not legitimate, as they weren't democratic." Who said democracy was the only form of legitimacy? British rules were legitimate under international law, as it was made the administrator by the League of Nations. It didn't have to be democratic, that isn't how law works. Your opinion that a lack of democracy made it illegitimate is arbitrary and can't be supported, since its pure opinion.

Other than that, you really havn't addressed my argument. You said "fakes" and "wide spaces", but most of what you've written doesn't even address what I wrote. You've written a lot about illegal immigration, which I don't dispute. But, illegal immigration does not mean that Jews "stole" land from Arabs. During this time period, as with the rest, Jews settled on land that was not privately owned. What the British census referred to as "Crown Lands."

That's a lie, and you know that very well.

And yet, historians from the mainstream concensus (Mitchell Bard) and those on the radical pro-Palestinian side (Benny Morris) all concur on that fact. Morris stated less than 2,000 families were displaced during this time period (early settlement to independence). Bard wrote, regarding the displacement of Palestinians, that it was "simply not the case, as subsequent history would prove."

Arabs were displaced in large amounts after Israel declared independence, and after Israel was attacked. Estimates range from 500,000 to 900,000. But they were not displaced by Jewish settlement. They were displaced due to a massive war started by the neighboring Arab states. And the full moral responsibility for their displacement falls on those who started the war.

The current invasion is only a means for Olmert to show that he is not weaker than Sharon.

You do realize that this is not an invasion, by definition, right? Israel can't invade land that it currently has occupational control of any more than sending the national guard to Arizona is "invading."

Of course, the extreme anti-Israel crowd tends to use terms like this, the fallacy of hyperboile, to demonize Israel. If we use extremist speech enough, calling a military operation to rescue a hostage an "invasion", we can make Israel look like the aggressor. Even though, according to the Rules of War, this is a defensive operation (again).

I think you mean 'OTT'.

And what's wrong with that, eh?

Arabs were displaced in large amounts after Israel declared independence, and after Israel was attacked. Estimates range from 500,000 to 900,000. But they were not displaced by Jewish settlement. They were displaced due to a massive war started by the neighboring Arab states. And the full moral responsibility for their displacement falls on those who started the war.

So if they had the right to live there, why does Israel doesn't recognize their return right?

You're answer doesn't matter, you just defend Israel right to do what it want so....

And when a private property has given political rights to the owners? From feudalism, I mean. Normally, jews should be a minority in an arab country, like any inmigrant.

Settlers, while extreme, have generally been very intelligent and interprizing in regards to their settlements. They have produced ones that were good opportunities at the times and appeared to be viable. Again, its hard to imagine settlers even considering Gaza at this point. Just try to put yourself in their shoes, if you were a settler, would you try to settle in Gaza as a result of a short military operation to rescue a hostage?

The last time I looked, Israel's government was looking for ways to disband existing settlements. Isn't there an open offer of funds for settlers to move back into Israel proper?

Most of the weird kinks in the line of the wall are about taking high ground. Some major settlements are there too. They were built on hills because that makes them easier to defend. As someone pointed out, Israel controls most of the water, and they've always controlled the roads.

So if they had the right to live there, why does Israel doesn't recognize their return right?

You're answer doesn't matter, you just defend Israel right to do what it want so....

And when a private property has given political rights to the owners? From feudalism, I mean. Normally, jews should be a minority in an arab country, like any inmigrant.


Why should Israel do so?
What have they done for Israel, that Israel should give a fiddlestick about their fate?
Your moanings, your whingeing, your pain - tis no concern of mine.
Once you become the aggressor ( which the Arabs did ) you are fair game.

So if they had the right to live there, why does Israel doesn't recognize their return right?

You're answer doesn't matter, you just defend Israel right to do what it want so....

And when a private property has given political rights to the owners? From feudalism, I mean. Normally, jews should be a minority in an arab country, like any inmigrant.

To begin, Jews helped the British to destroy an oppressive Arab regime. Then, there was no Arab country. Finally, Israel was founded upon the toppled Ottoman Empire. So no, they aren't immigrants to an Arab country. The Arab totalitarian theocracy was toppled by the British and a Jewish State was founded in its place. So was a Palestinian state, called Jordan. Then, the United Nations asked for a second Palestinian state, but Jordan, Egypt, and Syria invaded and stole that land as soon as it was partitioned.

And there was a time when Israel did accept the right to return. Today, however, there are very few Palestinians alive who have any real claim to a right to return, and of the few that do, virtually none can prove it. The right to return could apply to people who were expelled, if some of them were still alive. But expecting it to apply to their ancestors, two or three generations down the line, is absurd.

So, anyone taking bets on how long it takes before another Arab country gets involved, sparking another Arab-Israeli war?
You mean another embarassing defeat for an Arab country at the hands of the Israelis?

The last time I looked, Israel's government was looking for ways to disband existing settlements. Isn't there an open offer of funds for settlers to move back into Israel proper?

Most of the weird kinks in the line of the wall are about taking high ground. Some major settlements are there too. They were built on hills because that makes them easier to defend. As someone pointed out, Israel controls most of the water, and they've always controlled the roads.

The vast majority of settlements need to go, and the Israeli government is encouraging settlers from those blocs to move back to Israel proper or move to other settlements along the fenceline. A few settlements will have to stay, as they are made up of privately owned Israeli land along the border and are necessary for Israel to have a defensible border. UN Resolution 242 provides for Israel to keep some land under international law.

And you're right, the wall snakes around for that reason. High ground, strategic positions, etc. are all necessary to make a defensible border. After being attacked multiple times with no provocation, Israel has a tendency (with good reason) to be afraid of its neighbors. And of course the creation of defensable borders ir provided for in international law and the specific resolution set to deal with the issue of the occupied territories, resolutio 242.

You mean another embarassing defeat for an Arab country at the hands of the Israelis?

Interestingly enough, according to the pseudo-history taught to children in Arab countries, Egypt won one of those wars. Egypt went out of its way to assert that the Yom Kippur war, when Egypt and Syria sneak-attacked Israel with no warning whatsoever, was a great victory for the Egyptian people. They call it the October War.

When teaching the history of the Yom Kippur war in Arab countries, they focus on the very early hours of the war, when the sneak attack scored key victories on Israeli positions, while virtually ignoring the fact that Israel did little things like crossing the Suez Canal and asserting dominance over the Sinai peninsula

Why should Israel do so?
What have they done for Israel, that Israel should give a fiddlestick about their fate?
Your moanings, your whingeing, your pain - tis no concern of mine.
Once you become the aggressor ( which the Arabs did ) you are fair game.
So if one arab, or many of them, makes something bad (what I dont' accept) all arabs are evil? So my antizionism should become in antisemitism if I follow your theory. Afortutately, I'm not going to do that.

So Dresden bombing wasn't a crime (before you were talking about nazi germany).

And thay did nothing for Israel, they just lived there when Israel became an independent state, so thay had the right of keep living and if others (arab states, etc) attacked Israel they aren't guilty, are they?

I'll bet that USA just HAVE to get involved, even though Israel has shown that it can take care of itself during the Six Day War.

Israel was using United States weaponry in the Six Day War. The other nations were using old stock Cold War junk. I think it's safe to say that even despite our absence in force during that war, our presence was still manifested in some small way. Not at all to denounce their great victory, just stating this for the sake of all fairness.

Anyways, I think the Palestinian government are the greater evil in this situation...most of the time. I think both sides need to just give it up, for the sake of the future of our world. It's sad to think that their feud will last as long as our earth does, and unfortunately not many people see it getting better.

God bless all the civilians in that region, God bless all innocents. I can only pray that things get better and that the war mongering pigs on both sides of the fight can -SOMEDAY- drop their differences for the sake of peace.

So if one arab, or many of them, makes something bad (what I dont' accept) all arabs are evil? So my antizionism should become in antisemitism if I follow your theory. Afortutately, I'm not going to do that.

So Dresden bombing wasn't a crime (before you were talking about nazi germany).

And thay did nothing for Israel, they just lived there when Israel became an independent state, so thay had the right of keep living and if others (arab states, etc) attacked Israel they aren't guilty, are they?

They ain't EBIL - they'se just VMTs.
At any rate - their problems are not my problems.

If you think Arabs own that parcel of land, kindly show me the land-deed signed by Adonai the Elohim.

So my antizionism should become in antisemitism if I follow your theory.

I see very few instances when anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. There is legitimate anti-Zionism, but 90% of the time it is masked anti-Semitism. Anti-Semites are able to wrap up their hatred of Jews and by calling it "criticism of Israel" or "anti-Zionism" and push it off to the pseudo-intellectuals as something other than what it is. It doesn't really fool anyone except for the select group that is already using the tactic.

But, since you're obviously a legitimate anti-Zionist (hehe), I'm sure you know all about the history of Zionism, don't you? Major Zionist leaders, Zionist philosophies, Zionism today, etc.? You do, don't you? Since you're a legitimate anti-Zionist, and not just an anti-Semite in sheep's clothing. :rolleyes:

I see very few instances when anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. There is legitimate anti-Zionism, but 90% of the time it is masked anti-Semitism. Anti-Semites are able to wrap up their hatred of Jews and by calling it "criticism of Israel" or "anti-Zionism" and push it off to the pseudo-intellectuals as something other than what it is. It doesn't really fool anyone except for the select group that is already using the tactic.

