NationStates Jolt Archive

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.
Actually there were Jewish communities in the middle east long before Islam. Muhammad actually attacked Jewish settlements in his war to spread Islam.

No land has been returned to Palestine. Period.


Acttuly yes, didn't you ever hear about the Hitnatkot?!

Gosh Katif returned to the Pali! which was Israeli settlemnts!

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.he had education. just not the one of the universities.

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.
as the statement: "only the right can give lands, and only the left can start wars."

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.

Oh, thanks, I thought Sharon's party was right, or at least center right, or I am extremely wrong?

No land has been returned to Palestine. Period.

Sharon toyed with a full pull out of Gaza and the return of almost full autonomy to the PA. In addition, all of the settlements were disbanded in Gaza. Since the Palestinians refuse to declare independence, settle borders, and become a state Israel can't "return" anything to them. They simply aren't accepting.

"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.

Then with what is Palestine supposed to stop terrorists? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Oh, thanks, I thought Sharon's party was right, or at least center right, or I am extremely wrong?


They are Center-Left

oh yeah an about this stuf with Palestine losing allies such as egypt, u have to remember that they all dont want a war. and also they would get a thrashing. for example. egypt cannot help Palestine or the refugees as this would be a sign of a alliance. this will let other countries who support Israel such as the US come down ontop of egypt like a ton of bricks. anyway im off take care.

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)
in that situation, it made me feel better.

Oh, thanks, I thought Sharon's party was right, or at least center right, or I am extremely wrong?

Sharon used to be Likud, with Netanyahu, which is to the right. He founded Kadima, however, with the current PM Olmert has his deputy. It is more central than right, compared to Likud. Sharon will always have a reputation as being a hawk and on the right.

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

It would be nice of Israel to do that. They may even have the power to do that.

But wouldn't it make more sense for the other Arab nations to defend their brothers of the faith, not with shipments of explosives, but with economic aid? With industry-building (and therefore nation-building) aid?

Failing even that, wouldn't it be nice of the UN to support these poor and desperate people, who have a land to live in but are obsessed by it not being the land (some of them) came from?

Gaza isn't hopelessly crowded. If it wasn't so poor, if the people weren't so resentful of how they've been fucked over in the war about the right of Israel to exist [it exists! And has for half a century, that's right enough.] If they weren't effectively occupied by Israel, while being told that their problems are their own doing. IF.

And what keeps the UN from fixing Gaza (EDIT: and the Palestinian Territories) up? The Israelis, who'd lose control over car-parks where rockets can be fired. And the Arab states which want Israel gone, but don't want to sacrifice their own citizens against the (deservedly feared) Israeli military.

Worse than being hated, worse than trying to live in an age of WMD's by the tenets of a book written in an age of spears, is being a poverty stricken people trapped between powerful states that want to fight each other but don't dare.

It makes me cry, really.

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.

i do not support an islamic caliphate, however I do support a pan-arab state. personally, i am an iraqi muslim with a democratic secular belief in politics. Egypt and Jordan cannot feesibly take in millions of displaced palestinians (displaced by Israel) into their nation, they will simply be moved into a nation, but will still live in tents. also, if you remember the jordanian civil war, the Palestinians wish to live on their own land, not neccessarily country, but land.

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.

the civil war resulted in the split between the sunni and shia, with sunni wanting a democratic election for the caliph, and shia wanting it to be following the bloodline of the prophet muhammad. however, i have already stated i simply wish for a pan-arab state, not a theocracy.

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.

if a country has to take extra land to secure its border, that country will be forever expanding. also, millions of people are paying the price for that. also, it is only "defensive" while the country is on its own soil, fending off attackers. when the country launches an offensive to attack the countries that attacked it, it is no longer a defensive campaign.

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.

havent you already said that the west bank and gaza are not parts of israel? also, they have to return all of the land, not just some, because it was all illegal. also, the camp david accords were not accepted by arafat as he knew that palestinians would start a civil war as they argue over whether to accept them or not, bear in mind that they were not given east jerusalem in the camp david accords.

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.

it is not a big israeli conspiracy, it just gave israel the perfect reason to enter gaza. this is not fringe thinking, it has happened many times, with the gulf of tonkin incident as a modern example.

Funny thing with our world, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.
Gee, did you come up with that yourself? I'd never heard that before. I think I'll go blow up a busload of schoolkids so I can be a freedom fighter too.

Then with what is Palestine supposed to stop terrorists? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yes, its a tricky situation. Recently Olmert gave funds and weapons to Fatah to police and stop terror, and they have already been used in terror attacks against Israeli citizens.

It also complicates it because the Palestinian leadership is made up of terror groups. It isn't as if they are innocent politicians and partners in the 'war on terror' so to speak. Israel is giving funds and weapons to the terror groups and then saying "go stop terror."

Sharon toyed with a full pull out of Gaza and the return of almost full autonomy to the PA. In addition, all of the settlements were disbanded in Gaza. Since the Palestinians refuse to declare independence, settle borders, and become a state Israel can't "return" anything to them. They simply aren't accepting.

What statehood are the Palestinians supposed to declare? Statehood of what? All Palestine is still under Israeli control except the Gaza strip that was only abandoned so no Jews would get hurt in the attacks Israel has made on the Gaza strip ever since the pullout. Get Israel and its illegal Jewish settlers there out of the West Bank and set the Green Line as Israels borders, and all will be fine.

Yes, its a tricky situation. Recently Olmert gave funds and weapons to Fatah to police and stop terror, and they have already been used in terror attacks against Israeli citizens.

It also complicates it because the Palestinian leadership is made up of terror groups. It isn't as if they are innocent politicians and partners in the 'war on terror' so to speak. Israel is giving funds and weapons to the terror groups and then saying "go stop terror."


Exactly that is hwy I would vote Natniyho, he was smart enough not to do so!

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'm sorry, but G-d is actually an angry Sox fan. FUCK THE CUBS!!!

What statehood are the Palestinians supposed to declare? Statehood of what? All Palestine is still under Israeli control except the Gaza strip that was only abandoned so no Jews would get hurt in the attacks Israel has made on the Gaza strip ever since the pullout. Get Israel and its illegal Jewish settlers there out of the West Bank and set the Green Line as Israels borders, and all will be fine.


The Hitnatokot isnt over, they are still taking Israeli settlers ourt of the West Bank

I'm sorry, but G-d is actually an angry Sox fan. FUCK THE CUBS!!!

IDF...you need to update your sig for the ChiWS are not number 1 in the AL Central :D

I'm sorry, but G-d is actually an angry Sox fan. FUCK THE CUBS!!!

Your God is fabricated and no fan of anything at all.

Zen Accords, KNOCK IT OFF. While I get you're defending someone, do it in a less offensive manner next time.



Erastide
~Forum Moderator


Whatever. He learned his lesson.

Your God is fabricated and no fan of anything at all.

Lets not start a religious war in here please.

The Hitnatokot isnt over, they are still taking Israeli settlers ourt of the West Bank
You mean they are still building new houses for Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

And what about the ongioing land grab by means of the wall?
And what about the Golan?

Lets not start a religious war in here please.

But that's the very core of the Jewish assumption that they had any rights to the land.

Whatever. He learned his lesson.

1.-She

2.-From you, I learned nothing, no es que seas realmente un almacén de conocimiento interesante.

3.-What lesson, how to insult?

You mean they are still building new houses for Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

And what about the ongioing land grab by means of the wall?


Ain't true, jus tht eother day I heared in the Israeli news about the Hitnatkot in the West bank, where IDF is clearing Jewish Settlers in the West Bank

Don't worry, this isn't that big a deal. There always going at each other, this won't be too much different from all the other fights between them. Hopefully the US will be smart enough to stay out of this, but unfortunatly I doubt that will happen.

But that's the very core of the Jewish assumption that they had any rights to the land.

Not denying that but you came back with "God is fabricated.." and on here, that'll spark a religious war. Frankly, we've had enough of that on these forums. Please don't instigate one in this thread.

That Gaza invaded Gaza? Actually..its been all over the news.

You mean they are still building new houses for Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

And what about the ongioing land grab by means of the wall?
no. ulmert is planning to pullout several ten thousands of jewish settlers from the west bank.
although I supported the pullout from the strip (and I still support), I had no clue why he trying to do it against the will of european and US leaders, arab states, the plastinians, the terrorists, large part of the israeli citizens, his parlament, his goverment, and even his own party, despite the fact that this will be much harder,expensive and dangerous.
he keep saying that as mantra.

Not denying that but you came back with "God is fabricated.." and on here, that'll spark a religious war. Frankly, we've had enough of that on these forums. Please don't instigate one in this thread.

But the Jewish version of god is in fact fabricated. There is no way around that. And all claims based on the alleged connection between god and Jews are pointless.
Palestine should be returned to those families (Muslims and Jews alike) who lived there prior to 1920. All others have no business in Palestine.

i do not support an islamic caliphate, however I do support a pan-arab state. personally, i am an iraqi muslim with a democratic secular belief in politics. Egypt and Jordan cannot feesibly take in millions of displaced palestinians (displaced by Israel) into their nation, they will simply be moved into a nation, but will still live in tents. also, if you remember the jordanian civil war, the Palestinians wish to live on their own land, not neccessarily country, but land.

There aren't millions of displaced Palestinians. The official count of the PA is 900,000, and the UN count is 500,000. In addition, Jordan has vast tracts of unused land. It could easily take in all of the Palestinian refugees. Not that it should - not any more than Israel should. Jordan bears more of the moral responsibility for the refugees than Israel, since Jordan's invasion caused the refugee problem, and Jordan's annexation of the land thwarted a viable Palestinian state.

And the Jordanian civil war, and Black September, was a result of Palestinians wanting to live in Jordan, but the Jordanian government not allowing it.

if a country has to take extra land to secure its border, that country will be forever expanding. also, millions of people are paying the price for that. also, it is only "defensive" while the country is on its own soil, fending off attackers. when the country launches an offensive to attack the countries that attacked it, it is no longer a defensive campaign.

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Some borders are secure, while some are not. This is due to the geography and outline. Israel was non-contigious, and making it contigious was one step to fixing defensable borders. And, as Resolution 242 provides, Israel only has to return territories at its discression. It may, legally, keep what is necessary for a defensible border.

Your claim that something is defensive when it only occurs on its own soil is contrary to numerous wars acknowledged as defensive by the historical record. Such as the response of the United States to Pearl Harbor. Nor did Israel ever launch an offensive to attack those countries - the fighting resulted in Israel pushing the forces back.

havent you already said that the west bank and gaza are not parts of israel? also, they have to return all of the land, not just some, because it was all illegal. also, the camp david accords were not accepted by arafat as he knew that palestinians would start a civil war as they argue over whether to accept them or not, bear in mind that they were not given east jerusalem in the camp david accords.

No, they don't have to return all of it. This was made quite explict by those who drafted UN Resolution 242. Nor was it illegal. Again, made explict in Resolution 242. The myth of the "illegal occupation" is Arab rhetoric, there is currently no occupation that actually violates international law.

The Arab apologist myths about Camp David keep coming, too. Prince Bandar, Arafat's confidant who was at Camp David, didn't say that the Palestinian people wouldn't accept it. He said Arafat rejected it because he was a criminal and a liar. This, from Prince Bandar, a close friend of Arafat and a major Arab leader.

Lets go over what Resolution 242 says, so you're aware that Israel is not required by law to give back all the territories:

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." Note, it says "from territories" not "from all territories." This was made explict so that Israel did not have to withdraw from all territories. Pay close attention to what those who drafted Resolution 242 said:

Resolution 242 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_242#Arguments_against_.22all_territories.22_reading)

Arthur Goldburg, Ambassador to the UN "The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal are the word 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines' the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories, without defining the extent of withdrawal." ("The Meaning of 242", June 10, 1977)

Lord Caradon, participated in drafting the resolution "We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever." (MacNeil/Lehrer Report - March 30, 1978)

Eugene V. Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs (1966-1969):

" ... paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)
"UN SC 242 calls on Israel to withdraw only from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War - that is, not from 'all' the territories or even from 'the' territories... Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawal from 'all' the territory were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly one after another. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' 1949/1967 Armistice Demarcation Lines..." (UNSC Resolution 242, 1993, p. 17). The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council." (American Society of International Law - 1970)
"Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338... rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to 'secure and recognized borders', which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949." ("The Truth About 242" - November 5, 1990)

The Russian delegate Vasily Kuznetsov acknowledged before the adoption of Resolution 242:

" ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. ... there is certainly much leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient."

The Brazilian delegate Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, told the Security Council after 242's adoption:

"We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure, permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighbouring States."

George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967 commented:

I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70)

Lyndon B. Johnson, U.S. President (1963-1968):

"We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967 will not bring peace." (September 10, 1968)

Hopefully that makes UN Resolution 242 more clear to you. Israel is not required to withdraw from all of the territories, and may legally take what is necessary to create the 'secure and defensible borders' outlined in the resolution.

Palestine should be returned to those families (Muslims and Jews alike) who lived there prior to 1920. All others have no business in Palestine.
And while we're at it, we can let the people in the Balkans divide up their territory by ancient claim, and do ethnic cleansing.

And we can tell everyone except those descended PURELY from First People that they need to get out of North America.

But the Jewish version of god is in fact fabricated. There is no way around that. And all claims based on the alleged connection between god and Jews are pointless.

Do not start with this. Do not force me to have to respond to this sort of thing because That will most definitely spark a fight.

Palestine should be returned to those families (Muslims and Jews alike) who lived there prior to 1920. All others have no business in Palestine.

And you base this on what?

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

peace in the middle east.

Idealistic? It's downright patronizing.
The other bit sounds good! Got any plans for how it might happen ?

1.-She

2.-From you, I learned nothing, no es que seas realmente un almacén de conocimiento interesante.

