NationStates Jolt Archive

Israel warns of invasion of Gaza

Israel's deputy defence minister has said it will be left with "no choice" but to invade Gaza, if Palestinian militants step up rocket attacks.

Matan Vilnai said the Palestinians risked a big disaster - using the Hebrew word for the Holocaust.

Mr Vilnai said Israel would use all its might to defend itself, after rockets hit the city of Ashkelon, 10km (six miles) from Gaza.

Hamas leader Ismail Haniya said it was ready for a large-scale Israeli attack.

Israeli air strikes have killed about 30 Palestinians in the past three days.

Four Palestinian boys were killed in an Israeli raid as they played in a field in northern Gaza on Thursday. Several militants, including a Hamas commander, were also killed.

The string of attacks came a day after a rocket fired by Hamas killed an Israeli student on the outskirts of Sderot, about a mile from Gaza, the first such death in nine months.

The barrage continued on Friday with militants aiming several Grad rockets at Ashkelon, home to 120,000 people.

The Iranian-made rockets are said to have a range of about 22km (14 miles).

One rocket hit a block of flats in the city, breaking through the roof and slicing through three floors below, while another landed near a school, wounding a 17-year-old girl.

It is the first time Israeli officials have ordered Code Red sirens to be sounded in Ashkelon and reports say soldiers from the Israeli military's Home Front Command have been hanging posters around the city instructing residents on what to do when the warning sounds.

Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7270650.stm)

It seems things are getting worse in the area, despite recent polls suggesting most people on both sides would favour negotiations for a peace deal. Why do politicians not listen to their citizens?

If Israel does invade, will this stabilise the area, or just force Palestinian fighters underground even more? Certainly Israel does not have a good international reputation after its disastrous invasion of Lebanon in 2006. Would other countries in the area retaliate in response?

Personally, I can't see anything good coming out of an invasion, only more deaths and destruction and ill-feeling towards Israel.

Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7270650.stm)

It seems things are getting worse in the area, despite recent polls suggesting most people on both sides would favour negotiations for a peace deal. Why do politicians not listen to their citizens?
.
Because I suspect that when both sides are asked "Do you want to end this with a peace deal" they're doing so thinking that that involves them getting what they want peacefully. Since often their desires are mutually exclusive it invalidates the polls somewhat.

Israel is caught is a loop of increasing violence in the Gaza situation. The continued use of force against the one million civilians is increasing hatred towards Israel. This, coupled with the loss of hope due to high unemployment and poor living conditions is creating a haven for the Hamas recruiters and feeding the cycle of violence.

At this point Israel has two viable paths: the systematic genocide of Palestinians (building prison walls is a temporary solution), or embracing them as neighbors and giving them acceptable terms for peace (such as freedom, equality, education and jobs). I of course hope they see the light and choose the latter and start spending money on education not building more barriers!

Yep, this whole affair is pretty sad every time it happens, as it has been the last 100 or so times, and as it will be a hundred times over again.

The only way to settle this dispute peacefully is to invade Iran.

I think the obvious solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is to rename Gaza 'Super-happy-fun-land' and Israel 'my heterosexual urges'. Just think about it: no fundamentalist member of Hamas would be able to call for the destruction of his heterosexual urges without being lynched, and no Israeli politician could suggest that anywhere called Super-happy-fun-land was a threat and expect to be believed by the electorate. It's perfect!

It's hard to blame Israel for this. They can't just let this shit go on; but they get crucified by the media if they go in.

The problem is, one of these days, someone in Israel is going to say, "drive the palestinians out of Gaza." Then the shit is really going to hit the fan.

Dang, I was about to post this. :(

Any who, this dude should be fired immediately. If not, then that will be the very last straw for me to stop supporting Israel at all. Its bad enough they go into the West Bank killing and displacing my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, but now they threaten to murder on mass scale BEYOND what they have already done? WOW. Terrorist state, if you ask me. I bet if Venezuela, Iran, or some country like that would make a similar remark, it would be means for invasion by the UN and US. But yet, this will go unnoticed in the mainstream media in America.

Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7270650.stm)

It seems things are getting worse in the area, despite recent polls suggesting most people on both sides would favour negotiations for a peace deal. Why do politicians not listen to their citizens?



The politicians are listening to the people in Sderot. Sderot has been under constant attack for 2 years. Israel has not performed operations to protect its people as they didn't want to disrupt the peace process. The last week of rocket attacks has finally been too much. Hamas, the elected government, has been launching dozens of rockets per day. The only thing that has kept casualties so low is Israel's many public bomb shelters.

Dang, I was about to post this. :(

Any who, this dude should be fired immediately. If not, then that will be the very last straw for me to stop supporting Israel at all. Its bad enough they go into the West Bank killing and displacing my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, but now they threaten to murder on mass scale BEYOND what they have already done? WOW. Terrorist state, if you ask me. I bet if Venezuela, Iran, or some country like that would make a similar remark, it would be means for invasion by the UN and US. But yet, this will go unnoticed in the mainstream media in America.

I bet if Venezuela or Iran were under attack daily from rockets that they would have a legal reason to go in deal with the threat.

Let me ask you something. Let's say that Detroit were under daily attack from about two dozen rockets a day launched by Windsor. Let's add in the fact that the group launching those rockets is the elected government of Canada. Would you not demand that the US use military force to stop the daily attacks? Israel is in such a situation. They should be commended for their restraint, but it hasn't solved any issues. Military force is the only solution with Gaza.