But, since you're obviously a legitimate anti-Zionist (hehe), I'm sure you know all about the history of Zionism, don't you? Major Zionist leaders, Zionist philosophies, Zionism today, etc.? You do, don't you? Since you're a legitimate anti-Zionist, and not just an anti-Semite in sheep's clothing. :rolleyes:

And here we see the bigot card - played with verve and chutzpah.

I see very few instances when anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. There is legitimate anti-Zionism, but 90% of the time it is masked anti-Semitism. Anti-Semites are able to wrap up their hatred of Jews and by calling it "criticism of Israel" or "anti-Zionism" and push it off to the pseudo-intellectuals as something other than what it is. It doesn't really fool anyone except for the select group that is already using the tactic.

But, since you're obviously a legitimate anti-Zionist (hehe), I'm sure you know all about the history of Zionism, don't you? Major Zionist leaders, Zionist philosophies, Zionism today, etc.? You do, don't you? Since you're a legitimate anti-Zionist, and not just an anti-Semite in sheep's clothing. :rolleyes:

Your paranoia is steeping to new levels TS.

Along with humanitarian organisations and human rights groups that are "anti-Semite", whats next? The dog that lives down the street? :rolleyes:

And here we see the bigot card - played with verve and chutzpah.

pfft, its not bigoted to point out the fact that anti-Semitism is disguised as anti-Zionism today. In fact, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League recognizes this, and it has its own term - "the New Anti-Semitism."

Its also not bigoted to point out the fact that every time I've experienced someone from the anti-Israeli crowd use the excuse "I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm anti-Zionist" they don't even have a rudimentary knowledge of Zionism.

You can't be against something if you don't know what it is. Thus, when people claim to be anti-Zionist without knowing about it, its quite telling.

Your paranoia is steeping to new levels TS.

Along with humanitarian organisations and human rights groups that are "anti-Semite", whats next? The dog that lives down the street? :rolleyes:

Oh, do you deny that anti-Zionism is frequently disguised as anti-Semitism? Then you reject the findings of the EUMC, the US State Dept, and the ADL. I guess these groups are all paranoid, too!

Well...if Israeli soldiers kill any civilians or people who have nothing to do with this drama I sure as hell hope that the arabs are able to retaliate severly. Fucking Israelis, think they can do whatever pleases them. Well...times are slowly changing.

PS: don't bother to tell me about arab grievances, casualties, or suffering.
I care no more for their wellbeing that I would care about the wellbeing of the inhabitants of the 3rd Reich.

Which is why no one should give a hoot for the wellbeing of an American like you.

Or expanding on that logic, for all Americans.

If you really lost family in 9/11, your hatred does nothing more than make you no better than the ones who killed them.

Whenever you get rattled in an argument, or if too many people are posting against you at once, you have an increasing tendancy to whip out your ace in the hole.

"I'm Jewish and if you disagree with me your all anti-Semite baby eating Nazi's."

Oh, do you deny that anti-Zionism is frequently disguised as anti-Semitism? Then you reject the findings of the EUMC, the US State Dept, and the ADL. I guess these groups are all paranoid, too!

Yes, I'm sure humanitarian aid groups and human rights groups are involved in a global conspiracy to persecute the Jews.

Whatever makes you sleep easier in your tinfoil coated room at night

This guy has a point... Go read how Isreal as a state came to be, it does give abit more light as to the happenings of the region in present day.

Yes, Jews settled in an unoccupied area of land and built communities and homes there by buying the land from people who owned it and didnt care less. They continued doing this as they fled from Europe and other places where Anti-semitisim was rising. Then they built more communities there alongside the Arabs. Then in 1937 a commision produced a report on the posibility of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the region. They concluded that since the idea of a country known as Palestine has never existed previously, then there is no problem in putting a Jewish state in the areas where there are allready many Jews anyway. This commisions enactment was put on hold due to the fact that the second world war broke out. And then so we had the creation of Israel in 1948. Now Israel at that time had no problem with having Arab neighboughs, but the Arabs clearly had a problem and launched a massive attack on them. The Israleies then won and have won every war since (It is also important to point out that the Arabs have started all these wars). One particular war the Isralies occupied the West Bank and Gaza because the Palestians and other Arab states continued to use the area as a launching ground for attacks. The Isralies offered to give the land back to the Palestianins many times. Most noteably in 2000 when the Clinton Barrack proposals gave the Palestianins 95% of the west bank, all of Gaza and East Jerusalem. But the Palestianin government rejected this, and returned to viloence.

pfft, its not bigoted to point out the fact that anti-Semitism is disguised as anti-Zionism today. In fact, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League recognizes this, and it has its own term - "the New Anti-Semitism."

Its also not bigoted to point out the fact that every time I've experienced someone from the anti-Israeli crowd use the excuse "I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm anti-Zionist" they don't even have a rudimentary knowledge of Zionism.

You can't be against something if you don't know what it is. Thus, when people claim to be anti-Zionist without knowing about it, its quite telling.

Pfft indeed. The "Jewish Anti-Defamation League"? What the fuck? Have they hollowed out a cave somewhere in the Golon Heights for their secret base? It's a shock to hear that this group regards anti-zionism as anti-semitism. They sound so impartial with a truly neutral POV. I'm surprised - I really, really am.

This whole bullshit smokescreen you're propagating must run its course someday. Can you be against Communism without reading Das Capital? Can you be anti-nazi without reading all of the OKW's orders? Can you be anti-capitalist when you haven't worked for one of the FTSE 100?

And what type of Zionism are you referring to, anyway? Religious Zionism, Revisionist Zionism or Labor Zionism? It's like referring to all Terrorists as auxilliaries of the Provisional IRA.

Interestingly enough, according to the pseudo-history taught to children in Arab countries, Egypt won one of those wars. Egypt went out of its way to assert that the Yom Kippur war, when Egypt and Syria sneak-attacked Israel with no warning whatsoever, was a great victory for the Egyptian people. They call it the October War.

When teaching the history of the Yom Kippur war in Arab countries, they focus on the very early hours of the war, when the sneak attack scored key victories on Israeli positions, while virtually ignoring the fact that Israel did little things like crossing the Suez Canal and asserting dominance over the Sinai peninsula
I was going to answer my own question by saying, 'probably none', thinking that the Arabs had learned their lessons. That's not the case, though, is it?

They ain't EBIL - they'se just VMTs.
At any rate - their problems are not my problems.

If you think Arabs own that parcel of land, kindly show me the land-deed signed by Adonai the Elohim.


First.- What's VMTs? I don't understand.

Second.- I think they owned 'cause they were the inhabitants and the way Israel came to be was inmoral. I think now is owned by israelites, just 'cause they are the inhabitants. Would be as unfair to make the jews leave as it was with the arabs in the first half of the century. I'm not defending one's side right over any reason, but I try to be as fair as I can. I think quite a lot, as afar I'm not jew or arab, or Muslim, or almost nothing.

Third.- I pissed on religious or any other non-rational or non-democratical right. I'n not talking about govs, but population. So, let's make a referendum. It'll be won by jews inside the 1967 borders, by arabs outside, by british in Gibraltar, and so. DEMOCRATIC SELF DETERMINATION!!!

Whenever you get rattled in an argument, or if too many people are posting against you at once, you have an increasing tendancy to whip out your ace in the hole.

"I'm Jewish and if you disagree with me your all anti-Semite baby eating Nazi's."

You're using hyperboile now. Whereas I pointed out the fact that anti-Semitism is often disguised as anti-Zionism. You've yet to address that fact, or attempt to refute it. And, it is an established and accepted fact.

Just like its a fact that the vast majority of the people on NSG who claim to be anti-Zionist don't really know enough about Zionism to be against it. Then, when they get called on it, they slip into hyperboile such as what you've presented (surprise surprise).

Now, pay close attention - virtually the entire world accepts that anti-Semitism is often disguised as anti-Zionism. Including the United Nations, which had to recant and repeal its 16 year standing "Zionism is Racism" with UN Resolution 4686, "...to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and indeed throughout history."

So, lets stop twisting history, and the present, and examine the facts:

From the Anti-Defamation League:

Anti-semitism. It's not a History Lesson. It's a Current Event. (http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/anti-semitism_global.asp)

"Once Again, Anti-Zionism Becomes Anti-Semitism

Anti-Zionism is showing its true colors as deep-rooted anti-Semitism. No longer are the Arab nations camouflaging their hatred of Jews in the guise of attacking Israel. Here are some blatant examples of the unprecedented anti-Semitic wave throughout the Middle East. "

From the 2002 US State Dept's report on Global Anti-Semitism, a list:

Report on Global Anti-Semitism (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm)

REPORT ON GLOBAL ANTI-SEMITISM

July 1, 2003 - December 15, 2004

Submitted by the Department of State to
The Committee on Foreign Relations
And The Committee on International Relations
In accordance with Section 4 of PL 108-332

December 30, 2004

“The demonization of Israel, or vilification of Israeli leaders, sometimes through comparisons with Nazi leaders, and through the use of Nazi symbols to caricature them, indicates an anti-Semitic bias rather than a valid criticism of policy concerning a controversial issue.”

“Strong anti-Israel sentiment that crosses the line between objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism.”

“Criticism of both the United States and globalization that spills over to Israel, and to Jews in general who are identified with both.”

“The stereotype of Jews as manipulators of the global economy continues to provide fertile ground for anti-Semitic aggression.”

“The United States is frequently included as a target of such attacks, which often assert that U.S. foreign policy is made in Israel or that Jews control the media and financial markets in the United States and the rest of the world.”