3.-What lesson, how to insult?

1. Sorry

2. 您知道少许外部您自己的经验

3. Yep. You're arrogant but dull. Know your limits.

And what about the ongioing land grab by means of the wall?
israeli courts fixed the wall many times, to make it closer to 1967 borders.
And what about the Golan?first, this is other discussion and it demanded by the syrians.
second, we aren't going to give that away as they want to take over are only source of water, and their leadership is too busy with terror support and involving with lebanon.

You mean they are still building new houses for Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

And what about the ongioing land grab by means of the wall?
And what about the Golan?

Jewish settlers are building houses all by themselves. Which is perfectly legal under international law. International law only prohibits the forceful transfer of a population in or out of an occupied territory. Israel has never done this. Jewish settlers building hosues and settlements on privately owned Israeli land within the Occupied Territories is not a problem, and has been recognized as legal by the Israeli Supreme Court.

The "land grab" by means of the wall is protected under UN Resolution 242, which states Israel may create secure and defensible borders, while returning Occupied Territories, but not all of the Occupied Territories.

And the Golan was legally annexed. Its a strategic military position, again protected by UN Resoltuion 242 due to its necessity for defensible borders.

Lets not start a religious war in here please.

OK. You and me. Outside. :p

Do not start with this. Do not force me to have to respond to this sort of thing because That will most definitely spark a fight.

Which you would lose.

And you base this on what?

The natural right of Palestinian self rule after the downfall of the Ottoman Empire which was denied due to foreign interests in the region.

israeli courts fixed the wall many times, to make it closer to 1967 borders.
first, this is other discussion and it demanded by the syrians.
second, we aren't going to give that away as they want to take over are only source of water, and their leadership is too busy with terror support and involving with lebanon.

And their involvement in Lebanon is against UN Resolutions but I guess we already know that the Arab World doesn't care about the UN.

Which you would lose.

:rolleyes:

The natural right of Palestinian self rule after the downfall of the Ottoman Empire which was denied due to foreign interests in the region.

Again...based on what?

hmmmm, i guess youre right tropical sands. who cares about the palestinians anyway?

i dont think you realise that no matter how many laws are passed and how many policies are agreed to, the occupation of the palestinians is wrong. you're missing the point.

But that's the very core of the Jewish assumption that they had any rights to the land.

Religion isn't at the core of the belief in a Jewish right to land. You're exposing your lack of understanding regarding Zionism.

The earliest Zionists were secular, and the majority of Zionists have been secular. The belief that Jews were entitled to land was not a claim that they were entitled to that specific tract of a land - anyone familiar with Herzl would know this. Anyone honest enough to study up on Zionism before making judgments would know this.

Rather, they are the same humanistic rights in the US Declaration of Independence or the writings of John Locke. That a nation has the right to self-determination. Nor did Zionists who immigrated to Palestine believed that they had a right to the land over the few others that lived there. The fact that they displaced less than 2000 families between the beginning of Zionist settlement and 1948 demonstrates that fact. The fact that Arab villages flourished around Jewish kibbutzim and that the Arab lifespan increased by about five years testifies to that fact, as well.

Jewish settlers are building houses all by themselves. Which is perfectly legal under international law. International law only prohibits the forceful transfer of a population in or out of an occupied territory. Israel has never done this. Jewish settlers building hosues and settlements on privately owned Israeli land within the Occupied Territories is not a problem, and has been recognized as legal by the Israeli Supreme Court.

The "land grab" by means of the wall is protected under UN Resolution 242, which states Israel may create secure and defensible borders, while returning Occupied Territories, but not all of the Occupied Territories.

And the Golan was legally annexed. Its a strategic military position, again protected by UN Resoltuion 242 due to its necessity for defensible borders.

It may be legal, but surely you can see that the annexion of East Jerusalem in particular and the influx of armed colonisers only makes the situation worse and incite terror groups? Far from making Israel more secure.

Jewish settlers are building houses all by themselves. Which is perfectly legal under international law. International law only prohibits the forceful transfer of a population in or out of an occupied territory. Israel has never done this. Jewish settlers building hosues and settlements on privately owned Israeli land within the Occupied Territories is not a problem, and has been recognized as legal by the Israeli Supreme Court.

The "land grab" by means of the wall is protected under UN Resolution 242, which states Israel may create secure and defensible borders, while returning Occupied Territories, but not all of the Occupied Territories.

And the Golan was legally annexed. Its a strategic military position, again protected by UN Resoltuion 242 due to its necessity for defensible borders.

Who cares for UN resolutions or decisions made by an Israeli Court? Since when are those institutions impartial? No annexation of foreign territory can ever be legal.

hmmmm, i guess youre right tropical sands. who cares about the palestinians anyway?

i dont think you realise that no matter how many laws are passed and how many policies are agreed to, the occupation of the palestinians is wrong. you're missing the point.

This is the double standard used by the anti-Israelis. When they believe it is to their advantage, they are the very first to cry "illegal!" Yet, when it is pointed out that the Palestinians are in the wrong, or that Israel is protected by international law in respect to its actions, then they say "oh, who cares about the law? its wrong!"

Who cares for UN resolutions or decisions made by an Israeli Court? Since when are those institutions impartial? No annexation of foreign territory can ever be legal.

You're confusing "legal" with your subjective morality. Its quite legal, that much is an established fact. We have legal systems. Because they are systems, they are quite independent of your bias and subjective opinion.

The fact is, annexation can be, and often is, quite legal. You'll be hard pressed to demonstrate otherwise.

hmmmm, i guess youre right tropical sands. who cares about the palestinians anyway?


I don't see any Arab oil nations threatening to boycott the West if Israel makes a move.

I don't see Eqyptian soldiers moving to help Palestinians - in fact, it seems to be moving soldiers to prevent Palestinians from fleeing.

Syria is impotent. Jordan hates the Palestinians ever since their abortive attempt to take over the country.

Obviously not a lot of Arab nations leaping at the chance to attack Israel with their militaries or economic clout.

hmmmm, i guess youre right tropical sands. who cares about the palestinians anyway?

i dont think you realise that no matter how many laws are passed and how many policies are agreed to, the occupation of the palestinians is wrong. you're missing the point.

No your the one that is missing the point. Your failure to see the facts is astounding. I guess its what I come to expect from a racist pig.

Religion isn't at the core of the belief in a Jewish right to land. You're exposing your lack of understanding regarding Zionism.

The earliest Zionists were secular, and the majority of Zionists have been secular. The belief that Jews were entitled to land was not a claim that they were entitled to that specific tract of a land - anyone familiar with Herzl would know this. Anyone honest enough to study up on Zionism before making judgments would know this.

Rather, they are the same humanistic rights in the US Declaration of Independence or the writings of John Locke. That a nation has the right to self-determination. Nor did Zionists who immigrated to Palestine believed that they had a right to the land over the few others that lived there. The fact that they displaced less than 2000 families between the beginning of Zionist settlement and 1948 demonstrates that fact. The fact that Arab villages flourished around Jewish kibbutzim and that the Arab lifespan increased by about five years testifies to that fact, as well.

Judaism is a denomination, not a nation. Jewish territorial claims made by non-Palestinian Jews are not justifyable, regardless on what you try to base them.

Anyone remember when we though Camp David would solve this problem?
Wasn't that a nice feeling? Even if it was just a dream.

In the land of the stick, the carrot rules. :)

You're confusing "legal" with your subjective morality. Its quite legal, that much is an established fact. We have legal systems. Because they are systems, they are quite independent of your bias and subjective opinion.

The fact is, annexation can be, and often is, quite legal. You'll be hard pressed to demonstrate otherwise.

Show me the Syrian law that makes the Golan annexation legal.

This is the double standard used by the anti-Israelis. When they believe it is to their advantage, they are the very first to cry "illegal!" Yet, when it is pointed out that the Palestinians are in the wrong, or that Israel is protected by international law in respect to its actions, then they say "oh, who cares about the law? its wrong!"

of course it is, resolution 242 is very vague, and there are quite a few ways to interpret it, however read this sentence.

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_242

so yes, it is illegal.

Who cares for UN resolutions or decisions made by an Israeli Court? Since when are those institutions impartial? No annexation of foreign territory can ever be legal.

As far as I can tell...they haven't annexed anything for if they did....the PA wouldn't exist.

The natural right of Palestinian self rule after the downfall of the Ottoman Empire which was denied due to foreign interests in the region.

Once again, you're demonstrating your lack of historical knowledge here. There was no such thing as the "Palsetinian" people yet. They didn't idetify as such, and an anthropological nationality as such didn't exist yet either. They identified themselves as Syrians, and wanted the Ottoman Empire back. They hated the idea of self-rule as much as they hated the idea of "Palestine" and a Jewish State.

This was summed up well in a leading Arab leader's address to the Peel Commission, 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 part of Syria."

Funny you should mention religion not being a legitimate tool for political decision. The reason that Palestinians rejected the self rule you would unhistorically impose upon them was in part due to religion. They wanted their old Islamic rulers back.

hmmmm, i guess youre right tropical sands. who cares about the palestinians anyway?

i dont think you realise that no matter how many laws are passed and how many policies are agreed to, the occupation of the palestinians is wrong. you're missing the point.

I don't think you realise that no matter how much justification you attempt to find, Palestinian suicide bombers going around blowing up Israeli civilians is a lot more wrong than Israel's supposedly illegal occupation.

hmmmm, i guess youre right tropical sands. who cares about the palestinians anyway?

i dont think you realise that no matter how many laws are passed and how many policies are agreed to, the occupation of the palestinians is wrong. you're missing the point.

Like the one recognizing Israel? Or the one that puts a stop to cross border arab rocket fire? Or the one that........:rolleyes:

Religion isn't at the core of the belief in a Jewish right to land. You're exposing your lack of understanding regarding Zionism.

The earliest Zionists were secular, and the majority of Zionists have been secular. The belief that Jews were entitled to land was not a claim that they were entitled to that specific tract of a land - anyone familiar with Herzl would know this. Anyone honest enough to study up on Zionism before making judgments would know this.

Rather, they are the same humanistic rights in the US Declaration of Independence or the writings of John Locke. That a nation has the right to self-determination. Nor did Zionists who immigrated to Palestine believed that they had a right to the land over the few others that lived there. The fact that they displaced less than 2000 families between the beginning of Zionist settlement and 1948 demonstrates that fact. The fact that Arab villages flourished around Jewish kibbutzim and that the Arab lifespan increased by about five years testifies to that fact, as well.

So, one can use a religious doctrine so support the self-determination of the Jews, and then deny the same to Palestine. I don't dive a damn whether Zionism claims a religious right to land two thousand years ago or not - it is now being used as a Jewish so called right to whatever land they want, and the Zionist idea to a Greater Jewish Israel is no different to a Greater Palestine.

Anyone remember when we though Camp David would solve this problem?
Wasn't that a nice feeling? Even if it was just a dream.

In the land of the stick, the carrot rules. :)

Camp David? In 2000?

of course it is, resolution 242 is very vague, and there are quite a few ways to interpret it, however read this sentence. so yes, it is illegal.

Its actually only interpreted one way in the legal community, the way that the two drafters stated it should be interpreted. I've listed those previously. The only ones that interpret it differently are rejectionists. :rolleyes:

Let me know if you want to address the current legal standing on UN Resolution 242, instead of giving a rejectionist interpretation that is not the current legal standing.

I don't think you realise that no matter how much justification you attempt to find, Palestinian suicide bombers going around blowing up Israeli civilians is a lot more wrong than Israel's supposedly illegal occupation.

There is no "wronger".

Judaism is a denomination, not a nation. Jewish territorial claims made by non-Palestinian Jews are not justifyable, regardless on what you try to base them.there is jewish nation. you can't deny it.
any nation in the world as their right to national state. the palastinian "nation" too. they just refuse to stop the terror and build their nation on areas that israel offer to give them many times.

Show me the Syrian law that makes the Golan annexation legal.

What makes you think its subject to Syrian law? Its legal via Israeli law, which controls the land, and international law.

Like the one recognizing Israel? Or the one that puts a stop to cross border arab rocket fire? Or the one that........:rolleyes:

The ones that the PA has no authority to enforce? All the rocket sites are well out of PA-controlled areas.

Judaism is a denomination, not a nation. Jewish territorial claims made by non-Palestinian Jews are not justifyable, regardless on what you try to base them.

Not only do you need a history lesson, and a lesson in law, it would seem you need a lesson in anthropology. The way the term "nation" is used in science, in anthropology, Jews fit the criteria. They also fit the criteria for an ethnicity, as well as Judaism being a religion. That much is an anthropological fact, and the general concensus.

The ones that the PA has no authority to enforce? All the rocket sites are well out of PA-controlled areas.

The Qassam rockets are homebuilt, and fired from within Gaza.

Are you saying that the PA does not control Gaza?

What makes you think its subject to Syrian law? Its legal via Israeli law, which controls the land, and international law.
It's Syrian territory. Israeli law would of course legalize everything that Israel does. That doesn't count.

there is jewish nation. you can't deny it.
any nation in the world as their right to national state. the palastinian "nation" too. they just refuse to stop the terror and build their nation on areas that israel offer to give them many times.

How can they build their nation while it is under occupation, with no infrastructure, and under constant attack? They are in no situation to be able to stop the terror, with no real government or force to do it.

It's Syrian territory. Israeli law would of course legalize everything that Israel does. That doesn't count.

UN Resolutions do :D

So, one can use a religious doctrine so support the self-determination of the Jews, and then deny the same to Palestine. I don't dive a damn whether Zionism claims a religious right to land two thousand years ago or not - it is now being used as a Jewish so called right to whatever land they want, and the Zionist idea to a Greater Jewish Israel is no different to a Greater Palestine.

Well, since your statement commits the fallacy of internal contradiction, I don't know how to respond - do you care about a religious claim or not?

Lets assume you do, so I can try to wipe some of the froth that is building up around your mouth away.

In Israel, only the far right religious groups adhere to religious Zionism in any malignant form, and only the extreme right believe in a "Greater Israel." Contrast this to Palestinians, the majority of whom support a "Greater Palestine", as evidenced by the fact they elected a party that supports that doctrine.

While the two are the same, religious extremism, this religious extremism is far more prevalent in Palestinian society.

Its actually only interpreted one way in the legal community, the way that the two drafters stated it should be interpreted. I've listed those previously. The only ones that interpret it differently are rejectionists. :rolleyes:

Let me know if you want to address the current legal standing on UN Resolution 242, instead of giving a rejectionist interpretation that is not the current legal standing.

read the wiki article, the different translations have different implications.

also, please tell me about your reaction to that fundamental sentence, the one that says they must retreat from the occupied land.

How can they build their nation while it is under occupation, with no infrastructure, and under constant attack? They are in no situation to be able to stop the terror, with no real government or force to do it.

Well maybe the Palestinians should've thought of that before they went on their little jihad against Israel by blowing themselves up and killing innocent men, women and children.

It's Syrian territory. Israeli law would of course legalize everything that Israel does. That doesn't count.
and syrian law of course legalize the syrian interests.
we are the democracy here. our courts passed more decisions against the goverment opinion, than all the muslim or arab states together.

The ones that the PA has no authority to enforce? All the rocket sites are well out of PA-controlled areas.

Not only did you miss my first point, but you are completly retarded.

DK got to it before me though, so I have to give him the honors.

The Qassam rockets are homebuilt, and fired from within Gaza.

Are you saying that the PA does not control Gaza?

The Qassam rockets are homebuilt, and fired from within Gaza.

Are you saying that the PA does not control Gaza?

Controls it in name, but does not have any of the necessary resources or infrastructure to do it. Gaza has recently been in a state of anarchy, and impossible to control.

Well, since your statement commits the fallacy of internal contradiction, I don't know how to respond - do you care about a religious claim or not?

Lets assume you do, so I can try to wipe some of the froth that is building up around your mouth away.

In Israel, only the far right religious groups adhere to religious Zionism in any malignant form, and only the extreme right believe in a "Greater Israel." Contrast this to Palestinians, the majority of whom support a "Greater Palestine", as evidenced by the fact they elected a party that supports that doctrine.

While the two are the same, religious extremism, this religious extremism is far more prevalent in Palestinian society.

likud believes in a greater israel, and that is israels centre right. i wonder wat israels extreme right looks like :eek:

It's Syrian territory. Israeli law would of course legalize everything that Israel does. That doesn't count.

No, it isn't Syrian territory. Not according to the Rules of War and international law. You see, Israel took it in a defensive war. Then, Israel annexed it. In addition, a UN Resolution that supports Israel's right to do so exists. Legally, it is Israeli territory. It isn't any more Syrian territory just because it was formerly a part of Syria than England is Italian territory because it was formerly a part of Rome.

Not only do you need a history lesson, and a lesson in law, it would seem you need a lesson in anthropology. The way the term "nation" is used in science, in anthropology, Jews fit the criteria. They also fit the criteria for an ethnicity, as well as Judaism being a religion. That much is an anthropological fact, and the general concensus.

From a Jewish perspective maybe. Jews still are not a nation nor a people. Judaism is a belief, nothing more.

likud believes in a greater israel, and that is israels centre right. i wonder wat israels extreme right looks like :eek:

Likud hasn't believed in a Greater Israel in a long time. Decades. Likud has supported a two-state solution ever since Oslo, when the Palestinians decided to compromise some.

Controls it in name, but does not have any of the necessary resources or infrastructure to do it. Gaza has recently been in a state of anarchy, and impossible to control.

impossible? Or maybe they just are on the same level as the attackers and do feel the need to give it a high priority?

Not only did you miss my first point, but you are completly retarded.

DK got to it before me though, so I have to give him the honors.

Perhaps you'd like to respond with something other than petty insults? As I said, Gaza has been in a state of anarchy, and not under any kind of control whatsoever.

From a Jewish perspective maybe. Jews still are not a nation nor a people. Judaism is a belief, nothing more.

Yep...its official.

You have no idea what you are talking about despite the evidence provided against what you have said.

Perhaps you'd like to respond with something other than petty insults? As I said, Gaza has been in a state of anarchy, and not under any kind of control whatsoever.
That's not Isreal's fault.

And I suppose, since no one is in charge who can stop the rocket attacks, it is Israel's right to go in and ensure that they stop.

From a Jewish perspective maybe. Jews still are not a nation nor a people. Judaism is a belief, nothing more.

From an anthropological persepective. They fit the criteria of a "nation" as defined. A shared language, culture, and location. Again, this is secular science and undisputed. You might as well throw in some pseudo-racial eugenics theories while you reject this, since you're wandering outside the realm of established scientific fact.

impossible? Or maybe they just are on the same level as the attackers and do feel the need to give it a high priority?

Since one of the biggest problems in Gaza has been Fatah-Hamas infighting, I would say that Hamas would want to bring that area under their control, and a priority.

Likud hasn't believed in a Greater Israel in a long time. Decades. Likud has supported a two-state solution ever since Oslo, when the Palestinians decided to compromise some.

and that is why netanyahu did not trust arafat, because they supported oslo

also, answer the fundamental sentence in resolution 242

That's not Isreal's fault.

And I suppose, since no one is in charge who can stop the rocket attacks, it is Israel's right to go in and ensure that they stop.

Not necessarily Israel. As I said in other threads, I support an international task force to continue the occupation and prevent further colonisation, and to provide support in terms of aid, infrastucture and defence to bring the country to a state where it can become democratic.

How can they build their nation while it is under occupation, with no infrastructure, and under constant attack? They are in no situation to be able to stop the terror, with no real government or force to do it.
sure, while it comfortable for them they had no real goverment.
the palastinians aren't under constant attack and if they wouldn't mainstrate in terror attacks and missle launching, they may rebuild the strip with foriegn aid (which only stopped half a year later when they chose terror organization as their leading party).
the israeli idea was let the palastinians govern themselves for a while in their mini-state and negotiate with them on peace treaty after they will prove capabillities in selfe management and fight of terror.

10 months after the pullout they only prove the opposite. give them more lands and independence will be suicide.

Since one of the biggest problems in Gaza has been Fatah-Hamas infighting, I would say that Hamas would want to bring that area under their control.

If I was the Palestinian Government, I think i would make damn sure that nobody in my country attacks Isarel...to prevent Israel from coming into the country to fuck it up...because of the attacks.


THEN...I would focus on the inter-palestinian stuff...would you agree that this would be a smart thing to do?

Not necessarily Israel. As I said in other threads, I support an international task force to continue the occupation and prevent further colonisation, and to provide support in terms of aid, infrastucture and defence to bring the country to a state where it can become democratic.

Yes, I see nations leaping at the chance to fight Palestinian insurgents, who will see their struggle coming to an end without the destruction of Israel.

Camp David? In 2000?

Yeah. I'm out of my depth, but still trying to get the chicken soup on the table. So much hate here. Some good points being made, but not many minds changing that I can see.

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.



You my friend are very wrong here. Israel didn't get US weaponry until after Nixon was elected in 1969. The Six Day War was in 1967. The weapons used by Israel were actually about on par with the weapons used by the Arabs. The Arabs were being supplied with the newest military technology from the USSR. Israel was using older French technology that was no where near what the US had. Israeli pilots had 25:1 kill ratios. Compare that to the 3:1 that the US was getting in Vietnam with F-4s vs. MiG-21s and MiG-17s. The Israelis did that with older Mirages. Israel won because of skill.

sure, while it comfortable for them they had no real goverment.
the palastinians aren't under constant attack and if they wouldn't mainstrate in terror attacks and missle launching, they may rebuild the strip with foriegn aid (which only stopped half a year later when they chose terror organization as their leading party).
the israeli idea was let the palastinians govern themselves for a while in their mini-state and negotiate with them on peace treaty after they will prove capabillities in selfe management and fight of terror.

10 months after the pullout they only prove the opposite. give them more lands and independence will be suicide.

As I said in my above post, I don't support suddenly leaving the area in anarchy. However, the West Bank/Gaza is not a mini state, it is a 'state' under occupation - and occupation is fuelling the problem just as much as the terror is.

and that is why netanyahu did not trust arafat, because they supported oslo

also, answer the fundamental sentence in resolution 242

Did you ignore the legal rulings on that very sentence I posted for you? It states that "territories" must be returned. Not all of them. That was left that way quite explictly, as described by those who drafted UN Resolution 242. I'll go ahead and post it for you, again:

Now remember, these are all references to this one line, the line you mentioned - Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.

Also keep in mind that Lord Caradon and George Brown were the ones who drafted it. Lets see what everyone, including the UN Ambassador, says this sentence means:

* Arthur J. Goldberg, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (1965-1967):

"It calls for respect and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every state in the area. Since Israel never denied the sovereignty of its neighbouring countries, this language obviously requires those countries to acknowledge Israel's sovereignty."
"The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal are the word 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines' the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories, without defining the extent of withdrawal." ("The Meaning of 242", June 10, 1977)

* Lord Caradon, author of the draft resolution that was adopted as U.N. Resolution 242, UK Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970):

"We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever." (MacNeil/Lehrer Report - March 30, 1978)

* Eugene V. Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs (1966-1969):

" ... paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)
"UN SC 242 calls on Israel to withdraw only from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War - that is, not from 'all' the territories or even from 'the' territories... Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawal from 'all' the territory were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly one after another. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' 1949/1967 Armistice Demarcation Lines..." (UNSC Resolution 242, 1993, p. 17). The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council." (American Society of International Law - 1970)
"Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338... rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to 'secure and recognized borders', which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949." ("The Truth About 242" - November 5, 1990)

* The Russian delegate Vasily Kuznetsov acknowledged before the adoption of Resolution 242:

" ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. ... there is certainly much leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient."

* The Brazilian delegate Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, told the Security Council after 242's adoption:

"We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure, permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighbouring States."

* George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967 commented:

"I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70)

* Lyndon B. Johnson, U.S. President (1963-1968):

"We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967 will not bring peace." (September 10, 1968)



Hopefully that clears it up for you. Those involved in the drafting have stated that it only refers to territorial withdrawl, not a full withdrawl from all territories. And that, Iraqiya, is the current legal ruling on the issue.

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.



You my friend are very wrong here. Israel didn't get US weaponry until after Nixon was elected in 1969. The Six Day War was in 1967. The weapons used by Israel were actually about on par with the weapons used by the Arabs. The Arabs were being supplied with the newest military technology from the USSR. Israel was using older French technology that was no where near what the US had. Israeli pilots had 25:1 kill ratios. Compare that to the 3:1 that the US was getting in Vietnam with F-4s vs. MiG-21s and MiG-17s. The Israelis did that with older Mirages. Israel won because of skill.

But the Jewish version of god is in fact fabricated. There is no way around that. And all claims based on the alleged connection between god and Jews are pointless.
Palestine should be returned to those families (Muslims and Jews alike) who lived there prior to 1920. All others have no business in Palestine.

your goal to try and reverse history?

the Americans took the land of the indians, so we should return all that land to them

the Australians took the land of the natives, so lets return all that land

the romans conquered Europe, so the land should go back to those that were there before the romans conquered.

As I said in my above post, I don't support suddenly leaving the area in anarchy. However, the West Bank/Gaza is not a mini state, it is a 'state' under occupation - and occupation is fuelling the problem just as much as the terror is.
the gaza strip is no longer occupied territory. we have no force nor settlements their for 10 months. until they decide to use the strip as terror base, they get all the toolsto rebuild the strip, but they didn't.
there is two options. or this is anarchy and than israel can get into the strip in order to free the soldier and fight the terrorists, or the palastinians control the area which mean their leadership are responsible to all the terror attacks from the strip.

You my friend are very wrong here. Israel didn't get US weaponry until after Nixon was elected in 1969. The Six Day War was in 1967. The weapons used by Israel were actually about on par with the weapons used by the Arabs. The Arabs were being supplied with the newest military technology from the USSR. Israel was using older French technology that was no where near what the US had. Israeli pilots had 25:1 kill ratios. Compare that to the 3:1 that the US was getting in Vietnam with F-4s vs. MiG-21s and MiG-17s. The Israelis did that with older Mirages. Israel won because of skill.

It is rather unfortunate that Israel has, and needs, a well practiced and skilled defense force.

It is rather unfortunate that Israel has, and needs, a well practiced and skilled defense force.
that what happened when the arab states or the terrorists keep attack us.

It is rather unfortunate that Israel has, and needs, a well practiced and skilled defense force.

Any other countries where it is unfortunante that they have a skilled military, or just Israel?

It is rather unfortunate that Israel has, and needs, a well practiced and skilled defense force.


It would be fortunate if they didn't?

More like its unfortunate that so many people hate Israel that they have to maintain a well practived and skilled defense force.

the gaza strip is no longer occupied territory. we have no force nor settlements their for 10 months. until they decide to use the strip as terror base, they get all the toolsto rebuild the strip, but they didn't.
there is two options. or this is anarchy and than israel can get into the strip in order to free the soldier and fight the terrorists, or the palastinians control the area which mean their leadership are responsible to all the terror attacks from the strip.

I don't doubt the responsibility of the PA leadership in failing to remove terror. However, they (Hamas/Fatah) have limited their activity to the 1967 borders:

"[Palestinians aim] to establish an independent state with holy Jerusalem as its capital on all the territories occupied in 1967"
"[Signatories commit to] resistance through various means, and confining resistance in the territories occupied in 1967, in addition to political, negotiating and diplomatic action"

More like its unfortunate that so many people hate Israel that they have to maintain a well practived and skilled defense force.