“Anti-Semitism, particularly among Muslims, was linked in many cases to the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Most anti-Semitic incidents were not violent and included abusive language, hate mail, verbal insults at soccer matches, Internet "chat room" discussions, as well as persistent historical revisionism (such as Holocaust denial).”

“This rhetoric often crosses the line separating the legitimate criticism of Israel and its policies to become anti-Semitic vilification posing as legitimate political commentary. At the same time, Holocaust denial and Holocaust minimization efforts find increasingly overt acceptance as sanctioned historical discourse in a number of Middle Eastern countries.”

“"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a text debunked many years ago as a fraud perpetrated by Czarist intelligence agents, continued to appear in the Middle East media, not as a hoax, but as established fact. Government-sponsored television in Syria ran lengthy serials based on the Protocols. The presentations emphasized blood libel and the alleged control by the Jewish community of international finance. The clear purpose of the programs was to incite hatred of Jews and of Israel.”

“The official and state-supported media [of Syria’s] antiZionist propaganda frequently adopts the terminology and symbols of the Holocaust to demonize Israel and its leaders.”

“Similarly, allegations that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks were widely disseminated [in Syria].”

“The Rufin Report, released in October, concluded that racism and anti-Semitism attacked [France’s] republican values and threatened democracy. The report identified the perpetrators of anti-Semitic acts as elements of the extreme right, Maghrebian (North African origin) youth, and "disaffected individuals" whose anti-Semitic obsessions prompt their attacks against Jews and Jewish institutions. The Rufin Report also warned against radical anti-Zionists who question Israel's right to exist. The report recommended that a law be created to punish those publicly equating Israel or Zionism with apartheid or Nazism.”

“Government officials [in France] at the highest level vigorously and publicly condemned acts of antiSemitism. In October, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs called comments by Radio France International editor Alain Menargues "unacceptable." In an interview publicizing his book on the West Bank security barrier, Menargues called Israel a "racist" state. Menargues was forced to resign as a result of his comments.”

“The mainstream media [in Greece] often use the terms "genocide" and "Holocaust" to describe the situation in Israel and the West Bank/Gaza, drawing a parallel with Nazi Germany. The press and public often do not clearly distinguish between Israeli policies and Jews.”

“The virulent antiIsrael sentiment among certain groups in [the Netherlands], such as the Arab European League and the Stop the Occupation movement, also have contributed to an anti-Semitic atmosphere in some quarters.”

“In April [in Poland], the pastor of St. Brigid Church in Gdansk told parishioners during services that "Jews killed Jesus and the prophets" and displayed posters asserting that only Christians could be true citizens.”

According to these examples and criteria, we can make a coherent list of things defined as anti-Semitic by the State Dept:

1. Demonization of Israeli leaders.
2. Demonization of Israel.
3. Strong anti-Israel sentiment that demonstrates a bias and lack of objectivity.
4. Statements that Israel controls the foreign media, finances, economy, or politics.
5. Attacks against Israel due to criticism of foreign entities that support Israel.
6. Failure to distinguish between Israel, Jews, and the policies of Israel.
7. Use of Nazi and/or other outlawed/terrorist groups in comparison to Israel and Israelis. In the same respect, equating Israeli policies to racism, apartheid, genocide, or the Holocaust.
8. Holocaust revisionism and denial.
9. The use of established anti-Semitic materials, such as, but not limited to, the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as well as anti-Semitic groups such as, but not limited to, the "Stop the Occupation" movement.
10. Advocating the myth of a Jewish "blood libel", including modern forms such as the "IDF blood libel" (the myth that Israeli soldiers want to kill Palestinians).
11. Anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, such as that Jews were behind 9/11.
12. Religious anti-Semitism, i.e. that "Jews killed Jesus."

Anne Bayefsky, with human rights in Canada, and her address to the United Nations on anti-Semitism masked as anti-Zionism

One Small Step (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005245)

For Jews, however, ignorance is not an option. Anti-Semitism is about intolerance and discrimination directed at Jews--both individually and collectively. It concerns both individual human rights and the group right to self-determination--realized in the state of Israel.

What does discrimination against the Jewish state mean? It means refusing to admit only Israel to the vital negotiating sessions of regional groups held daily during U.N. Commission on Human Rights meetings. It means devoting six of the 10 emergency sessions ever held by the General Assembly to Israel. It means transforming the 10th emergency session into a permanent tribunal--which has now been reconvened 12 times since 1997. By contrast, no emergency session was ever held on the Rwandan genocide, estimated to have killed a million people, or the ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands in the former Yugoslavia, or the death of millions over the past two decades of atrocities in Sudan. That's discrimination.

The record of the Secretariat is more of the same. In November 2003, Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a report on Israel's security fence, detailing the purported harm to Palestinians without describing one terrorist act against Israelis which preceded the fence's construction. Recently, the secretary-general strongly condemned Israel for destroying homes in southern Gaza without mentioning the arms-smuggling tunnels operating beneath them. When Israel successfully targeted Hamas terrorist Abdel Aziz Rantissi with no civilian casualties, the secretary-general denounced Israel for an "extrajudicial" killing. But when faced with the 2004 report of the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions detailing the murder of more than 3,000 Brazilian civilians shot at close range by police, Mr. Annan chose silence. That's discrimination.

At the U.N., the language of human rights is hijacked not only to discriminate but to demonize the Jewish target. More than one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's human rights violations adopted by the commission over 40 years have been directed at Israel. But there has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe. Every year, U.N. bodies are required to produce at least 25 reports on alleged human rights violations by Israel, but not one on an Iranian criminal justice system which mandates punishments like crucifixion, stoning and cross-amputation of right hand and left foot. This is not legitimate critique of states with equal or worse human rights records. It is demonization of the Jewish state.

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC):

Working Definition of anti-Semitism (http://eumc.eu.int/eumc/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf)

Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.

Do I need to present more? I guess every one of these sources - NGO, governmental, and professional, including all of those involved in the research, must be wearing tinfoil hats as well.

While I'm against anti-Semitism, just the same, Israel is definitely wrong here. I'm not sure Israel should be in the Middle East, it's unfair to Islam, which was there first. Also the USA should give back their land to the Native Americans, because they were there first. I hate how bad the world is.


Come on dude, why is Jeruslam holy for Islam? Becouse some Arab conquerer had probloms with the conquerer that controled Mecca so he build a big musqe in Jersulam where the old Jewish Tample was and made his people worship that tample.

Anther thig is: Israel is there becouse of Zionisam, the people that created the Jewish nation had many orpationtines to buiold the nation somewhere else! but they didnt! why? becosue by the bible ISrael is ours.

Anther thing is this: The Jewish nation doesn't Annex the Pali ground becouse they want to give the Pali there own govermant, they don't benfit from holding the lands exppact losing a solider every other day.

Interestingly enough, the fact that there is a New Anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist sentiment isn't a strictly right-wing, tinfoil hat endeavor. As much as the anti-Semites would like to portray it as such. The fact that the EUMC acknowledged the New Anti-Semitism proves such, but we also have the Euston Manifesto.

The signatores (http://eustonmanifesto.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=36) are all prominent liberal academics. There are quite a few. I havn't counted; browsing through, at least a hundred. It might be interesting to count the names if you have time. Here is what it states:

Euston Manifesto (http://eustonmanifesto.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=38)

"The recent resurgence of another, very old form of racism, anti-Semitism, is not yet properly acknowledged in left and liberal circles. Some exploit the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people under occupation by Israel, and conceal prejudice against the Jewish people behind the formula of "anti-Zionism". We oppose this type of racism too, as should go without saying."

When are people going to stop pretending like overt anti-Semitism is the only type that exists? Is it that inconceivable to people on NSG that people veil their anti-Semitism? It sure isn't to the academic world.

You're using hyperboile now. Whereas I pointed out the fact that anti-Semitism is often disguised as anti-Zionism. You've yet to address that fact, or attempt to refute it. And, it is an established and accepted fact.

Whether it is fact or not does not change the fact that I have noticed your increasing tendancy to label those who disagree with you as anti-Semite. That effectively kills the argument because no one wants to be seen as defending anti-semitism.


Just like its a fact that the vast majority of the people on NSG who claim to be anti-Zionist don't really know enough about Zionism to be against it. Then, when they get called on it, they slip into hyperboile such as what you've presented (surprise surprise).

Now, you're the one using hyperbole.

Now, pay close attention - virtually the entire world accepts that anti-Semitism is often disguised as anti-Zionism. Including the United Nations, which had to recant and repeal its 16 year standing "Zionism is Racism" with UN Resolution 4686, "...to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and indeed throughout history."

So, lets stop twisting history, and the present, and examine the facts:

From the Anti-Defamation League:.....

From the 2002 US State Dept's report on Global Anti-Semitism, a list:
......

Anne Bayefsky, with human rights in Canada, and her address to the United Nations on anti-Semitism masked as anti-Zionism......

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC):


Do I need to present more? I guess every one of these sources - NGO, governmental, and professional, including all of those involved in the research, must be wearing tinfoil hats as well.

But but but...... some of those groups are anti-Semite!!1!!1 :eek: Human Rights in Canada? The UN? They just HATE the Jews? Thats what you've been saying previously, isn't it?

As for the ADL, I don't agree with them no. I have seen the increasing ease at which anything anti-Israeli has been immediately levied as anti-Jew. That I don't agree with.

However, I do not disagree with you in saying there are people out there who confuse Zionism with Imperialistic type actions, and therefore get badly muddled in debate. It would be a far stretch to call them 'Jew haters'.