Seriously. Its also unfortunante so many people hate Israel that Israel gets implctly insulted and condemned for having a skilled military.

It would be fortunate if they didn't?

No, it is unfortunate that Israel is in the situation where it requires one.

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.
Nope. Look for America to sit this one out.

I don't doubt the responsibility of the PA leadership in failing to remove terror. However, they (Hamas/Fatah) have limited their activity to the 1967 borders:

No, they havn't limited their activity to the 1967 borders. Nor did the BBC claim they did. The article stated that was a quotation from the Prisoner's Plan, a document that hasn't even been accepted. The fact is, Hamas has recently broken a cease-fire and Fatah has been doing terror attacks in Israel for quite some time.

You posting things like this, way out of their context, says something about your agenda.

Seriously. Its also unfortunante so many people hate Israel that Israel gets implctly insulted and condemned for having a skilled military.
It's become almost "normal" for many of those who live in the peace and safety provided by professional military organizations to insult and comdemn the very people who protect them.

I don't doubt the responsibility of the PA leadership in failing to remove terror. However, they (Hamas/Fatah) have limited their activity to the 1967 borders:
it din't mention their that they WOULDN'T attack outside the borders, just that they WILL attack in 67 borders.
and I said before, this had many phrase who make it meaningless, it signd only by the mainstream of those two parties and not the organization they support and maintain, nor anyone of the other terror organization in this area.
the palastinians may be better with words, but their act prove the opposite.

It's become almost "normal" for many of those who live in the peace and safety provided by professional military organizations to insult and comdemn the very people who protect them.
I don't know, the soldiers in WWI and WWII seemed to get a good amount of fanfare. You know, the last two wars where we wern't starting shit. Hell, I think those were the last two actual wars.

there is two options. or this is anarchy and than israel can get into the strip in order to free the soldier and fight the terrorists, or the palastinians control the area which mean their leadership are responsible to all the terror attacks from the strip.

Grammar thing. "Either <one option>, or <other option>." To exclude both, use "neither <one thing>, nor <other thing>. Also, "two options" is plural, so "there are two options" is more correct.
You're making a lot of sense, actually.

No, they havn't limited their activity to the 1967 borders. Nor did the BBC claim they did. The article stated that was a quotation from the Prisoner's Plan, a document that hasn't even been accepted. The fact is, Hamas has recently broken a cease-fire and Fatah has been doing terror attacks in Israel for quite some time.

You posting things like this, way out of their context, says something about your agenda.

Rival Palestinian political factions Fatah and Hamas have reached agreement on a common political strategy to try to end a damaging power struggle.

It, as far as I can see been accepted by Hamas/Fatah. If you can find another source to the contrary, please correct me. However, since the debate was over missiles fired into Israel, and the document seems to show that Hamas/Fatah want this to stop, I think it is well within context.

However, out of curiosity, what do you think my 'agenda' is?

It, as far as I can see been accepted by Hamas/Fatah. If you can find another source to the contrary, please correct me. However, since the debate was over missiles fired into Israel, and the document seems to show that Hamas/Fatah want this to stop, I think it is well within context.

However, out of curiosity, what do you think my 'agenda' is?

As far as you can see? The BBC article didn't state that. In fact, the Prisoner's Plan is still being debated. You've got an article from May 12 that mentions it, and you've somehow been able to "see" that its been accepted, when the BBC article doesn't say that.

And no, I don't have a source to the contrary. Its an established fact. There are no negative sources, and to request one is to slip into a fallacy (the fallacy of negative proof). I can't show you an article that says "it didn't accept it", but I can tell you that this article does not say that they did. Nor do any others - because they havn't accepted it. :rolleyes:

Not to mention that since May 12 Hamas has fired missiles into Israel. This occured on June 13. But don't let the facts stop your Israel bashing.

..isrial(cant spell)..has nukes.
bye bye palestine c:

As far as you can see? The BBC article didn't state that. In fact, the Prisoner's Plan is still being debated. You've got an article from May 12 that mentions it, and you've somehow been able to "see" that its been accepted, when the BBC article doesn't say that.

And no, I don't have a source to the contrary. Its an established fact. There are no negative sources, and to request one is to slip into a fallacy (the fallacy of negative proof). I can't show you an article that says "it didn't accept it", but I can tell you that this article does not say that they did. Nor do any others - because they havn't accepted it. :rolleyes:

Not to mention that since May 12 Hamas has fired missiles into Israel. This occured on June 13. But don't let the facts stop your Israel bashing.

The article says that Hamas and Fatah agree on it. However, if it is still being debated and/or rockets are still being fired - I apologise for wasting your time.

However - I disagree that I was Israel Bashing, unless I got carried away. I have no disagreements at all with the existance of the Israeli state, and under no circumstance believe all the blame for the current problem lies with Israel. However, I believe it could do more - as could Palestine - to end the problem.

Though, just to demonstrate that you've taken the BBC article from May out of context and drawn a false conclusion (one not implied or stated within the article), here is an editorial from an English-Arabic newspaper regarding the same document from June 6:

The Prisoner's Document, Dialogue and Referendum (http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/contributors/06-2006/Article-20060607-af1ef1cc-c0a8-10ed-00c1-55650b009a3d/story.html)

I hope the Palestinians will adopt the prisoner's document through dialogue or a referendum.

Hopefully that should make it clear that it wasn't accepted in May. And it still hasn't been accepted. Not that it is any more binding than Arafat's pseudo-recognition of Israel during Oslo. It didn't stop terror, and it didn't stop PLO affiliates from refusing to recognize Israel.

Anarchy land34']..isrial(cant spell)..has nukes.
bye bye palestine c:

I've just been thinking about this (read previous pages), but nah, they can't nuke Palestine without nuking itself, actually. I would assume that they are more for other states like Iran should they be threatened.

I don't know, the soldiers in WWI and WWII seemed to get a good amount of fanfare. You know, the last two wars where we wern't starting shit. Hell, I think those were the last two actual wars.
It's well said that, when the issues are less than black and white there are many willing to side with their own country's opponents.

I dont think another Arab Country would be involved, but if there is, i think it would be Egypt, its time for the Arabs to kick some Aragont Israeli ASS...

i mean, they are willing to kill an entire nation just because they have captured one of their soldiers?? why dont they release the 5000 palestinian women and children they have in their prisons... the kidnapers requests were reasonalble, release the women and children in the prisons and they will set him free, but NO, israel is too aragont for such a move..

lets destroy their infrastructure and kill a couple of thousands, then they should claim defeat...:sniper:

oof then we can call them terrorists... right??

Grammar thing. "Either <one option>, or <other option>." To exclude both, use "neither <one thing>, nor <other thing>. Also, "two options" is plural, so "there are two options" is more correct.
You're making a lot of sense, actually.
thanks. I keep that in mind.

Though, just to demonstrate that you've taken the BBC article from May out of context and drawn a false conclusion (one not implied or stated within the article), here is an editorial from an English-Arabic newspaper regarding the same document from June 6:

The Prisoner's Document, Dialogue and Referendum (http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/contributors/06-2006/Article-20060607-af1ef1cc-c0a8-10ed-00c1-55650b009a3d/story.html)



Hopefully that should make it clear that it wasn't accepted in May. And it still hasn't been accepted. Not that it is any more binding than Arafat's pseudo-recognition of Israel during Oslo. It didn't stop terror, and it didn't stop PLO affiliates from refusing to recognize Israel.

From what I can read in the article, "eached agreement on a common political strategy" seesm to suggest Hamas agrees to it. However, as the article you linked to seems to suggest, it hasn't. Again, I apologise for wasting your time.

I dont think another Arab Country would be involved, but if there is, i think it would be Egypt, its time for the Arabs to kick some Aragont Israeli ASS...

i mean, they are willing to kill an entire nation just because they have captured one of their soldiers?? why dont they release the 5000 palestinian women and children they have in their prisons... the kidnapers requests were reasonalble, release the women and children in the prisons and they will set him free, but NO, israel is too aragont for such a move..

lets destroy their infrastructure and kill a couple of thousands, then they should claim defeat...:sniper:

oof then we can call them terrorists... right??

They aren't going to kill an entire nation. The population of Gaza is less than a third of that of the Palestinian territories, and Israel is not going to kill them all. However, if Israel is to negociate, Palestine has to negociate and not resort to kidnapping. If Hamas recognised Israel, for example, that would be a pretext where negocaions could start, and not just over a fre prisoners, but a full withdrawal.

It's well said that, when the issues are less than black and white there are many willing to side with their own country's opponents.
Speaking of grey issues, opposing one side does not equate to supporting the other.

Anarchy land34']..isrial(cant spell)..has nukes.
bye bye palestine c:

i think they will be bye byeing Israel too

i think they will be bye byeing Israel too
we aren't idiots who will attack neighbour countries with the nukes it said we had, as we had much superior and conventional force than any of them.

They aren't going to kill an entire nation. The population of Gaza is less than a third of that of the Palestinian territories, and Israel is not going to kill them all. However, if Israel is to negociate, Palestine has to negociate and not resort to kidnapping. If Hamas recognised Israel, for example, that would be a pretext where negocaions could start, and not just over a fre prisoners, but a full withdrawal.

ok... this is rather Utopian kind of speaking, do you really thinki Israel is ready to negociate??, and if they are, do you think the Arabs will EVER trust them, after all they have the reputation of backstabing their enemies in the back, right??

ok... this is rather Utopian kind of speaking, do you really thinki Israel is ready to negociate??, and if they are, do you think the Arabs will EVER trust them, after all they have the reputation of backstabing their enemies in the back, right??

Same reputation for the arabs. the problem is that noone will ever have trust in the other side, or be worthy of that trust, in that zone.

It's sad, I foresee more and more troubles in the area for the next forever.

ok... this is rather Utopian kind of speaking, do you really thinki Israel is ready to negociate??, and if they are, do you think the Arabs will EVER trust them, after all they have the reputation of backstabing their enemies in the back, right??

Yes, I do think Israel would negociate if they were called upon it to by the PA. Likewise, I don't think the Arabs will trust them. However, both parties will have to trust for peace to succeed.

While I disagree with Israeli colonisation and annexion of East Jerusalem, I equally disagree with terror tactics. I side with neither.

I dont think another Arab Country would be involved, but if there is, i think it would be Egypt, its time for the Arabs to kick some Aragont Israeli ASS...

Pfffft...Yeah, cuz we all know how that turned out the last couple times...:rolleyes:

Stupid arabs...this is the arab mentality that causes the situation to continue and worsen....because with you arabs its all about payback...and with the Israelis, its all about defending their legit right to exist.


Its sorta like when the Israelis handed over some of their land to the palestinians....and the palestinians...instead of seeing this as a fight for peace....saw it that...THEY ARE WINNING...the Isrealis ARE LOSING, WEAKEKING AND GIVING UP!!!!!!! FIGHT HARDER!!!!

It seems to me that all the arabs want is more bloodshed...which Israel, with its superior state and military...will be only glad to offer.

Yes, I do think Israel would negociate if they were called upon it to by the PA. Likewise, I don't think the Arabs will trust them. However, both parties will have to trust for peace to succeed.

While I disagree with Israeli colonisation and annexion of East Jerusalem, I equally disagree with terror tactics. I side with neither.

Spoils of war.

Spoils of war.

How Genghis Khan...do you really believe you are above the arabs in this?...

Well, thinking more carefully, you slightly are, but it doesn't give you an outstanding moral high ground.

How Genghis Khan...do you really believe you are above the arabs in this?...

Well, thinking more carefully, you slightly are, but it doesn't give you an outstanding moral high ground.

1. I'm not Israeli.

2. Yes..I do beleive the Israelis are above the arabs on this. They simply want to right to exist in a legit state....thats their main goal...period. The arabs main goal is the destruction of the legitimate state of Israel...period.

Yes, the Israelis are head and shoulder pads above the arabs.

Spoils of war.

In other words, ego.

ok... this is rather Utopian kind of speaking, do you really thinki Israel is ready to negociate??, and if they are, do you think the Arabs will EVER trust them, after all they have the reputation of backstabing their enemies in the back, right??
well, lets repeat the known facts.
the arab states or the terrorists attacked israel in all the wars. they lose.
israel sign peace treaties with egypt (1979, we gave them back sinai) and jordan (1994).
israel negociate with the palastinians many times, and accepted to give the palastinians 95% of the west bank and the gaza strip (as well as coming for the palastinians demends in many areas). the palastinians refused to signed it and keep support the terror (mainly Arrafat).
in oslo agreement we supply weopnary to the palastinians forces. they used them against us while the start the second intifada.
israel pullout from the strip before 10 months. from that time they launch more missles on israeli city (although they launch thousands even before), and they kidnappd settler in the west bank and soldier in the strip.
still israel is willing to pullout from more areas in the west bank and take over dozens of settlements with several ten thousands of settlers (according to the israeli prime minister plan).

remind me what you said about backstabbing?

In other words, ego.

Meh...Jerusalem is a hell of alot better of in Israeli hands than in arab hands.

If it was arab, 'infidels' wouldnt even be allowed to visit it.

Sorta like when I went to Israel over Christmas and we werent allowed in the Dome of the Rock (under muslim control) because we were 'of the faith'....or sorta like how we cant to go to Saudi Arabia (Mecca) because we are not "of the faith".....arab control is shitty control...I'd much rather see Jerusalem in control of civilized people, not savages, thank you very much.

1. I'm not Israeli.

2. Yes..I do beleive the Israelis are above the arabs on this. They simply want to right to exist in a legit state....thats their main goal...period. The arabs main goal is the destruction of the legitimate state of Israel...period.

Yes, the Israelis are head and shoulder pads above the arabs.

It would be mistaken to say all Arabs want Israel destroyed. If ordinary Palestinian people had a choice, I'm sure they would take peace on their own any day over trying to destroy Israel.

Is the ballot over two-states going ahead?

It would be mistaken to say all Arabs want Israel destroyed. If ordinary Palestinian people had a choice, I'm sure they would take peace on their own any day over trying to destroy Israel.

Is the ballot over two-states going ahead?

I didnt say the people...I was talking about the arab agenda.

Driven out by arabs...not all arabs, but enough to make it matter.

Meh...Jerusalem is a hell of alot better of in Israeli hands than in arab hands.

If it was arab, 'infidels' wouldnt even be allowed to visit it.

Sorta like when I went to Israel over Christmas and we werent allowed in the Dome of the Rock (under muslim control) because we were 'of the faith'....or sorta like how we cant to go to Saudi Arabia (Mecca) because we are not "of the faith".....arab control is shitty control...I'd much rather see Jerusalem in control of civilized people, not savages, thank you very much.

So, let's kick the barbarian Arab subhumans out their homes to make space for the superior Jewish Israelis?:rolleyes: If East Jerusalem were a Palestinian capital it would make peace and reconcillation much easier. They're only asking for a tiny bit, after all.

well, lets repeat the known facts.
the arab states or the terrorists attacked israel in all the wars. they lose.
israel sign peace treaties with egypt (1979, we gave them back sinai) and jordan (1994).
israel negociate with the palastinians many times, and accepted to give the palastinians 95% of the west bank and the gaza strip (as well as coming for the palastinians demends in many areas). the palastinians refused to signed it and keep support the terror (mainly Arrafat).
in oslo agreement we supply weopnary to the palastinians forces. they used them against us while the start the second intifada.
israel pullout from the strip before 10 months. from that time they launch more missles on israeli city (although they launch thousands even before), and they kidnappd settler in the west bank and soldier in the strip.
still israel is willing to pullout from more areas in the west bank and take over dozens of settlements with several ten thousands of settlers (according to the israeli prime minister plan).

remind me what you said about backstabbing?


Good post, agreed 100%

Pfffft...Yeah, cuz we all know how that turned out the last couple times...:rolleyes:

Stupid arabs...this is the arab mentality that causes the situation to continue and worsen....because with you arabs its all about payback...and with the Israelis, its all about defending their legit right to exist.


Its sorta like when the Israelis handed over some of their land to the palestinians....and the palestinians...instead of seeing this as a fight for peace....saw it that...THEY ARE WINNING...the Isrealis ARE LOSING, WEAKEKING AND GIVING UP!!!!!!! FIGHT HARDER!!!!

It seems to me that all the arabs want is more bloodshed...which Israel, with its superior state and military...will be only glad to offer.


please have the gutts to include my whole quote, i was referring that this is the actions that Arabs should take incase of Israel starts killing palestinians... if you mean that Arabs should ask for peace after being bombed, then you are asking for the Arabs to be slapped in tha face then ask for forgiveness...

would you do that???

look what the US did after being bombed in 9.11, they kicked some ASS... what i was saying is that Israel bombing Gaza should be faught back, if not then they should go to the Peave tables, which i dont believe will happen in the near future...

I didnt say the people...I was talking about the arab agenda.

Driven out by arabs...not all arabs, but enough to make it matter.

There's plenty of nutters, I don't doubt that, but why generalise all Arabs by a nutty minority?

So, let's kick the barbarian Arab subhumans out their homes to make space for the superior Jewish Israelis?:rolleyes: If East Jerusalem were a Palestinian capital it would make peace and reconcillation much easier. They're only asking for a tiny bit, after all.

East Jerusalem is part of Jerusalem, which is Israeli.

East Jerusalem is not a 'tiny' bit...and you apparently ignored all the other things I said about important places that are under arab control.

There's plenty of nutters, I don't doubt that, but why generalise all Arabs by a nutty minority?


...uh, because they are the leaders and the ones pushing the agenda against little opposition from their own people?

There's plenty of nutters, I don't doubt that, but why generalise all Arabs by a nutty minority?

Inasmuch as the others appearently don't act at all - why take the existence of the others into consideration in the first place?

I am so pleased by Israel's decision. It is the answer to my prayer for that poor soldier. If that soldier is harmed, I hope that Israel kills (painfully) all responsible and then shoots all their friends and relatives. In short, I hope Israel goes Kaiser Soseii on their butts.

East Jerusalem is part of Jerusalem, which is Israeli.

East Jerusalem is not a 'tiny' bit...and you apparently ignored all the other things I said about important places that are under arab control.

Yes, I did, because they have nothing to do with Palestine. It may be "shitty control" in your opinion, but it is not your place to decide for them.

Secondly, East Jerusalem has an Arab population, not a Jewish one. How does that make it Israeli?

So, let's kick the barbarian Arab subhumans out their homes to make space for the superior Jewish Israelis?:rolleyes: If East Jerusalem were a Palestinian capital it would make peace and reconcillation much easier. They're only asking for a tiny bit, after all.don't put racist statement in the israelis mouth. facts prove that israel is more civilized, modern, democratic and progresive than any of the other middle eastren state. it had less to do with nation or religion and much with the arab leaders as whole.
they aren't just asking for tiny bit. this is just little part of their demands. in negociation, no side can get all he want. they just refused to understood this simple truth.

Inasmuch as the others appearently don't act at all - why take the existence of the others into consideration in the first place?

Because it is them who feel the effects of the nutters more than any other.

I am so pleased by Israel's decision. It is the answer to my prayer for that poor soldier. If that soldier is harmed, I hope that Israel kills (painfully) all responsible and then shoots all their friends and relatives. In short, I hope Israel goes Kaiser Soseii on their butts.

Wondrous, he illustrates our points so beautifully. Why a israelian life is worth dozens of palestinians? Are you above of other human beings?

They deserve to receive the might of the law, nothing else, nothing more, noone else

Yes, I did, because they have nothing to do with Palestine. It may be "shitty control" in your opinion, but it is not your place to decide for them.

Secondly, East Jerusalem has an Arab population, not a Jewish one. How does that make it Israeli?

*checks flag*
Magen David waving...

*turns around*
Toss the visiting FC Amman supporters back over the Allenby bridge.

please have the gutts to include my whole quote, i was referring that this is the actions that Arabs should take incase of Israel starts killing palestinians... if you mean that Arabs should ask for peace after being bombed, then you are asking for the Arabs to be slapped in tha face then ask for forgiveness...

would you do that???

look what the US did after being bombed in 9.11, they kicked some ASS... what i was saying is that Israel bombing Gaza should be faught back, if not then they should go to the Peave tables, which i dont believe will happen in the near future...

It's not about the gutts, I was just commenting about a part of it.

Israel is there because the arab kidnapped an Israeli officer in the first place.

Arabs should ask for peace before they bring anymore violence upon themselves and the Israelis...THEN, you guys can worry about your reputation.

look what the US did after being bombed in 9.11, they kicked some ASS... what i was saying is that Israel bombing Gaza should be faught back, if not then they should go to the Peave tables, which i dont believe will happen in the near future

If the arabs fought back against the Israeli military...it would be the end of your cause and people.....so go ahead, by all means.

America kicked ass after 9/11 because it was in the right...we were attacked first, without doing anything to the enemy. You guys kidnapped an Israeli officer, think of this as a big search and rescue team who will fuck up anything in its way.

well, lets repeat the known facts.
the arab states or the terrorists attacked israel in all the wars. they lose.
israel sign peace treaties with egypt (1979, we gave them back sinai) and jordan (1994).
israel negociate with the palastinians many times, and accepted to give the palastinians 95% of the west bank and the gaza strip (as well as coming for the palastinians demends in many areas). the palastinians refused to signed it and keep support the terror (mainly Arrafat).
in oslo agreement we supply weopnary to the palastinians forces. they used them against us while the start the second intifada.
israel pullout from the strip before 10 months. from that time they launch more missles on israeli city (although they launch thousands even before), and they kidnappd settler in the west bank and soldier in the strip.
still israel is willing to pullout from more areas in the west bank and take over dozens of settlements with several ten thousands of settlers (according to the israeli prime minister plan).

remind me what you said about backstabbing?


WOW, please get the violen guy off my back....

Israel backstabed Arabs when a cease fire was made in 1967, but then the sixday war started...
israel attacked another arab country only a couple of years after peace with Egypt, which Egypt offered btw, and Israel was obligated to accept, since they would look really bad refusing peace... internationally speaking ofcourse... Israel was negotiating with Arafat while bombing the hell out of Gaza and West Bank... Israel has a pretty good reputation of that...

they aren't just asking for tiny bit. this is just little part of their demands. in negociation, no side can get all he want. they just refused to understood this simple truth.

When I said 'A tiny bit' I said East Jerusalem. Is that too much to ask? Not really, especially considering Israel would demand control of all Jewish settlements on or close to the border.

I am so pleased by Israel's decision. It is the answer to my prayer for that poor soldier. If that soldier is harmed, I hope that Israel kills (painfully) all responsible and then shoots all their friends and relatives. In short, I hope Israel goes Kaiser Soseii on their butts.

keyboard warriors like you are the lowest form of scum. whats the moral difference between that attitude and rwanda or the warsaw ghetto?

what a wonderful contribution. thanks.

Yes, I did, because they have nothing to do with Palestine. It may be "shitty control" in your opinion, but it is not your place to decide for them.

Secondly, East Jerusalem has an Arab population, not a Jewish one. How does that make it Israeli?

Shitty is my opinion....what they do with their places is not my opinion, but fact. Jerusalem is a multi faith area...under Israeli rule all faiths are allowed there, under arab control, only arabs would be allowed there, just like Saudi Arabia and the Dome of the Rock was when I was there.

East Jerusalem is Israeli, because an Israeli flag flys over it. Its that simple.

East Jerusalem is part of Jerusalem, which is Israeli.

East Jerusalem is not a 'tiny' bit...and you apparently ignored all the other things I said about important places that are under arab control.

EAST JERUSALEM IS NOT ISRAELI, the city walls was construceted by the ottomans, by palestinian builders, the city doesnt include ANY jewish monument except the Wailing wall, while it is filled with Arabic holy sites Muslim and Christians, and it has a majority of Arabs, but Israel is changing this demographics of course...
so how in what way is Jerusalem Israeli??

Jerusalem was given to Arabs in the UN partition, which Israel agreed on, so now your claiming it back again???

please get a grip and give me one word..

don't put racist statement in the israelis mouth. facts prove that israel is more civilized, modern, democratic and progresive than any of the other middle eastren state. it had less to do with nation or religion and much with the arab leaders as whole.
they aren't just asking for tiny bit. this is just little part of their demands. in negociation, no side can get all he want. they just refused to understood this simple truth.

Agreed except, I'm not Israeli.:p

EAST JERUSALEM IS NOT ISRAELI, the city walls was construceted by the ottomans, by palestinian builders, the city doesnt include ANY jewish monument except the Wailing wall, while it is filled with Arabic holy sites Muslim and Christians, and it has a majority of Arabs, but Israel is changing this demographics of course...
so how in what way is Jerusalem Israeli??

Jerusalem was given to Arabs in the UN partition, which Israel agreed on, so now your claiming it back again???

please get a grip and give me one word..

How about the Dome of the Rock, isnt that in East Jerusalem?

OMG, now I've seen everything...you are actually using the UN partition plan, which your savage people rejected completly, (and then attacked Israel) as part of your arguement?

AHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It's not about the gutts, I was just commenting about a part of it.

Israel is there because the arab kidnapped an Israeli officer in the first place.

Arabs should ask for peace before they bring anymore violence upon themselves and the Israelis...THEN, you guys can worry about your reputation.



If the arabs fought back against the Israeli military...it would be the end of your cause and people.....so go ahead, by all means.

America kicked ass after 9/11 because it was in the right...we were attacked first, without doing anything to the enemy. You guys kidnapped an Israeli officer, think of this as a big search and rescue team who will fuck up anything in its way.


ok first of all, lets just get a long breath and calm down, and look at some facts... Palestinians kidnapped the soldier, and had requests, do you know what these requests were??
ill tell you, they requested for a release of the palestinian children in Israeli prisons, so they were kidnapping the guy so Israel would release the leagally kidnapped Palestinian children...
and in leagally i mean Israel's point of view... which is pretty wierd...

WOW, please get the violen guy off my back....

Israel backstabed Arabs when a cease fire was made in 1967, but then the sixday war started...
israel attacked another arab country only a couple of years after peace with Egypt, which Egypt offered btw, and Israel was obligated to accept, since they would look really bad refusing peace... internationally speaking ofcourse... Israel was negotiating with Arafat while bombing the hell out of Gaza and West Bank... Israel has a pretty good reputation of that...

and your savage Arafat was making claims such as:

"We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem." -- Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO (in front of an Arab audience in Stockholm in 1996)

and....

"Whoever thinks of stopping the uprising before it achieves its goals, I will give him ten bullets in the chest." --Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO

and also....

"We know only one word: Jihad, Jihad, Jihad. When we stopped the intifada, we did not stop the jihad for the establishment of a Palestinian state whose capital is Jerusalem. And now we are entering the phase of the great jihad prior to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state whose capital is Jerusalem...We are in a conflict with the Zionist movement and the Balfour Declaration and all imperialist activities." --Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO (During an October 21,1996 speech at the Dehaishe refugee camp)

or....

"Anyone who thinks the Palestinian police will try to prevent attacks outside the borders of the autonomous area is making a bitter mistake." --- Sufian Abu Zaida, a leader of Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction in Gaza (Maariv, 25 April 1994)

and my personal favorite.....