And for the record (for the umpteenth time), never have I claimed to be anti-Zionist, or anti-Israeli.

Come on dude, why is Jeruslam holy for Islam? Becouse some Arab conquerer had probloms with the conquerer that controled Mecca so he build a big musqe in Jersulam where the old Jewish Tample was and made his people worship that tample.

Actually all of Jerusalem isn't holy for Islam, only a specific place. Whereas all of Jerusalem is holy to Judaism. Many Muslims, however, are unaware of that and believe (mislead) that all of Jerusalem is considered holy in Islam. This isn't the traditional stance of Islam on the issue.

becosue by the bible ISrael is ours.

JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA

Best post ever. No comments about such ridiculous argument

Israel do not have the right to do what they are doing, this lack of following the rules is what makes me despise them as much as I despise Hamas and the rest of muslim wackos. (Islam is a nice religion, when it is not supported by wackos).

That zone needs a not-religion associated state, that's all. Then both israelis and palestinians can live with peace.

Is either that or someone going trigger happy.

Whether it is fact or not does not change the fact that I have noticed your increasing tendancy to label those who disagree with you as anti-Semite. That effectively kills the argument because no one wants to be seen as defending anti-semitism.

You can't show one single time I've arbitrarily labeled any person as anti-Semitic. Every time I've accused someone of this it has conformed to the standards outlined by the accepted standard of New Anti-Semitism outlined by the US State Dept, ADL, EUMC, and other academics who acknowledge the fact.

Now, you're the one using hyperbole.

Oh, its hyperboile to state that a majority of people on NSG don't know enough about Zionism to criticize it? I doubt it. Its my personal experience, for one. I havn't met a person on NSG so far, in a discussion on Zionism (and I've had at least a dozen) who would be able to pass a rudimentary test on the issue.

But but but...... some of those groups are anti-Semite!!1!!1 :eek: Human Rights in Canada? The UN? They just HATE the Jews? Thats what you've been saying previously, isn't it?

No, it isn't. This is just you being absurd so you don't have to give a serious answer and consideration to the fact - that major groups around the world, professional, NGO, academic, and governmental, all acknowledge exactly what I've described.

As for the ADL, I don't agree with them no. I have seen the increasing ease at which anything anti-Israeli has been immediately levied as anti-Jew. That I don't agree with.

Fair enough. You can disregard the ADL, but it is hardly a monolith on this issue. The phenomena I've described is almost universally acknowledged.

However, I do not disagree with you in saying there are people out there who confuse Zionism with Imperialistic type actions, and therefore get badly muddled in debate. It would be a far stretch to call them 'Jew haters'.

And for the record (for the umpteenth time), never have I claimed to be anti-Zionist, or anti-Israeli.

I know you've never claimed to be anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli; this issue arose because someone claimed to be anti-Zionist, yet was unable to demonstrate even a rudimentary working knowledge of Israeli history, much less Zionism.

And I agree that people blindly confuse Zionism with Imperalism or Colonialism. Thats their fault for making an uninformed judgment. In addition, not only do people do this, but it is compounded by the fact that anti-Semitism is rampant today and packaged in a PC fashion as anti-Zionism. Thus, people pick up anti-Semitic propaganda under the guise of anti-Zionism, and believe it.

Thus, many of the arguments are anti-Semitic in content, if not in intent. People unwittingly repeat the false arguments developed as a result of anti-Semitism packaged as anti-Zionism, and while they themselves may genuinely believe that they are not being anti-Semitic, and are not being anti-Semitic in intent, the actual statements they make are anti-Semitic in content.

Well...if Israeli soldiers kill any civilians or people who have nothing to do with this drama I sure as hell hope that the arabs are able to retaliate severly. Fucking Israelis, think they can do whatever pleases them. Well...times are slowly changing.

What, as in Arab nations still get their asses kicked in conventional warfare?

The only method of retaliation the Palestinians had was building homemade artillery rockets (that occasionally blew up on launch, or fell short into Palestinian neighborhoods), or strapping on explosives and trying to get through Israeli checkpoints.

Short of that, they can't do crap. And nations like Syria know that they wouldn't last more than a few days against the Israeli military.

The last time Syria tried to show some balls, they lost their entire air force in three days, and lost nearly all of their SAM sites.

Israel do not have the right to do what they are doing, this lack of following the rules is what makes me despise them as much as I despise Hamas and the rest of muslim wackos. (Islam is a nice religion, when it is not supported by wackos).

What exactly is Israel doing that they don't have a right to do? Rescuing a hostage in Gaza? Legally, they do have that right.

If you're talking about something else, let me know.

That zone needs a not-religion associated state, that's all. Then both israelis and palestinians can live with peace.

You may be uninformed about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel is a secular state. In fact, it has less religious legislation than the United States. In Israel, homosexuals can be married and are openly accepted in politics. There is a gay Knesset member; when is the last time you've heard of a gay member of Senate?

Yet, even though Israel is secular, not religious, there is no peace. Perhaps this is because the Hamas charter calls for the extermination of every Jew on Earth - to "kill them where they find them" and that rocks will shout out "here is a Jew, come and kill him."

But, to you, Israel and Hamas are the same. Forget the fact that Israel is a democracy, Arab and minority rights are explictly protected by Supreme Court decision, and Arab members serve on the Knesset. To you, Israel must be just like the neighboring terrorist leadership, which calls for a second Holocaust, the extermination of Jews worldwide. You are very fair and even handed with this one. :rolleyes:

... govermant, they don't benfit from holding the lands exppact losing a solider every other day.

You might want to put the gun down while you type. It seems to affect your accuracy ;)

What exactly is Israel doing that they don't have a right to do? Rescuing a hostage in Gaza? Legally, they do have that right.

If you're talking about something else, let me know.

Negotiation. It is one hostage. Do you know how many people get kidnapped in the world?, and not for that everyone goes nuts and sending thousands of troops and entire columns of tanks to rescue a soldier. Even if you try a violent situation, what about a strike team, precise, more according to the situation?

Yeah, because blowing several bridges and a power plant, THE ONLY POWER PLANT in the region, is going to rescue the soldier. The status of the israeli soldier is more important than the needs of thousands of palestines, wow.

Blast about the Senate and the USA institutions to the United Staters, not on me. Israel lacks representation of a palestinian party in the goverment. That territory should be governed by a joint state, that was my point.

Personally, I have no problem with jewish people but I can't stand what the state of Israel gets up to. I don't know if that makes me anti-zionist, anti-semitic, or anti-fascist. Similarly I have no problem with American people but I'm not much of a fan of their government...

It's a pity that any and all debates about this conflict end up with accusations of anti-semitism. No wonder the issue is so insoluble.

You might want to put the gun down while you type. It seems to affect your accuracy


Not really, Since I am Israeli, English is my seacned Lenguge,I have many mastikes in it.

i hope egypt dont get in there. well not untill i leave @ least :)

Not really, Since I am Israeli, English is my seacned Lenguge,I have many mastikes in it.

Don't worry about it. Welcome to NS :)

Not really, Since I am Israeli, English is my seacned Lenguge,I have many mastikes in it.

That's not an excuse

Two words for you. SPELL CHECK

i hope egypt dont get in there. well not untill i leave @ least :)
Apparently, the Egyptians have posted 2500 troops along the border to prevent the residents of Gaza from fleeing into Egypt.

Nice to know that the Palestinians don't have any friends anymore.

That's not an excuse

Two words for you. SPELL CHECK

Amazingly, most English speakers fail to follow that advice....

Those in glass houses and all....:rolleyes:

First.- What's VMTs? I don't understand.

Second.- I think they owned 'cause they were the inhabitants and the way Israel came to be was inmoral. I think now is owned by israelites, just 'cause they are the inhabitants. Would be as unfair to make the jews leave as it was with the arabs in the first half of the century. I'm not defending one's side right over any reason, but I try to be as fair as I can. I think quite a lot, as afar I'm not jew or arab, or Muslim, or almost nothing.

Third.- I pissed on religious or any other non-rational or non-democratical right. I'n not talking about govs, but population. So, let's make a referendum. It'll be won by jews inside the 1967 borders, by arabs outside, by british in Gibraltar, and so. DEMOCRATIC SELF DETERMINATION!!!

Tough Faeces.

When it comes to the Holy Land, I treat all secular arguments as profanity.
That excludes any form of debate between us on this matter - which is fine by me.

Apparently, the Egyptians have posted 2500 troops along the border to prevent the residents of Gaza from fleeing into Egypt.

Nice to know that the Palestinians don't have any friends anymore.

One of Israel's key goals for this operation was to block the border out of Gaza so that the terror groups don't take the Israeli soldier out of the country. It looks like Egypt is cooperating with Israel.

Apparently, the Egyptians have posted 2500 troops along the border to prevent the residents of Gaza from fleeing into Egypt.

Nice to know that the Palestinians don't have any friends anymore.


no, i'd rather israel get their ass kicked. i was on my way bk to cairo today from alex and there was a impressive display of military power. troops movin around lots.

Blast about the Senate and the USA institutions to the United Staters, not on me. Israel lacks representation of a palestinian party in the goverment. That territory should be governed by a joint state, that was my point.

Did you ever hear abourt Hadash? oir maybe some other from the Pali Partys in the Israeli Parmliment? how about the small part that is given speucilly to Pali citizens to represent the Miniority?