The Palestinian flag "will fly over the walls of Jerusalem, the churches of Jerusalem and the mosques of Jerusalem." -- Yasser Arafat, Former Chairman of the PLO (Jordanian TV, 13 September 1993)Á (notice, no Jews...maybe they were all killed or expelled?)

How about the Dome of the Rock, isnt that in East Jerusalem?

OMG, now I've seen everything...you are actually using the UN partition plan, which your savage people rejected completly, (and then attacked Israel) as part of your arguement?

AHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


ok, are yo udone with the Evil laught that shows a victorious wanna be EViel???
ok, back to subject
no im not using the partition plan as my case, the dome of the rock IS in East jerusalem... which is exactly my point the DOme of the Rock IS a amuslim holy site, whats your point???

as for the partition plan, East Jerusalem has always been arab only untill 1967, when Israel Occupied it, meaning that it stayed 20 years of the 58 years israel has existed in the hands of Arabs, not mentioning its 1400 years in the hands of Arabs, and 2600 years in the Hands of its native palestinian resident...

so your point is??

ok first of all, lets just get a long breath and calm down, and look at some facts... Palestinians kidnapped the soldier, and had requests, do you know what these requests were??
ill tell you, they requested for a release of the palestinian children in Israeli prisons, so they were kidnapping the guy so Israel would release the leagally kidnapped Palestinian children...
and in leagally i mean Israel's point of view... which is pretty wierd...

You dont understand do you? This is the arab mentality. Kidnapping is not a bargining chip...its not a legitamite way of doing business (unless your Russian)

How do you not get that?

ok, are yo udone with the Evil laught that shows a victorious wanna be EViel???
ok, back to subject
no im not using the partition plan as my case, the dome of the rock IS in East jerusalem... which is exactly my point the DOme of the Rock IS a amuslim holy site, whats your point???

as for the partition plan, East Jerusalem has always been arab only untill 1967, when Israel Occupied it, meaning that it stayed 20 years of the 58 years israel has existed in the hands of Arabs, not mentioning its 1400 years in the hands of Arabs, and 2600 years in the Hands of its native palestinian resident...

so your point is??

The dome is an important Jewish, Christian....and I guess muslim place.

Your ignorance is showing.

and your savage Arafat was making claims such as:

"We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem." -- Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO (in front of an Arab audience in Stockholm in 1996)

and....

"Whoever thinks of stopping the uprising before it achieves its goals, I will give him ten bullets in the chest." --Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO

and also....

"We know only one word: Jihad, Jihad, Jihad. When we stopped the intifada, we did not stop the jihad for the establishment of a Palestinian state whose capital is Jerusalem. And now we are entering the phase of the great jihad prior to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state whose capital is Jerusalem...We are in a conflict with the Zionist movement and the Balfour Declaration and all imperialist activities." --Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO (During an October 21,1996 speech at the Dehaishe refugee camp)

or....

"Anyone who thinks the Palestinian police will try to prevent attacks outside the borders of the autonomous area is making a bitter mistake." --- Sufian Abu Zaida, a leader of Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction in Gaza (Maariv, 25 April 1994)

and my personal favorite.....

The Palestinian flag "will fly over the walls of Jerusalem, the churches of Jerusalem and the mosques of Jerusalem." -- Yasser Arafat, Former Chairman of the PLO (Jordanian TV, 13 September 1993)Á (notice, no Jews...maybe they were all killed or expelled?)


please dont use the Arafat Card... it kills me, i probably hate Arafat more then you guys do, i think Arafat was the biggest mistake that occured in the WHOLE Middle East Crisis, but you guys had worse leaders, like Netenyaho, Ariel Sharon, Ihud Barak, Golda Maier, the only Israeli Prime minister that probably did good was isaac Rabin, but wait he was shot down by Jewish Extreamists, just like sadat was by Islamist Extreamists...

WOW, please get the violen guy off my back....

Israel backstabed Arabs when a cease fire was made in 1967, but then the sixday war started...after egypt closed the suez canal against the international law.
israel attacked another arab country only a couple of years after peace with Egyptafter the israeli north was threaten by arrafat terrorists who locate their camps there. we went out from lebanon in 2000, but the hizbulla just saw it as "victory and prove for the success of the terror", despite see it as gesture of peace.
which Egypt offered btw, and Israel was obligated to accept, since they would look really bad refusing peace... internationally speaking ofcourse...offered only after they lost in their next war and fail to revenge their "6 days war" defeat and after their pan arab warmonger died and let Saddat take his place.
Israel was negotiating with Arafat while bombing the hell out of Gaza and West Bank... Israel has a pretty good reputation of that...
much untrue. hammas made in that period many terror attacks in israel area and cause the death of scores. israel actions in the west bank were legitimate acts of self defence.
btw, arrafat is such backstabber that I even don't know what period exactly you refer to. you know that the other arab leaders flee him from their areas many times and called him terrorist even before israel heard about him, right?

You dont understand do you? This is the arab mentality. Kidnapping is not a bargining chip...its not a legitamite way of doing business (unless your Russian)

How do you not get that?

hmmm, i guess stealling is!!!!
stealing a whole nation is legitimate???

YOU GUYS STOLE AN ENTIRE NATION, and your talking about the legitimacy of Kidnapping, and please cut the your way of thinking and mentality shit, i mean, Arab mentality isnt any different then Israeli, i have lived with both and i found that they both think alike, only they view the other side the opposite..

The dome is an important Jewish, Christian....and I guess muslim place.

Your ignorance is showing.

HAHAHAHA
MY IGNORANCE IS SHOPWING???
HAHAHAHAHAHA
PLEASE.....

ok. the dome of the rock is holy to Muslims because it was built over the rock believed that prophet Mohamed went to god... and a mosques was built on it, how is that a Jewsih and a Christian holy site??

please dont use the Arafat Card... it kills me, i probably hate Arafat more then you guys do, i think Arafat was the biggest mistake that occured in the WHOLE Middle East Crisis, but you guys had worse leaders, like Netenyaho, Ariel Sharon, Ihud Barak, Golda Maier, the only Israeli Prime minister that probably did good was isaac Rabin, but wait he was shot down by Jewish Extreamists, just like sadat was by Islamist Extreamists...

All good leaders, but once again...not my leaders, I'm not Israeli...

after egypt closed the suez canal against the international law.
after the israeli north was threaten by arrafat terrorists who locate their camps there. we went out from lebanon in 2000, but the hizbulla just saw it as "victory and prove for the success of the terror", despite see it as gesture of peace.
offered only after they lost in their next war and fail to revenge their "6 days war" defeat and after their pan arab warmonger died and let Saddat take his place.

much untrue. hammas made in that period many terror attacks in israel area and cause the death of scores. israel actions in the west bank were legitimate acts of self defence.
btw, arrafat is such backstabber that I even don't know what period exactly you refer to. you know that the other arab leaders flee him from their areas many times and called him terrorist even before israel heard about him, right?

Egypt has the right to close the Suez Canal, its their right to do so, i cant start a war just because the airport of this country is closed,.... that redicoulus... what do they teach you in school???

about the rest, im not gonna argue at that, because it just depends on how you look at it.... so basically we are both right there..

When I said 'A tiny bit' I said East Jerusalem. Is that too much to ask? Not really, especially considering Israel would demand control of all Jewish settlements on or close to the border.
personnaly I agree for this tiny bit if the palastinians will let us keep the close-to-border settlements and wouldn't demand the refugees will back to israel's area.
only, I just represent myself and I located myself as leftist.

All good leaders, but once again...not my leaders, I'm not Israeli...
then where are you from, USA???

HAHAHAHA
MY IGNORANCE IS SHOPWING???
HAHAHAHAHAHA
PLEASE.....

ok. the dome of the rock is holy to Muslims because it was built over the rock believed that prophet Mohamed went to god... and a mosques was built on it, how is that a Jewsih and a Christian holy site??

Your laughing at your own ignorance? Heres a little lesson in history, something that they dont brainwash you with in your arab schools:

"site where Abraham almost sacrificed his elder son Ishmael, whereas Jews and Christians believe it was Isaac, not Ishmael. There is some controversy among secular scholars about equating Mount Moriah (where Isaac's binding occurred according to the Biblical narrative), the Temple Mount and the location where Jacob saw the ladder to heaven; but for orthodox Jews at least, there is no doubt that all these events occurred on this spot. Other, extra-Biblical Jewish traditions say it is the spot where the first stone was laid in the building of the world."

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

Well, there are always two sides of the story, just compare it to the problems in Northern Ireland, it'll make you doubt alot more about who's right and who's wrong when a conflict hits alot closer to home...

hmmm, i guess stealling is!!!!
stealing a whole nation is legitimate???

YOU GUYS STOLE AN ENTIRE NATION, and your talking about the legitimacy of Kidnapping, and please cut the your way of thinking and mentality shit, i mean, Arab mentality isnt any different then Israeli, i have lived with both and i found that they both think alike, only they view the other side the opposite..
Stole from who? The British?

personnaly I agree for this tiny bit if the palastinians will let us keep the close-to-border settlements and wouldn't demand the refugees will back to israel's area.
only, I just represent myself and I located myself as leftist.
so you agree that East Jerusalem would be in the hands of Arabs???

hmmm, i guess stealling is!!!!
stealing a whole nation is legitimate???

YOU GUYS STOLE AN ENTIRE NATION, and your talking about the legitimacy of Kidnapping, and please cut the your way of thinking and mentality shit, i mean, Arab mentality isnt any different then Israeli, i have lived with both and i found that they both think alike, only they view the other side the opposite..

The Isrealis stole an entire nation? I wasnt away that buying land and UN mandates are another word for stealing.

then where are you from, USA???

Well, unless theres a Southern California and a South Florida in Germany, yes...I;m American.

The Isrealis stole an entire nation? I wasnt away that buying land and UN mandates are another word for stealing.

Arabs aren't taught that.

Take the 1973 war for example - Arab textbooks tell the story of the first day or two of the war, but leave out the part where Israel kicks their asses and occupies part of Egypt.

please dont use the Arafat Card... it kills me, i probably hate Arafat more then you guys do, i think Arafat was the biggest mistake that occured in the WHOLE Middle East Crisis, but you guys had worse leaders, like Netenyaho, Ariel Sharon, Ihud Barak, Golda Maier, the only Israeli Prime minister that probably did good was isaac Rabin, but wait he was shot down by Jewish Extreamists, just like sadat was by Islamist Extreamists...

I will use the Arafat card, know why?

Because he was a very popular leader among your people and led a movement against Israel.

Agreed except, I'm not Israeli.:p
I think his posts aren't aim you personnaly, and thus he put it also in my mouth.
anyway, point taken.

Your laughing at your own ignorance? Heres a little lesson in history, something that they dont brainwash you with in your arab schools:

"site where Abraham almost sacrificed his elder son Ishmael, whereas Jews and Christians believe it was Isaac, not Ishmael. There is some controversy among secular scholars about equating Mount Moriah (where Isaac's binding occurred according to the Biblical narrative), the Temple Mount and the location where Jacob saw the ladder to heaven; but for orthodox Jews at least, there is no doubt that all these events occurred on this spot. Other, extra-Biblical Jewish traditions say it is the spot where the first stone was laid in the building of the world."


Abraham was going to slay his son in ARABIA, and not Jerusalem, see, if it was Ishmael it would be in Arabia, if it were Isaac, then it would be in Iraq or Near East, so it is simply a Muslim Holy site, and not a christian nor a jewish place...
i rest my case...

Arabs aren't taught that.

Take the 1973 war for example - Arab textbooks tell the story of the first day or two of the war, but leave out the part where Israel kicks their asses and occupies part of Egypt.

Sorta reminds me of the Turks and their whole.....trying to kick the whole Armenian thing under the rug.

Meh, it seems like its just another muslim thing, what can ya do.

Arabs aren't taught that.

Take the 1973 war for example - Arab textbooks tell the story of the first day or two of the war, but leave out the part where Israel kicks their asses and occupies part of Egypt.


WOW, is that the lates april foul??,is that why USA built an Air Bridge and interfeared??? beacuse Israel was doing so good that it didnt need any foreig help... where is the common sense..

Abraham was going to slay his son in ARABIA, and not Jerusalem, see, if it was Ishmael it would be in Arabia, if it were Isaac, then it would be in Iraq or Near East, so it is simply a Muslim Holy site, and not a christian nor a jewish place...
i rest my case...

No...you dont.

Thats simply your opinion, and not what Jews or Christians or the online encyclopida seems to think.

You dont rest anything.

WOW, is that the lates april foul??,is that why USA built an Air Bridge and interfeared??? beacuse Israel was doing so good that it didnt need any foreig help... where is the common sense..

Maybe because we are good allies?

Anyway you missed the point of his post.

I think his posts aren't aim you personnaly, and thus he put it also in my mouth.
anyway, point taken.

Do you live in Tel Aviv?

WOW, is that the lates april foul??,is that why USA built an Air Bridge and interfeared??? beacuse Israel was doing so good that it didnt need any foreig help... where is the common sense..

The US didn't do anything except recon overflights to assess the situation. The White House even told Israel (once Israel was kicking ass) to knock it off.

No US forces were involved in the conflict.

No...you dont.

Thats simply your opinion, and not what Jews or Christians or the online encyclopida seems to think.

You dont rest anything.

i should say the same to you... but anyways, why should i let go something if im not convinced with it, see, you think this discussion is a fight, while i see it as a way of exchanging point of views, and who knows maybe one of us will finally realize the other is more logicall, but so far, you have failed to do so...

lol, and i dont believe im doing a pretty good job, after all, my english is pretty bad... so please excuse it...as it is not my primary nor secondary language..

WOW, is that the lates april foul??,is that why USA built an Air Bridge and interfeared??? beacuse Israel was doing so good that it didnt need any foreig help... where is the common sense..