Negotiation. It is one hostage. Do you know how many people get kidnapped in the world?, and not for that everyone goes nuts and sending thousands of troops and entire columns of tanks to rescue a soldier. Even if you try a violent situation, what about a strike team, precise, more according to the situation?

But of course, the news show the war not the boring Diplomacy.

Israeli govermant has Nagotainted, problom is that the Pali kindapers (I don't balme it on the whole moinorty) wont nagotiate.

About Spell check: It doesnt work :(

One of Israel's key goals for this operation was to block the border out of Gaza so that the terror groups don't take the Israeli soldier out of the country. It looks like Egypt is cooperating with Israel.

That and Egypt was trying to negotiate with the kidnappers, interceding so to speak.

Region stability, in their interest too I suppose.

Amazingly, most English speakers fail to follow that advice....

Those in glass houses and all....:rolleyes:

They should, I think it is embarrassing for them to fail that way in their native language, mostly when you have posting (thus writing) publicy over the net as a hobby.

English is not my native language, and even then I get embarrassed when I make any mistakes. By the way, I do highly apprecciate corrections made in my posts

That territory should be governed by a joint state, that was my point.

ummm... they are governing themselfs with there own Deomcrcy you know.

About Spell check: It doesnt work :([/QUOTE]


im crap at spelling. get word and type it all up on that then use that spell cheak and then copy and paste.

That and Egypt was trying to negotiate with the kidnappers, interceding so to speak.

Region stability, in their interest too I suppose.

I have the feeling that the reason that Israel left Gaza and other settlements was international pressure.

Now that the "leaving" seems to have not worked (i.e., increased attacks on Israel by rocket and suicide bomber and kidnapper), and international pressure really prevents the building of walls, they are going back in to clean house.

Personally, I have no problem with jewish people but I can't stand what the state of Israel gets up to. I don't know if that makes me anti-zionist, anti-semitic, or anti-fascist. Similarly I have no problem with American people but I'm not much of a fan of their government...

It's a pity that any and all debates about this conflict end up with accusations of anti-semitism. No wonder the issue is so insoluble.

Having a problem with the policies and actions of Israel doesn't make you anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic. In fact, the harshest critics of Israel are Israelis. You should see the protests.

Anti-Semitism as a topic comes up because a lot of anti-Israeli sentiments are actually based in anti-Semitism rather than legitimate criticism and concern. Really, I havn't seen anything overtly anti-Semitic from anyone on this board.

My suspicions just get aroused when people assert that they are anti-Zionist without actually knowing anything about Zionism, coupled with the same arguments against Israel used by overt anti-Semites. I think thats a reasonable suspicion.

Did you ever hear abourt Hadash? oir maybe some other from the Pali Partys in the Israeli Parmliment? how about the small part that is given speucilly to Pali citizens to represent the Miniority?

That's nice to know. I hope that kind of tolerance spread all over the region.


But of course, the news show the war not the boring Diplomacy.

Israeli govermant has Nagotainted, problom is that the Pali kindapers (I don't balme it on the whole moinorty) wont nagotiate.

About Spell check: It doesnt work :(

They should then negotiate further, that kind of reaction, invading, is just going to get the oor soldier killed along a lot of palestinians with him, some guilty, some innocents. That's an invasion, a kidnapping of one person do not justify a large scale invasion and the destruction of important infrastructure for civilian use, not at all related to the fact of the kidnapping with the exception of trying to put pressure through suffering.

About Spell check, find another, try again, go manual, DO SOMETHING!

That's not an excuse

Two words for you. SPELL CHECK

Of course it's an excuse you fucking prick. How's your Hebrew? any L1 interference?

I fucking doubt it, you sanctimonious cumrag.

OOC: I don't even SEE a spell-check button here :(

Israel Invades!!!!


I think MARS ATTACKS !!!! has a better ring to it .

the simple message is: "dont fuck with us jews". We kick ass. bring it mofos

Palestinians are known to have lynched Israeli captives.
As for all the "Go back where you came from" comments: 6.5 billion people in some barren valley in Chad is not what I call fun, nor realistic.
Continuing on the subject "white supremacy/oppression": Every race/nation has been a supressor and has been supressed. It appears to be a human trait.

Of course it's an excuse you fucking prick. How's your Hebrew? any L1 interference?

I fucking doubt it, you sanctimonious cumrag.



:eek: :eek: Such language !!:eek: :D


I would say try to keep it civil ..but someone would most likely tell me to go fuck myself ..:D

Negotiation. It is one hostage. Do you know how many people get kidnapped in the world?, and not for that everyone goes nuts and sending thousands of troops and entire columns of tanks to rescue a soldier. Even if you try a violent situation, what about a strike team, precise, more according to the situation?

Yeah, because blowing several bridges and a power plant, THE ONLY POWER PLANT in the region, is going to rescue the soldier. The status of the israeli soldier is more important than the needs of thousands of palestines, wow.negotiation? they want thousands of terrorists will be out of the jail, so they will give us back our kidnaped soldier. they always use our will to keep the holyness of life, by demanding such things, and mostly it work for them because unlike them we care for the life of our citizens.
btw, we even care more than they do for the lifes of THEIR civilians.

Blast about the Senate and the USA institutions to the United Staters, not on me. Israel lacks representation of a palestinian party in the goverment. That territory should be governed by a joint state, that was my point.
the arab parties leaders talk everywhere about their support of the terrorists. they going to meets against the israeli law, with the leaders of syria, iran and terror groups. they talked for the destruction of israel several times in the past.
that is only the less we know about their acts.
I don't blame the israeli-arabs who are mostly much more moderate (at least by the polls and researchs I heard about), but as long as this is their leaders letting them jobs in the govermnet will do less sense than let al-qaida members in the goverment of USA.

:eek: :eek: Such language !!:eek: :D


I would say try to keep it civil ..but someone would most likely tell me to go fuck myself ..:D


go fuck urself :p

Of course it's an excuse you fucking prick. How's your Hebrew? any L1 interference?

I fucking doubt it, you sanctimonious cumrag.

Wow, thanks for the compliments, so nice for you. This forum is in english, and it is nice policy to try at least make your writing easily understable for others in it.

My hebrew is non existant, although my spanish is pretty close to the 100% mark. My english, although flawed, is at least taken care of, so most people can read what I write.

Call me the day we can start writing in foreign languages here, so I can start to use my native language. If he only knows hebrew, then he should post in hebrew-based forums, period.

And about the button, please, you can open more than one window in your computer, it is just the corteous, nice thing to do.

They should then negotiate further, that kind of reaction, invading, is just going to get the oor soldier killed along a lot of palestinians with him, some guilty, some innocents. That's an invasion, a kidnapping of one person do not justify a large scale invasion and the destruction of important infrastructure for civilian use, not at all related to the fact of the kidnapping with the exception of trying to put pressure through suffering.

Israel has a very strong record in dealing with hostage situations. This isn't the first time Israel has done something like this, and it wouldn't be the first time Israel managed to get a hostage back. On that note, a second hostage that no one has brought up is a Jewish settler who was kidnapped at the same time, but by a different group in a different location. His corpse was found a few hours ago or something, its in the news:

Report: Body found in West Bank, believed Asheri's (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1150885871181)

Jun. 28, 2006 12:47
Report: Body found in West Bank, believed Asheri's
By JPOST.COM STAFF

A body was found in the West Bank and is believed to belong to Eliyahu Pinhas Asheri, the settler who may have been kidnapped, the Palestinian news agency reported.

There has been no confirmation of the report.

Keep in mind, this was a different kidnapping, not the soldier. His name is Noam Shalit. Also keep in mind that Israel attempted diplomacy to get both of these hostages back, but as one has turned up dead, it would confirm the Israeli suspicion that diplomacy has failed and force is necessary.

My question to you is why you think that it doesn't justify what you describe as a "large scale invasion?" Not to mention that it isn't even an "invasion" by definition, and certainly not large in scale.

The only method of retaliation the Palestinians had was building homemade artillery rockets (that occasionally blew up on launch, or fell short into Palestinian neighborhoods), or strapping on explosives and trying to get through Israeli checkpoints.
Yep, that's what terrorism looks like (9/11 excepted). Guys who don't have billions to buy tanks and planes, hitting soft targets 'cos they can't get a shot in against the real power.

The last time Syria tried to show some balls, they lost their entire air force in three days, and lost nearly all of their SAM sites.
Yeah, but. There's a lot of money from oil, in those Arab countries. There's Northern Africa, with lots of Muslims, and some oil, getting it together far better than central Africa. There's WsMD, which favour the bigger player (less concentrated target.) And there's the population question. Egypt is ten times bigger than Israel. Egypt are nice nowadays, but then there's Iran, Syria and Iraq. Numbers don't favour Israel.
I hope the Israelis aren't assuming that their military ascendency will last for ever. For their sake as well as everyone else's.

fact is. israel will not be happy untill there is no country called Palestine

I have to agree with Green Israel, the IDF makes a trumendous effort to keep civilians, palestinian/israeli, safe.
Which can't be said for those who regard detonating themselves on a friday afternoon schoolbus a "divinely inspired" act.

fact is. israel will not be happy untill there is no country called Palestine


What?! no! when the UN propsed the dividing otf the land people were more then happy, it was the Pali who didnt agree not ISraelis!

Didn't you hear about the Oslo Agrements?