Actually, as soon as the Egyptians moved out from under their SAM cover (which wasn't far), they got their asses kicked. The Syrians, on the other hand, were kicked mercilessly from day one.

Just imagine a couple of Jews in an outdated British Centurion tank that was already damaged and immobile killing over 120 T-62 tanks that were more modern, and that's a rough picture of the kind of stupid soldiers the Syrians made.

i should say the same to you... but anyways, why should i let go something if im not convinced with it, see, you think this discussion is a fight, while i see it as a way of exchanging point of views, and who knows maybe one of us will finally realize the other is more logicall, but so far, you have failed to do so...

lol, and i dont believe im doing a pretty good job, after all, my english is pretty bad... so please excuse it...as it is not my primary nor secondary language..

It is my opinion...but one that is shared by historians, Jews and Christians...ergo its a fact.

We can exchange point of views all you want, but there is such thing as a wrong point of view. I'm not about to side with the people who want to kill my people (Americans, Israelis, Westerners, Christians, Jews).

As for your english, I dont care that you dont speak english that well, its good enough. I think its great that you are learning english so well. I love languages you see. When I go to the University, I'm going to take German and continue Spanish.

Abraham was going to slay his son in ARABIA, and not Jerusalem, see, if it was Ishmael it would be in Arabia, if it were Isaac, then it would be in Iraq or Near East, so it is simply a Muslim Holy site, and not a christian nor a jewish place...
i rest my case...

If I were to use your rethoric, I'd say: "LIES!!!"
But that's not my style...
The site is important to three major religious groups, one could say that this shared source of reverence should actually bind them, but alas.
The Holy Land (yes I'm a Catholic) has been fought over since the dawn of man. However, this has turned from religious feud into a vengeful, neverending slur. From Yaweh to God to Allah, all three have a "claim" on this land. Although it would be much wiser to live with eachother in the spirit of humanity and mutual repect than to try and bash each other's skulls in.
Peace in the Holy Land would be a great step towards world peace.

as for the partition plan, East Jerusalem has always been arab only untill 1967, when Israel Occupied it, meaning that it stayed 20 years of the 58 years israel has existed in the hands of Arabs, not mentioning its 1400 years in the hands of Arabs, and 2600 years in the Hands of its native palestinian resident...

so your point is??
it wasn't 2600 years. until some dozens of years before the christian count, the second jewish stand. and there where jewish control on this area for thousand years (except some hundreds which then we taken over from the country).
it is the holy site for jewish. unless the muslim will allow other religions come to the holy sites, no one will let them east jerusalem.

Actually, as soon as the Egyptians moved out from under their SAM cover (which wasn't far), they got their asses kicked. The Syrians, on the other hand, were kicked mercilessly from day one.

Just imagine a couple of Jews in an outdated British Centurion tank that was already damaged and immobile killing over 120 T-62 tanks that were more modern, and that's a rough picture of the kind of stupid soldiers the Syrians made.
is that why the Egyptians Votorious plan and defeating the legendary barlieve wall and invading the 20 kilometers of highly protected defensive system of israel being studied in Russia???

If I were to use your rethoric, I'd say: "LIES!!!"
But that's not my style...
The site is important to three major religious groups, one could say that this shared source of reverence should actually bind them, but alas.
The Holy Land (yes I'm a Catholic) has been fought over since the dawn of man. However, this has turned from religious feud into a vengeful, neverending slur. From Yaweh to God to Allah, all three have a "claim" on this land. Although it would be much wiser to live with eachother in the spirit of humanity and mutual repect than to try and bash each other's skulls in.
Peace in the Holy Land would be a great step towards world peace.

Right..and my point was that places like the Dome of the Rock are important to all three faiths...and its important that Israel and Jersualem doesnt come under arab control or else it will be closed off to only one faith (like Mecca)....under Jewish control anyone is allowed there...even the enemy, muslims.

If I were to use your rethoric, I'd say: "LIES!!!"
But that's not my style...
The site is important to three major religious groups, one could say that this shared source of reverence should actually bind them, but alas.
The Holy Land (yes I'm a Catholic) has been fought over since the dawn of man. However, this has turned from religious feud into a vengeful, neverending slur. From Yaweh to God to Allah, all three have a "claim" on this land. Although it would be much wiser to live with eachother in the spirit of humanity and mutual repect than to try and bash each other's skulls in.
Peace in the Holy Land would be a great step towards world peace.

i dont think its fair to discuss the belonging of the lands religiously, since it should be equally split to the three religions...

we are discussing the inhabitants, East Jerusalem is mainly Arabs, thus it should be given to Arabs...

Egypt has the right to close the Suez Canal, its their right to do so, i cant start a war just because the airport of this country is closed,.... that redicoulus... what do they teach you in school???

about the rest, im not gonna argue at that, because it just depends on how you look at it.... so basically we are both right there..
they had no right to putt missles against ship movement IN UNIVERSAL WATER. this is fully legitimate reason for war.

is that why the Egyptians Votorious plan and defeating the legendary barlieve wall and invading the 20 kilometers of highly protected defensive system of israel being studied in Russia???

Obviously you're talking about the Egyptian front, and not the Syrian front. And you've been taught exactly what I said you were taught - the first couple of days of the war.

After the Egyptians moved beyond the Bar-Lev line (which was manned by only two brigades), the Egyptian forces were no longer under the protective umbrella of their SAM defenses, and the Israelis made hash of them.

Then the Israelis crossed into Eqypt, and had Cairo within artillery range.

It's studied by many militaries as how not to prosecute an attack (the Egyptian methods).

And as for Russian military schools, since they trained the Syrians and Iraqis, I can't say much for the quality of the schooling.

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.

I'm not saying it's right, but Jews were in Arabia WAY before Muslims. Jews were there in Roman times (the bible and all that) when Islam hadn't even been invented yet.

This whole thing will end the way it always does. Isreal will take a nice idea (freeing someone, killing some terrorists) and take it too far (forgetting to free anyone and just blowing everything up instead) like usual. Oh well, I guess that's what you get from learning how to fight from the Americans

Right..and my point was that places like the Dome of the Rock are important to all three faiths...and its important that Israel and Jersualem doesnt come under arab control or else it will be closed off to only one faith (like Mecca)....under Jewish control anyone is allowed there...even the enemy, muslims.


ok hold it their... Jerusalem is NOT like Mecca, it was under Muslim rule in the past 1400 years, only a few decasde under the crusades, but regardless it witnessed the most tolerant time in its history, Jerusalem was filled with Christians, jews and Muslims all parcticing their faith freely, and i should know, since my great grand mother was telling me that she had a close friend in Jerusalem called Rachel and she was a jew, they were best friends and went to college together in Cairo...
Israel has caused nothing but make tensions between all three faiths...

Arabs aren't taught that.

Take the 1973 war for example - Arab textbooks tell the story of the first day or two of the war, but leave out the part where Israel kicks their asses and occupies part of Egypt.

how would you possibly know that?

ALL arab textbooks say that?

or are you talking out of your swiss?

so you agree that East Jerusalem would be in the hands of Arabs???
I secular. most of religious sites mean nothing to me. still, I represent only myself, and I know most jewish and christians want access to the temple mounts which will probably denied by any arab regime that will control this place.

Obviously you're talking about the Egyptian front, and not the Syrian front. And you've been taught exactly what I said you were taught - the first couple of days of the war.

After the Egyptians moved beyond the Bar-Lev line (which was manned by only two brigades), the Egyptian forces were no longer under the protective umbrella of their SAM defenses, and the Israelis made hash of them.

Then the Israelis crossed into Eqypt, and had Cairo within artillery range.

It's studied by many militaries as how not to prosecute an attack (the Egyptian methods).

And as for Russian military schools, since they trained the Syrians and Iraqis, I can't say much for the quality of the schooling.

i was taught in FRANCE, and i studied french history books

and back home in my arab country i was taught by American books....

so, i have no idea where you get your ideas from...

check out this site...

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/398/october.htm

I secular. most of religious sites mean nothing to me. still, I represent only myself, and I know most jewish and christians want access to the temple mounts which will probably denied by any arab regime that will control this place.
you need to understand that Arabs include Christians and Jews along with Muslims... so Arabs not permitting another religion to their holy site is irrelevant... it has never happened in history, and i dont see any reaosn of why it happening today!!!

Do you live in Tel Aviv?
no. one of the kibutzes on izra'el vally.

you need to understand that Arabs include Christians and Jews along with Muslims... so Arabs not permitting another religion to their holy site is irrelevant... it has never happened in history, and i dont see any reaosn of why it happening today!!!

Give me a call when Christians are freely allowed to visit Mecca. I know it's not a Christian holy site, but it seems rather silly to deny access.

how would you possibly know that?

ALL arab textbooks say that?

or are you talking out of your swiss?
I have several given to me by an Egyptian friend.

Well, I've known about this since yesterday, and all I can say is...

IT'S ABOUT TIME.

Israel has been putting up with way too much crap from Hamas, and now they've had enough.

See, the civilized world is fighting something called the war on terror (well, not the French, Germans, or San Fransisco) and in this war on terror, the goals are the elimination of terrorist groups, and the governments/countries that shelter them.

The only bad thing that could come of this is if those idiots in Iran decide to finally wipe Israel off the face of the earth with their nukes.

It is my opinion...but one that is shared by historians, Jews and Christians...ergo its a fact.

We can exchange point of views all you want, but there is such thing as a wrong point of view. I'm not about to side with the people who want to kill my people (Americans, Israelis, Westerners, Christians, Jews).

As for your english, I dont care that you dont speak english that well, its good enough. I think its great that you are learning english so well. I love languages you see. When I go to the University, I'm going to take German and continue Spanish.

i hope you dont mean Arabs about killing your big list... since i truly dont think they want to kill any, i mean tha vast majority, i would never think of killing an Irish, just because he is a westener...


as for the languages... i dont find German Interesting, it includes alot of spitting, i would like to learn Russian tho...

I have several given to me by an Egyptian friend.

so you mean some Egyptian books relating to one incident?

Not ALL arab books, not by a long shot.

How is Vietnam dealt with in US textbooks?

Give me a call when Christians are freely allowed to visit Mecca. I know it's not a Christian holy site, but it seems rather silly to deny access.

well would christians want to visit mecca, its like buddhists and Lhasa...
its just there, you should respect all religious beliefes, if Christianity denied my right as a muslim to visite the Vatican, i wont be against it, i would respects it, that is what we call tolerance for other beliefes ideologies...

well would christians want to visit mecca, its like buddhists and Lhasa...
its just there, you should respect all religious beliefes, if Christianity denied my right as a muslim to visite the Vatican, i wont be against it, i would respects it, that is what we call tolerance for other beliefes ideologies...

Anyone can visit Lhasa or the Vatican.

It's expressly forbidden for anyone who isn't a Muslim to visit Mecca.

Anyone can visit Lhasa or the Vatican.

It's expressly forbidden for anyone who isn't a Muslim to visit Mecca.

I think he's saying we should be tolerant of others' intolerance.

Anyone can visit Lhasa or the Vatican.

It's expressly forbidden for anyone who isn't a Muslim to visit Mecca.

umm.. no, Lhasa is forbidned by foreigners to visite, but it has changed under the chinese occupation, regardless, yet again, why do you want to go to Mecca???
its a holy city for Muslims why do you want to go their???

I think he's saying we should be tolerant of others' intolerance.

what is that suppose to mean??

what is that suppose to mean??

That we should tolerate Islam's intolerances ;)

umm.. no, Lhasa is forbidned by foreigners to visite, but it has changed under the chinese occupation, regardless, yet again, why do you want to go to Mecca???
its a holy city for Muslims why do you want to go their???

Maybe because it is an important cultural and historic site that people may have an interest in beyond religious faith?

Halfbreed']Well, I've known about this since yesterday, and all I can say is...

IT'S ABOUT TIME.

Israel has been putting up with way too much crap from Hamas, and now they've had enough.

See, the civilized world is fighting something called the war on terror (well, not the French, Germans, or San Fransisco) and in this war on terror, the goals are the elimination of terrorist groups, and the governments/countries that shelter them.

The only bad thing that could come of this is if those idiots in Iran decide to finally wipe Israel off the face of the earth with their nukes.
you sound like that general from Dr.Strangelove. Impurity of bodily fluids anyone?

umm.. no, Lhasa is forbidned by foreigners to visite, but it has changed under the chinese occupation, regardless, yet again, why do you want to go to Mecca???
its a holy city for Muslims why do you want to go their???

I've been to the Vatican. I've been to Jerusalem. I've been to Lhasa. Now I want to go to Mecca.

Just to be able to say I've been there.

you need to understand that Arabs include Christians and Jews along with Muslims... so Arabs not permitting another religion to their holy site is irrelevant... it has never happened in history, and i dont see any reaosn of why it happening today!!!the temple mount isn't just arab holy place. it is place of all three faiths and should had free access to any religion in the world.
I don't religious so I prefer you keep your religious argument on other people. as much as I know, the best option is UN force rule in the holy sites, eastern arab neigbourhoods to the palastinians, and west jerusalem to israel. I will say again that the ones who think like me are in minority, and you can't seperate the religion from the israeli-arab fight.

Halfbreed']That we should tolerate Islam's intolerances ;)

hey, how is islam intolerant ?

Islam has never called for killin innocent people, it was the first religion to put bases for war, not to kill the women, children or eldders, it made women have equal rights as men, while other religions didnt give them the right to enherit money, Islam gave women the right to divorce her husband, Islam has made women equall to men, Islam has ordered Muslims to protect Jews and Christiana living in Muslim nations, and even fighting for them if needed...

the problem with islam today is that it is not being used, fanatics use wrong parts or parts in the religion, and dont use the rest, Islam is like a package, you have to read it all to understand the WHOLE picture...

hey, how is islam intolerant ?

Islam has never called for killin innocent people, it was the first religion to put bases for war, not to kill the women, children or eldders, it made women have equal rights as men, while other religions didnt give them the right to enherit money, Islam gave women the right to divorce her husband, Islam has made women equall to men, Islam has ordered Muslims to protect Jews and Christiana living in Muslim nations, and even fighting for them if needed...

the problem with islam today is that it is not being used, fanatics use wrong parts or parts in the religion, and dont use the rest, Islam is like a package, you have to read it all to understand the WHOLE picture... OMG I think I love you. Someone intelligent that understands Islam...:)

hey, how is islam intolerant ?



Do you deny that people of other faiths are not allowed to visit Muslim holy sites even if some are multi-religious?

You stated that we should tolerate another religions intolerance of other faiths.

Islam has made women equall to men

I don't think so.

http://www.dr.dk/NR/rdonlyres/9600E129-24FC-48E3-AA4A-62312B1CDC86/149066/04ea996f51db4a149b55c46642964f9b_burka.jpg

the temple mount isn't just arab holy place. it is place of all three faiths and should had free access to any religion in the world.
I don't religious so I prefer you keep your religious argument on other people. as much as I know, the best option is UN force rule in the holy sites, eastern arab neigbourhoods to the palastinians, and west jerusalem to israel. I will say again that the ones who think like me are in minority, and you can't seperate the religion from the israeli-arab fight.

i dont think i have said anything disagreeing with that, but this doesnt mean that we would make the area an international zone... althougth i personally would agree on such solution and i would probably agree on such solution regarding Arab East and Israeli West, and yes Religion cant be seperated by the fight, since the Zionists have based their ideology on their beliefes.

basically, i do agree on Israels existance, but i dont think its legitimate, i agree on it because there are people that belong to that area and are born on this land, Israels existance is sadly a fact that we have to deal with, but taking away Jerusalem is like taking away mecca, personally as an Arab, i would exchange Jerusalem with the whole of Palestine...

I don't think so.

common... we both know that MUSLIM WOMEN are not represented in Afghani Talban....
that shows your ignorance, that i was accused wrongly about a couple of minuts ago...

Muslims women only need to cover their hair and not their hole head... Islam doesnt include ANY virse that calls for women to wear "Nikab" which is this previous blue Talibani Tent...

no. one of the kibutzes on izra'el vally.

Ohhhh....so thats why you are so left wing!

I've been to a kibutz...I think it was in the North West of Israel..not sure but it was somewhere up north in the hills.

common... we both know that MUSLIM WOMEN are not represented in Afghani Talban....
that shows your ignorance, that i was accused wrongly about a couple of minuts ago...

Muslims women only need to cover their hair and not their hole head... Islam doesnt include ANY virse that calls for women to wear "Nikab" which is this previous blue Talibani Tent...

When no woman is required to wear anything covering their face or head, then they'll be free and equal.

Not until then.

Do you deny that people of other faiths are not allowed to visit Muslim holy sites even if some are multi-religious?

You stated that we should tolerate another religions intolerance of other faiths.

Islam stops non-mulims to visite Mecca, because of the following...

some religions dont apply the sae laws that Islam does, so gambling, Prostitution etc... will spread in mecca, the Holy City, so Islam refused a holy city to have forbiden Islamic Teachings, so it prohibited non-muslims to come in, same with Lhasa...

common... we both know that MUSLIM WOMEN are not represented in Afghani Talban....
that shows your ignorance, that i was accused wrongly about a couple of minuts ago...

Muslims women only need to cover their hair and not their hole head... Islam doesnt include ANY virse that calls for women to wear "Nikab" which is this previous blue Talibani Tent...
Well, I dunno about them, but in the US women can show their hair if they want ...

i hope you dont mean Arabs about killing your big list... since i truly dont think they want to kill any, i mean tha vast majority, i would never think of killing an Irish, just because he is a westener...


as for the languages... i dont find German Interesting, it includes alot of spitting, i would like to learn Russian tho...

How about the terrorist attacks in Spain because of its helping out America?

I love German..as for the spitting, its a harsh language, as is Hebrew and Arabic. I like Russian too, but I dont like Russia or the Russian people that much, so I will not be learning it.

When no woman is required to wear anything covering their face or head, then they'll be free and equal.

Not until then.


Women CHOOSE to wear the headscarf... its only in Saudi Arabia and Iran that women are obligated to cver their heads, in most muslim countriesn women choose to wear the headscarf, including women in My family...

other women refuse... its their right...like queen Rania of Jordan (yes she is a hotty....lol) and other Muslim women...

women wear the headsacrf as a sign of Submission to god, like the jewish cap, dunno whats it called...

Islam stops non-mulims to visite Mecca, because of the following...

some religions dont apply the sae laws that Islam does, so gambling, Prostitution etc... will spread in mecca, the Holy City, so Islam refused a holy city to have forbiden Islamic Teachings, so it prohibited non-muslims to come in, same with Lhasa...

I've been to Lhasa.

That sounds like a scare story to me - that prostitution will spread in Mecca if the foreigners come.

hey, how is islam intolerant ?

Islam has never called for killin innocent people, it was the first religion to put bases for war, not to kill the women, children or eldders, it made women have equal rights as men, while other religions didnt give them the right to enherit money, Islam gave women the right to divorce her husband, Islam has made women equall to men, Islam has ordered Muslims to protect Jews and Christiana living in Muslim nations, and even fighting for them if needed...

the problem with islam today is that it is not being used, fanatics use wrong parts or parts in the religion, and dont use the rest, Islam is like a package, you have to read it all to understand the WHOLE picture...

If you actually beleive all that crap, you are truley brainwashed.

Islam is an intolerant religion...filled with people who practice it that use the relgion to make women second class citizens. Islam is insane.

so you mean some Egyptian books relating to one incident?

Not ALL arab books, not by a long shot.

How is Vietnam dealt with in US textbooks?
palastinians books that IDF found in their schools including wishes for destruction of israel, many anti-semitic statements and false history. this demonization appear in all their study books including unrelated topics as math.
those books provided to them mostly by regimes as syria, iran, egypt, saudia, and many terror organizations, and those countries probably study these books themselves.
as long as it happened we can't get peace in the middle east.

Islam stops non-mulims to visite Mecca, because of the following...

some religions dont apply the sae laws that Islam does, so gambling, Prostitution etc... will spread in mecca, the Holy City, so Islam refused a holy city to have forbiden Islamic Teachings, so it prohibited non-muslims to come in, same with Lhasa...

So allowing visitors = allowing gambling/prostitution/etc.?

Then in the next sentance you state that it won't allow "forbidden Islamic Teachings".

Seems pretty close minded and intolerant.

Islam stops non-mulims to visite Mecca, because of the following...

some religions dont apply the sae laws that Islam does, so gambling, Prostitution etc... will spread in mecca, the Holy City, so Islam refused a holy city to have forbiden Islamic Teachings, so it prohibited non-muslims to come in, same with Lhasa...

News flash, dude...your peopel are not above gambling and prostitution. It will happen wether you let in Westerners or not. We are not the only devils on this planet.

Women CHOOSE to wear the headscarf... its only in Saudi Arabia and Iran that women are obligated to cver their heads, in most muslim countriesn women choose to wear the headscarf, including women in My family...

other women refuse... its their right...like queen Rania of Jordan (yes she is a hotty....lol) and other Muslim women...

women wear the headsacrf as a sign of Submission to god, like the jewish cap, dunno whats it called...

Maybe because they are pressured by a soceity where they are raped/killed/beaten if they dont?

How about the terrorist attacks in Spain because of its helping out America?

I love German..as for the spitting, its a harsh language, as is Hebrew and Arabic. I like Russian too, but I dont like Russia or the Russian people that much, so I will not be learning it.

How About the ETA and the IRA and other Terrorist organizations, and these so called Muslim terrorist organizations have been bombing us (Arab world) more then they have bombed the west... 4 bombing in egypt in less then 2 years, and 2 in jordan, plenty in Saudi Arabia, 1 in Rabat, morocco, and others...

so you mean some Egyptian books relating to one incident?

Not ALL arab books, not by a long shot.

How is Vietnam dealt with in US textbooks?

According to Arabs I've talked to, and know personally, quite a few arab textbooks are that biased.

Vietnam varies from textbook to textbook in the US, but it is generally viewed as a complete fiasco, which it was. It certainly isn't played up in our textbooks as one great victory after another, and we don't leave out parts like My Lai, etc.

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

Excuse me? Rightfully theirs? Let me tell you something...The West Bank, Gaza Strip, and parts of Jerusalem are all PALESTINIAN LANDS and for these Zionist imperialist Nazis to invade them and displace the Palestinian people (again) is just sick. It's a crime against humanity. The United States should immediately cut off all funding to Israel until they tear down the wall dividing Palestinian communities and end their policies of hate towards the Palestinians.

you sound like that general from Dr.Strangelove. Impurity of bodily fluids anyone?

I've never seen that movie, so I can't really comment.

But my occupation requires quite a bit of blood, pus, mucus, vomit, etc... all over the place, and unless you want to catch Hepititus, AIDS, etc... you must treat all bodily fluids as contaminated.

Islam has never called for killin innocent people,

No, it hasn't.

Unbelievers are not innocent in Islam. Nor are adulterers, and wives who get too uppity.

Zionist imperialist Nazis

I lol'd when I read this. Tell me, do you do anti-war rallies?

Halfbreed']Unbelievers are not innocent in Islam. Nor are adulterers, and wives who get too uppity.

Exactly. In fact, it's mandatory to kill and/or subjugate by force, any and every non-believer you come across.

If you actually beleive all that crap, you are truley brainwashed.

Islam is an intolerant religion...filled with people who practice it that use the relgion to make women second class citizens. Islam is insane. as a muslim, I find that very offensive. On the same token, because some groups of Christianity think that woman are second class and servants, i can say that Christianity is insane and a stain on the world.

i dont think i have said anything disagreeing with that, but this doesnt mean that we would make the area an international zone... althougth i personally would agree on such solution and i would probably agree on such solution regarding Arab East and Israeli West, and yes Religion cant be seperated by the fight, since the Zionists have based their ideology on their beliefes.most of the zionist are secular. therefore the arguments of the zionism almost aren't based on religion.
anyway, I fine with the rest of that paragraph.
basically, i do agree on Israels existance, but i dont think its legitimate, i agree on it because there are people that belong to that area and are born on this land, Israels existance is sadly a fact that we have to deal with, but taking away Jerusalem is like taking away mecca, personally as an Arab, i would exchange Jerusalem with the whole of Palestine...
the jewish people cried for 2 thousand of years about their lose of their holy site. the muslims aren't the only ones who care for jerusalem and every side as equal legitimacy in the fight over palestine and jerusalem.
in the end, both sides will have to get less than their perfect solution, as it happened in negociation.

News flash, dude...your peopel are not above gambling and prostitution. It will happen wether you let in Westerners or not. We are not the only devils on this planet.
so basically your twisting my words to suit your debat, which is a pretty dirty way to debate... and i refuse to use,

so returning to the point, i didnt say that Gambling and prostitution means westeners, i meant the outside world, the non-religious world, Islam didnt want to see Mecca turn into Las-Vegas, or Monaco, or San Fransico, or Beirut or Dubai, this small rule of forbidding non-muslims to eneter has caused in a way Mecca to become a spiritual place, where everything is nothing but made for Muslims... starting from the welcome board, to the shops everywhere.. etc...
the USA is making sanction on Libya and allowed no foreigner to enter Libya...

is the US intolerant???

Excuse me? Rightfully theirs? Let me tell you something...The West Bank, Gaza Strip, and parts of Jerusalem are all PALESTINIAN LANDS and for these Zionist imperialist Nazis to invade them and displace the Palestinian people (again) is just sick. It's a crime against humanity. The United States should immediately cut off all funding to Israel until they tear down the wall dividing Palestinian communities and end their policies of hate towards the Palestinians.

LOL...Oh, do pipe down, skippy.

im gonna say something i dont no if anyone has sed this cos i could not be bothered to read all the threds. The world powers are not likley to get involved for this reason alone the U.S.A and the UK told israel to give the garza strip to palastinions and then the palastinians would not attack israel anymore....lol they still did and because of this an invasion started so they wont get involved with isreal anymore.....lol

most of the zionist are secular. therefore the arguments of the zionism almost aren't based on religion.

the jewish people cried for 2 thousand of years about their lose of their holy site. the muslims aren't the only ones who care for jerusalem and every side as equal legitimacy in the fight over palestine and jerusalem.
in the end, both sides will have to get less than their perfect solution, as it happened in negociation.
wow... the violen guy popped out again... please some one tie him up...

What is the logic in mounting in invasion of Gaza, risking the lives of not only your own personnel and comrades but the lives of innocent palestinians and israelis for just ONE soldier? Since when did the army of any country give a flying f*ck about one soldier? [especially since he isnt even armoured corps] It's an excuse, a poor excuse, made by an oppurtunistic government to get itself back into Gaza.

It pisses me off that people think Islam is a backward, intolerant religion. Jesus, thats what every religion is. Thats how the operate. The west is no better, look at how we treat are women - they get paid less in almost every industry except one - pornography. Oh women are free alright, free to take their clothes off as long as we can watch.

Israel is a farce. It exists because of Western guilt over how the Jews got screwed during World War II, which of course the Allies knew about, but choose to do nothing about. They were too busy nuking Nagasaki, levelling Dresden and overrunning eastern Europe from those evol Nazi's!

Ohhhh....so thats why you are so left wing!

I've been to a kibutz...I think it was in the North West of Israel..not sure but it was somewhere up north in the hills.
well, there are religious kibutzes and right supporter kibutzes, but mostly your statement is true.