Keep in mind, this was a different kidnapping, not the soldier. His name is Noam Shalit. Also keep in mind that Israel attempted diplomacy to get both of these hostages back, but as one has turned up dead, it would confirm the Israeli suspicion that diplomacy has failed and force is necessary.

the settler is dead? lets hope the soldier condition is better.
btw, I think Noam Shalit is the soldier father. the soldier name is Gilad.

fact is. israel will not be happy untill there is no country called Palestine

That is a little unfair. Israel wants a Palestinian state, but one that's on their terms and how they want it - very small and under their control.

That is a little unfair. Israel wants a Palestinian state, but one that's on their terms and how they want it - very small and under their control.


As much as I don't like it, that is quite true.

Wow, thanks for the compliments, so nice for you. This forum is in english, and it is nice policy to try at least make your writing easily understable for others in it.

My hebrew is non existant, although my spanish is pretty close to the 100% mark. My english, although flawed, is at least taken care of, so most people can read what I write.

Call me the day we can start writing in foreign languages here, so I can start to use my native language. If he only knows hebrew, then he should post in hebrew-based forums, period.

And about the button, please, you can open more than one window in your computer, it is just the corteous, nice thing to do.

Fuck that. "Yes, my English is very good, and my Spanish is close to 100%. Please now, who's about to lick my balls?"

The guy is posting in English - he's an intermediate learner at best. I understood what he was saying, even if it did take a modicum of effort. Why couldn't you instead of sniping at him? Probably because you're a smug, self-satisfied little prick. I don't see a English Level requirement around here, do you?

The sort of efforts that he makes is the best way to learn another language.

Actually, the way you use English is pissing me off. You mis-spelt 'courteous' - can you go and post on your native-language boards please?

What?! no! when the UN propsed the dividing otf the land people were more then happy, it was the Pali who didnt agree not ISraelis!

Didn't you hear about the Oslo Agrements?


fuck no. u israel were only happy as the UN saved them the job of invadin it! Palestine lost land. whereas israel just bloody gained it for free!

the settler is dead? lets hope the soldier condition is better.
btw, I think Noam Shalit is the soldier father. the soldier name is Gilad.

Ah, my mistake. Noam is the father's name. And we aren't totally sure about the settler yet, another article said they were doing an autopsy. So it could turn out to be someone else.

i declare a world war III release the bombs were fighting against Israel:sniper: :mp5: :sniper: dieediee dieeeeeee bam bam send out the MI7 on fly emirates plans they will drop oil canisters with detinators from above they will blow up within 1 minute power 2 MC Wedge all hail Sam Kersey. ALL COUNTRYS PLEASE TAKE A SIDE AND JOIN IN WORLD WAR III bwahahahahahaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha dieeeeeeee.
MC Wedge makes ration tokens for the rest of the world

STEP. AWAY. FROM. THE. SUGAR.

It's not all about having the best guns you know...
The big difference is training and military doctrine.
Plus the fact that any nation which is fighting with its back against the wall (or mediterranean) will become tougher and more determined to survive.

fuck no. u israel were only happy as the UN saved them the job of invadin it! Palestine lost land. whereas israel just bloody gained it for free!

Jordan, Egypt, and Syria gained it for free too. They stole the majority of what would be a Palestinian state. They also started the war which resulted in the Israeli defensive that took large tracts of land set aside for a Palestinian state. Its clear to see where the moral responsibility falls for that - upon those who started the war, not the defenders.

fuck no. u israel were only happy as the UN saved them the job of invadin it! Palestine lost land. whereas israel just bloody gained it for free!


You know why? did you hear about Niksons 5 points? did you hear abour Anti-semtisam?!


"Every Race has the right of having a nation"- 1st point of Nikson

Jews jave suffered over 2000 years of Tourte by Christens, they went to ISrael in order to get there own nation, now they want to give the Pali too! but we as much as they want to have our own nation where no one is going to kill your race!

Don't worry, man.

*breaks seventh seal*

It will be alright.

I hope you know what that 7th seal is :D

As to this story....Hand over the soldier and no one gets hurt. You don't mess around with the IDF.

I hope you know what that 7th seal is :D

As to this story....Hand over the soldier and no one gets hurt. You don't mess around with the IDF.


Yup, and that was proven in about 5 wars, where IDF won over and over agasin (and + one where the Underground Jewish Groups won- Indpandce War of Israel)

Yup, and that was proven in about 5 wars, where IDF won over and over agasin (and + one where the Underground Jewish Groups won- Indpandce War of Israel)

Three wars. Israel's war for independence, Yom Kipper War and the 6 Day War.

You know why? did you hear about Niksons 5 points? did you hear abour Anti-semtisam?!


"Every Race has the right of having a nation"- 1st point of Nikson

Jews jave suffered over 2000 years of Tourte by Christens, they went to ISrael in order to get there own nation, now they want to give the Pali too! but we as much as they want to have our own nation where no one is going to kill your race!


yeh i agree they are allowed their own nation. but how would you feel if i came into your country and sed by my religion i own this land. get the fuck out?

Hand over the soldier and no one gets hurt. You don't mess around with the IDF.

Well, the power to most of Gaza is now out, because the powerplant was destroyed. That also means that there's no running water in Gaza now, because it's pumped by electric pumps.

The IDF has sealed the Gaza area, and the Egyptians have sealed their end to prevent Palestinians from fleeing.

A bridge has been destroyed to hamper movement within Gaza.

It's summer.

Given the large population within Gaza, and the lack of water, this is essentially siege warfare.

I hope you know what that 7th seal is :D

As to this story....Hand over the soldier and no one gets hurt. You don't mess around with the IDF.

"Dead in the water" might get a new twist to it...

yeh i agree they are allowed their own nation. but how would you feel if i came into your country and sed by my religion i own this land. get the fuck out?

I would feel bad. But that isn't what Zionist settlers did when Israel was formed.

For one, most were secular. Socialist Zionism was dominant, not religious Zionism. Second, they settled on unowned land that was under British control. Third, very few Arabs were kicked out until other Arab countries attacked. Even then, its questionable to what degree the explusion of Palestinians was the fault of Israel or the fault of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria.

yeh i agree they are allowed their own nation. but how would you feel if i came into your country and sed by my religion i own this land. get the fuck out?


we didn't say that! on conterer our Claim of Indoppandce (which works as COnnstutian) says: "The State of Israel would be a state for the people: no matter the race gender or religon" and we work like that, but The Pali doesnt, so we fight

Well, the power to most of Gaza is now out, because the powerplant was destroyed. That also means that there's no running water in Gaza now, because it's pumped by electric pumps.

The IDF has sealed the Gaza area, and the Egyptians have sealed their end to prevent Palestinians from fleeing.

A bridge has been destroyed to hamper movement within Gaza.

It's summer.

Given the large population within Gaza, and the lack of water, this is essentially siege warfare.

Exactly what Israel needs to do to win the hearts and minds of the population to get them to knock out the terrorists.

A greater threat to the western world is posed by the rogue terrorist group Al-aska, which occupies a strategic position within missile range of the US border. Unless the US launches a preemptive strike, terrorist nuclear strikes could devastate the west coast or our Canadian allies.
He diesn't clain to have nukes, he claims to have chemical weapons.

Yup, and that was proven in about 5 wars, where IDF won over and over agasin (and + one where the Underground Jewish Groups won- Indpandce War of Israel)


one of the wars Israel are rumored to threaten the use of nuclear weapons.

Well, the power to most of Gaza is now out, because the powerplant was destroyed. That also means that there's no running water in Gaza now, because it's pumped by electric pumps.

The IDF has sealed the Gaza area, and the Egyptians have sealed their end to prevent Palestinians from fleeing.

A bridge has been destroyed to hamper movement within Gaza.

It's summer.

Given the large population within Gaza, and the lack of water, this is essentially siege warfare.

I didn't know seige warfare was still in use. I'm also surprised but not totally that Egypt sealed their border because of this.

Exactly what Israel needs to do to win the hearts and minds of the population to get them to knock out the terrorists.

The population would never "knock out" the terrorists. Even if they wanted to, they don't have the guns - the terror groups are running the government and police within Gaza.

I would feel bad. But that isn't what Zionist settlers did when Israel was formed.

For one, most were secular. Socialist Zionism was dominant, not religious Zionism. Second, they settled on unowned land that was under British control. Third, very few Arabs were kicked out until other Arab countries attacked. Even then, its questionable to what degree the explusion of Palestinians was the fault of Israel or the fault of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria.


Turkish control. but yeah in genrell

It's way too easy to put the blame on Israel...
Get an education, read a couple of books (Martin van Creveld, Jared Diamond) and please come back later.

one of the wars Israel are rumored to threaten the use of nuclear weapons.


Wrong Rummer, Israel claims she doesnt have Nukes.

Turkish control. but yeah in genrell

I believe they were kicked out of the middle east around 1918/1919?

one of the wars Israel are rumored to threaten the use of nuclear weapons.

Israel wouldn't be the first country. We had a little thing called the cold war that revolved around the threat of nuclear force.

Not to mention that two major Japanese population centers were destroyed by the use of nuclear force.

Given those facts, I wouldn't try to single out Israel for criticism in regard to nuclear weapons. Its been quite responsible.

Fuck that. "Yes, my English is very good, and my Spanish is close to 100%. Please now, who's about to lick my balls?"

The guy is posting in English - he's an intermediate learner at best. I understood what he was saying, even if it did take a modicum of effort. Why couldn't you instead of sniping at him? Probably because you're a smug, self-satisfied little prick. I don't see a English Level requirement around here, do you?

The sort of efforts that he makes is the best way to learn another language.

Actually, the way you use English is pissing me off. You mis-spelt 'courteous' - can you go and post on your native-language boards please?

Thanks for the correction, as I said before, I welcome them. If you are pissed by my english, help yourself.

I had problems understanding his posts, and I asked him quite politely to run a spell check, that is just a minute or so effort, not exactly a tremendous nuisance.

Stop trolling, insulting, and flaming, without even getting into the discussion or being the main participant or receiver of my posts. He doesn't seem to be so stupidly affected as you are, unless you have some issues over me or over the fact here.

Actually, running a spell check will be even more helpful to improve his english, as he can be aware of his mistakes and correct them. It helped me, so I think it can help him too.

I said my english was flawed, not "very good", yet I said it was intelligible. My spanish is my native tongue, and it is very good, and makes my living, to compensate for my entire lack of hebrew, brought out by you.

I do see a level of "courtesy", to be taken seriously, and no, I'm not a "prick", although I'm pretty self confident.

Regarding the balls, I do not own any, so I cannot see how I could get them licked, and it isn't my intention, too.

Finally, regarding the running issue here, I do not condone violence, I abhorr it when the israelis are the target, and equally when the palestinians are. I also hope the soldier can be retrieved safely, with no waste of innocent, civilian palestinian lives.

I think the numbers published by the main news agencies stated it was a big invasion, involving lots of tanks and thousands of troops, but then I have perhaps second hand information on this. I do not agree with the destruction of the bridges and the power plant in any case.

we didn't say that! on conterer our Claim of Indoppandce (which works as COnnstutian) says: "The State of Israel would be a state for the people: no matter the race gender or religon" and we work like that, but The Pali doesnt, so we fight


dont get me wrong. i approve that Israel is allowed their land. BUT they go about it wrong. yes stupid terrorists are attacking their land. however Israel should try and improve the relation with Palestine not decrease by building walls and killing any innocents in the attempt the save 1 bloody soldier!

we didn't say that! on conterer our Claim of Indoppandce (which works as COnnstutian) says: "The State of Israel would be a state for the people: no matter the race gender or religon" and we work like that, but The Pali doesnt, so we fight

I hardly count the Israeli occupied areas as "a state for the people". Israel has sunk to the level of the Jordanians and Egyptians that snached Palestinian land in the first place. Worse, Israel created a solution (occupation) that found a problem (terrorism) later on. Israel has a duty as a western democratic state to put the safety of its citizens first. And ask yourself - are you safer on the road to the two state solution, or in perpetual warfare, as Israel fuels along wit hthe terrorists?

Well, the power to most of Gaza is now out, because the powerplant was destroyed. That also means that there's no running water in Gaza now, because it's pumped by electric pumps.

The IDF has sealed the Gaza area, and the Egyptians have sealed their end to prevent Palestinians from fleeing.

A bridge has been destroyed to hamper movement within Gaza.

It's summer.

Given the large population within Gaza, and the lack of water, this is essentially siege warfare.
we providing them all their water and power. they can't run nothing by themselves. we stop providing them power, but they still had water.
and we all know that this will all over in the minute the soldier will be with us.

That's not an excuse

Two words for you. SPELL CHECK

Spell check is evil. EVIL! Spell check is something Harry Potter does before taking his college entrance exam. Spell check is going to render "mastike" into "swastika" if it's even got a clue.

He just types real bad. But it's great to have real Israelis in a debate about Israel. Keeps it real.

dont get me wrong. i approve that Israel is allowed their land. BUT they go about it wrong. yes stupid terrorists are attacking their land. however Israel should try and improve the relation with Palestine not decrease by building walls and killing any innocents in the attempt the save 1 bloody soldier!


With that I agree

It's way too easy to put the blame on Israel...
Get an education, read a couple of books (Martin van Creveld, Jared Diamond) and please come back later.


who is this to?

For those of you that live in Israel, who did you vote for in the last elections?

Israel wouldn't be the first country. We had a little thing called the cold war that revolved around the threat of nuclear force.

Not to mention that two major Japanese population centers were destroyed by the use of nuclear force.

Given those facts, I wouldn't try to single out Israel for criticism in regard to nuclear weapons. Its been quite responsible.

So, terrorists can't threaten mass death to Israel, but Israel can to Palestine. Still, they're only a few muslim sand niggers and all deserve to die for the zionist cause, right?

Spell check is evil. EVIL! Spell check is something Harry Potter does before taking his college entrance exam. Spell check is going to render "mastike" into "swastika" if it's even got a clue.

He just types real bad. But it's great to have real Israelis in a debate about Israel. Keeps it real.

True, I prefer to do it with real israelis, it improves the standard of the debate, also, I didn't know about the settler kidnapped, for instance. Nice to find out more facts.

who is this to?

For anyone who feels even remotely addressed by it...

For those of you that live in Israel, who did you vote for in the last elections?

Uluckly im not old enough, but picking Aolmart was wrong!

I knew that before, I propbly have voted Beniman Natinaho, he is smart, he learnt in USA, and he didnt very litle mastkies.

So, terrorists can't threaten mass death to Israel, but Israel can to Palestine. Still, they're only a few muslim sand niggers and all deserve to die for the zionist cause, right?

Israel has never threatened mass death to Palestinians, nor has it exercised the threat of nuclear force. Rather, I was pointing out that other countries have. Not terrorists, major world powers like the former USSR and the United States.

Israel has a policy of nuclear ambiguity. It can't threaten its neighbors because it would violate that policy. On the other hand, virtually everyone knows that it is capable of defending itself with extreme force if attacked first.

Jordan, Egypt, and Syria gained it for free too. They stole the majority of what would be a Palestinian state. They also started the war which resulted in the Israeli defensive that took large tracts of land set aside for a Palestinian state. Its clear to see where the moral responsibility falls for that - upon those who started the war, not the defenders.

it doesnt matter if its jordan, egypt, syria, or palestine, really they are all supposed to be one country, the islamic caliphate. the countries were then broken up by the british. The palestinians couldnt care less who their government is, as long as its arabic.

also, tell me how, with your knowledge in warfare, how a nation fighting defensively can gain land? if a nation is fighting defensively, when it fends off the attackers, it should not take land, as that is switching from defense to offense.

Also tell me if Israel really wanted to give the palestinians their rightful land, why was it building settlements as quickly as possible during the camp david accords and ever since it took the land.

Finally, this hostage is a pretext to invade gaza. they will probably kill dozens of civilians trying to rescue a hostage, who could just as easily be killed while the idf is bulldozing the front door to get to him. the fact is, the operation is going to fail, and many people are going to die. do u really think that it is over that single soldier?

we providing them all their water and power. they can't run nothing by themselves. we stop providing them power, but they still had water.
and we all know that this will all over in the minute the soldier will be with us.

And all the destroyed buildings and infrastructure, necessary for a successful economy and government, will be rebuilt? I assume not. Wealthy Israel can destroy, but the bankrupt Palestinian mockery of a government is the one forced to pick up the pieces.

For anyone who feels even remotely addressed by it...


yeah i do.. an i feel like a dick! lol i just jumped in the debate without knowing anything! :confused:

For those of you that live in Israel, who did you vote for in the last elections?
the labour party, although I may vote Meretz if they will had a chance to get into the coalition.

Uluckly im not old enough, but picking Aolmart was wrong!

I knew that before, I propbly have voted Beniman Natinaho, he is smart, he learnt in USA, and he didnt very litle mastkies.

You are improving. Thanks.

can you redirect me to some information regarding these elections, or at least expand your views over them, I would like to know better the candidates.

Israel has never threatened mass death to Palestinians, nor has it exercised the threat of nuclear force. Rather, I was pointing out that other countries have. Not terrorists, major world powers like the former USSR and the United States.

Israel has a policy of nuclear ambiguity. It can't threaten its neighbors because it would violate that policy. On the other hand, virtually everyone knows that it is capable of defending itself with extreme force if attacked first.

Then what is the point of nuclear ambiguity if not to threaten Palestine with nuclear force shoudl it ever gain the strength to wipe out Israel?

it doesnt matter if its jordan, egypt, syria, or palestine, really they are all supposed to be one country, the islamic caliphate. the countries were then broken up by the british. The palestinians couldnt care less who their government is, as long as its arabic.

Well, thats the theocratic, totalitarian belief anyway. Jordan didn't want to accept Palestinian refugees, nor did Egypt. Both still keep Arabs locked in camps. Perhaps if Arabs would start being as nice to each other as the Jews are to them, then this pipedream of an Islamic Caliphate could exist.

But, if you're aware of the real history of Islam, and not the Islamic myth, there never was a single peaceful Islamic Caliphate. From the very beginning of Islam, there were civil wars within the Caliphate and competing dynastys.

also, tell me how, with your knowledge in warfare, how a nation fighting defensively can gain land? if a nation is fighting defensively, when it fends off the attackers, it should not take land, as that is switching from defense to offense.

My pleasure. Any time a country is attacked first, its response is 'defensive' by definition. In addition, any measures necessary to secure the soverignty of that country are defensive. If a country has to take extra land to secure its border, because securing it is an act of defense, it is defensive.

Also tell me if Israel really wanted to give the palestinians their rightful land, why was it building settlements as quickly as possible during the camp david accords and ever since it took the land.

Sounds like you're slipping into a conspiracy theory. Israel has built settlements on land that is privately owned by Jews, not on land owned by Palestinians. In addition, UN Resolution 242 - international law - provides for Israel to take whatever land in the Occupied Territories is necessary as long as they return some of the occupied land. The entire Arab world accepted the Camp David accords, except for Arafat. He was called a liar and a criminal by Prince Bandar.

Finally, this hostage is a pretext to invade gaza. they will probably kill dozens of civilians trying to rescue a hostage, who could just as easily be killed while the idf is bulldozing the front door to get to him. the fact is, the operation is going to fail, and many people are going to die. do u really think that it is over that single soldier?

Your argument would be valid, if it didn't commit the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Unless you're trying to tell us that the hostage situation is all a big Israeli conspiracy, too.

And all the destroyed buildings and infrastructure, necessary for a successful economy and government, will be rebuilt? I assume not. Wealthy Israel can destroy, but the bankrupt Palestinian mockery of a government is the one forced to pick up the pieces.

I think they (Israel) already provided the power for the region, the situation seems to be more edgy than it seems...

I hope they help the palestinians to rebuild that infrastructure...

we providing them all their water and power. they can't run nothing by themselves. we stop providing them power, but they still had water.
and we all know that this will all over in the minute the soldier will be with us.

well then please talk to me about why, over 2002-2003, israel completely destroyed the palestinian security infrastructure, so that even if they later changed their minds, or had better opportunities, they could never capture or stop the terrorists from attacking israel. israel said that they destroyed them because they believed they were not using them, but it is not up to israel to draw judgements as to whether or not they are using them, nor is it their right to destroy them. meanwhile israel was urging the PA, everyday, to crackdown on the terrorists.

Israel can do a little more to help the palestinians, like stop blowing their shit up.

And all the destroyed buildings and infrastructure, necessary for a successful economy and government, will be rebuilt? I assume not. Wealthy Israel can destroy, but the bankrupt Palestinian mockery of a government is the one forced to pick up the pieces.
the corrupted economy of the palastinians can do nothing anyway. when we ruled this areas we build more public buildings for them than they do.

it doesnt matter if its jordan, egypt, syria, or palestine, really they are all supposed to be one country, the islamic caliphate. the countries were then broken up by the british. The palestinians couldnt care less who their government is, as long as its arabic.

If that were the case then why don't they just form one government instead of being seperate? Oh yea....A thing called ideology prevents that. Yep yep. The arab world don't like eachother let alone Israel.

also, tell me how, with your knowledge in warfare, how a nation fighting defensively can gain land? if a nation is fighting defensively, when it fends off the attackers, it should not take land, as that is switching from defense to offense.

Funny. The United States fought Defensively against Japan. Mmmmm...yea it is possible. Tell me, with your vast military knowledge, why do you think you can't gain land when fighting defensively? Just because you counter-attack (defense) doesn't mean you can't gain land.

Also tell me if Israel really wanted to give the palestinians their rightful land, why was it building settlements as quickly as possible during the camp david accords and ever since it took the land.

Who said it had the backing of the government? Also tell me why they are doing their best to hand things over to the Palestinians? Also tell me why the Palestinian Leader (not the Hamas asshole) scheduled a referendum?

Finally, this hostage is a pretext to invade gaza. they will probably kill dozens of civilians trying to rescue a hostage, who could just as easily be killed while the idf is bulldozing the front door to get to him. the fact is, the operation is going to fail, and many people are going to die. do u really think that it is over that single soldier?

Fail? HA. Apparently you know jack about the IDF and their capabilities. But then, you are an Iraqi and you hate Israel so that is no surprise since Iraq got its ass whipped by the infant state in 1948 and then could do nothing as your nuclear reactor was blown to bits by the Israeli Air Force in the '80s.

Then what is the point of nuclear ambiguity if not to threaten Palestine with nuclear force shoudl it ever gain the strength to wipe out Israel?

I'm starting to get the impression you don't know what nuclear ambiguity is.

The very premise of it excludes the possibility of threat. And, hopefully, if Palestine ever gets the resources and economy to be a real country, it will be focused on its own well-being and not wiping out Israel. :rolleyes:

I'll bet that USA just HAVE to get involved, even though Israel has shown that it can take care of itself during the Six Day War.
Involved militarily? No. Won't happen. Now we might get involved diplomatically along with the EU.

Then what is the point of nuclear ambiguity if not to threaten Palestine with nuclear force shoudl it ever gain the strength to wipe out Israel?

Are you forgetting perhaps....Israel's Neighbors?

Yes, the Pali's will be made to suffer. Do you guys think this could end up leading to the whole retaking of Pali territory, including all of Jerusalem?
No. Israel isn't up for a genocide and doesn't want all those Palestinians within their borders.

the corrupted economy of the palastinians can do nothing anyway. when we ruled this areas we build more public buildings for them than they do.

Damn straight. It reminds me of all the small Arab villages on the Israeli border, who all have petitioned to be a part of Israel rather than Palestine when final borders get drawn, so they can have civil liberties and better standards of living.

You are improving. Thanks.

can you redirect me to some information regarding these elections, or at least expand your views over them, I would like to know better the candidates.


Well, theres many Partys in th Israeli nations, part are Idologey groups (that are elected for a single thing, no Idology what so ever).

the 3 mains area:

Avoda - Left group, leaded by Amir Partz, which is a very Left leader, (Is to be leaughed as commuinmnsts, esspucliy becouse he looks so much like Stalin) people dont like him becouse he has no education.

Kadmia- Center Party, leaded by Ahod Aolmart, currantly ruleing party, created by Ariel Sharon orignally.

Likod- Center Party, leaded by Benimen Natinaho, he belives in a Capitlist Nation, but his Idology is based Rgiht, they are the people who gave most of the land back to the Pali.

well then please talk to me about why, over 2002-2003, israel completely destroyed the palestinian security infrastructure, so that even if they later changed their minds, or had better opportunities, they could never capture or stop the terrorists from attacking israel. israel said that they destroyed them because they believed they were not using them, but it is not up to israel to draw judgements as to whether or not they are using them, nor is it their right to destroy them. meanwhile israel was urging the PA, everyday, to crackdown on the terrorists.

Israel can do a little more to help the palestinians, like stop blowing their shit up.
no we know that Arrafat was using them. using them for terror attacks against israel.
and this forces get weaponary and supporting from israel, until they turned against us.

Looks like the kidnapped settler wasn't dead after wall

Charred body found near Ramallah is not Asheri's (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1150885872714)

The charred body found in the Ramallah area on Wednesday was identified to be a Palestinian man who was killed in a local feud.

The body was taken to the Institute for Forensic Medicine at Abu Kabir in order to verify its identity.

Originally, there was speculation that the body was that of missing Itamar resident Eliyahu Asheri.

Of course it's an excuse you fucking prick. How's your Hebrew? any L1 interference?

I fucking doubt it, you sanctimonious cumrag.
Fuck that. "Yes, my English is very good, and my Spanish is close to 100%. Please now, who's about to lick my balls?"

The guy is posting in English - he's an intermediate learner at best. I understood what he was saying, even if it did take a modicum of effort. Why couldn't you instead of sniping at him? Probably because you're a smug, self-satisfied little prick. I don't see a English Level requirement around here, do you?

The sort of efforts that he makes is the best way to learn another language.

Actually, the way you use English is pissing me off. You mis-spelt 'courteous' - can you go and post on your native-language boards please?
Zen Accords, KNOCK IT OFF. While I get you're defending someone, do it in a less offensive manner next time.


Call me the day we can start writing in foreign languages here, so I can start to use my native language. If he only knows hebrew, then he should post in hebrew-based forums, period.
Well, I'm afraid you missed the call. It's already fine to post in foreign languages. You start abusing people in those languages and you'll get the same treatment as if it were in English. This is not an English only zone of the internet.

Erastide
~Forum Moderator

Are you forgetting perhaps....Israel's Neighbors?


i reckon a ban of nuclear weapons in the middle east. but that is waaay too idealistic

peace in the middle east.

I'm starting to get the impression you don't know what nuclear ambiguity is.

The very premise of it excludes the possibility of threat. And, hopefully, if Palestine ever gets the resources and economy to be a real country, it will be focused on its own well-being and not wiping out Israel. :rolleyes:

Well, until Israel withdraws from Palestine, it will never have those necessary resources. A withdrawal would be the best thing to happen for Palestine's well-being, as well as Israel's.

While I might not have the UN's definition of so-called ambiguity, Israeli policy has revolved around not telling if they do or don't have weapons. That indicates that if they do, they would be prepared to use them, since thay haven't issued any kind of warning or policy.

Likod- Center Party, leaded by Benimen Natinaho, he belives in a Capitlist Nation, but his Idology is based Rgiht, they are the people who gave most of the land back to the Pali.

No land has been returned to Palestine. Period.

well then please talk to me about why, over 2002-2003, israel completely destroyed the palestinian security infrastructure, so that even if they later changed their minds, or had better opportunities, they could never capture or stop the terrorists from attacking israel. israel said that they destroyed them because they believed they were not using them, but it is not up to israel to draw judgements as to whether or not they are using them, nor is it their right to destroy them. meanwhile israel was urging the PA, everyday, to crackdown on the terrorists.

Israel can do a little more to help the palestinians, like stop blowing their shit up.

"Palestinian security infrastructure" is equivalent to "Palestinian terror funding." The fact is, Palestine has never done anything to significantly capture terrorists, and its security is so corrupt and tied in with terror groups that it is a liability to the Palestinian people and to Israel.

Thus, it is Israel's "right to destroy them." Israel has a legal and a moral right to destroy any existential threat to its soverignty.