Military force is the only solution with Gaza.
Maybies aye, maybies no.

But saying “they will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves” (Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1)) is certainly not the solution.

I think the obvious solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is to rename Gaza 'Super-happy-fun-land' and Israel 'my heterosexual urges'. Just think about it: no fundamentalist member of Hamas would be able to call for the destruction of his heterosexual urges without being lynched, and no Israeli politician could suggest that anywhere called Super-happy-fun-land was a threat and expect to be believed by the electorate. It's perfect!



ROFL.


Especially the my heterosexual urges bit.

I bet if Venezuela or Iran were under attack daily from rockets that they would have a legal reason to go in deal with the threat.

Let me ask you something. Let's say that Detroit were under daily attack from about two dozen rockets a day launched by Windsor. Let's add in the fact that the group launching those rockets is the elected government of Canada. Would you not demand that the US use military force to stop the daily attacks? Israel is in such a situation. They should be commended for their restraint, but it hasn't solved any issues. Military force is the only solution with Gaza.

Eh, its Detroit. I think most of America wouldn't give a darn if Detroit were wiped off the map. :p

However, I do see your point. And it is a valid point. But how far does "defense" allow Israel to go? The deputy defense minister said they'd do a shoah on the Palestinians. Surely you can't say that defense promotes genocide, can you?

I bet if Venezuela or Iran were under attack daily from rockets that they would have a legal reason to go in deal with the threat.

Let me ask you something. Let's say that Detroit were under daily attack from about two dozen rockets a day launched by Windsor. Let's add in the fact that the group launching those rockets is the elected government of Canada. Would you not demand that the US use military force to stop the daily attacks? Israel is in such a situation. They should be commended for their restraint, but it hasn't solved any issues. Military force is the only solution with Gaza.

I agree that they are in their right to do something, but hasn't history taught you that invading will only make it worse. Every time Israel does something like that hamas gains more support.

It appears as though it is getting increasingly difficult to ignore how much of a monster Israel has become. How ironic.

Oh well. It's all just countdown to military force, and thus begins another war. Diplomacy doesn't work when the participants will only agree to peace if it means the other backs down and submits.

Dang, I was about to post this. :(

Any who, this dude should be fired immediately. If not, then that will be the very last straw for me to stop supporting Israel at all. Its bad enough they go into the West Bank killing and displacing my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, but now they threaten to murder on mass scale BEYOND what they have already done? WOW. Terrorist state, if you ask me. I bet if Venezuela, Iran, or some country like that would make a similar remark, it would be means for invasion by the UN and US. But yet, this will go unnoticed in the mainstream media in America.

Purely out of curiosity, weren't you rabidly pro-Israel a couple of months back, or am I confusing you with someone else?

Purely out of curiosity, weren't you rabidly pro-Israel a couple of months back, or am I confusing you with someone else?

Not a few months ago. Within in the last few years, yes. But, I value innocent life over supporting a state of supposed "God's people".

ROFL.


Especially the my heterosexual urges bit.

Heh, it's not the weirdest solution that's been proposed.:p Edward de Bono (the great popularizer of lateral thinking) suggested that large quantities of Marmite should be shipped out to Israel and Palestine. Apparently the regional diet is lacking in Zinc, and one of the results of a Zinc deficiency is increased violence, hence the need for more Zinc-rich food (i.e. Marmite).

^^This is all true, really!

Not a few months ago. Within in the last few years, yes. But, I value innocent life over supporting a state of supposed "God's people".

Must be someone else I was thinking of, never mind. :)

Heh, it's not the weirdest solution that's been proposed.:p Edward de Bono (the great popularizer of lateral thinking) suggested that large quantities of Marmite should be shipped out to Israel and Palestine. Apparently the regional diet is lacking in Zinc, and one of the results of a Zinc deficiency is increased violence, hence the need for more Zinc-rich food (i.e. Marmite).

^^This is all true, really!

Oatmeal is high in zinc. We could throw it at them. *nod*

Oatmeal is high in zinc. We could throw it at them. *nod*

Wouldn't it be more fun to throw oatmeal creme pies....from trebuchets? :D

This is where realism would have solved the problem long ago.

Expelling the Palestinians from the areas that they forfeited any right to by participating in several wars of genocidal aggression against Israel is the only solution there has ever been.

Wouldn't it be more fun to throw oatmeal creme pies....from trebuchets? :D

Definitely more fun than rocket attacks, suicide bombings and bulldozing neighborhoods. *nod*

I would say the man in question is a political hack who used some REALLY dumb words.

Ehud Barak is the current Defense Minister. I think he will likely reprimand his deputy (who is only in that job because he kissed Olmert's ass). I think you can trust that Barak will ensure that things do not get out of hand with the upcoming operations.

We shall hope so.

And don't think I am totally anti-Israel. I mean, I understand that those fools in Gaza are launching rockets and such, and they are developing ones that can hit all of Israel(according to the JP). I understand all of the pressure the Israeli gov't faces, BUT there are many questionable things that occur by the hands of the Israelis, and there is no way to support that.

This is where realism would have solved the problem long ago.

Expelling the Palestinians...
‘Realism’?

Where would you expel the Palestinians too? Under what jurisdiction? How, exactly, would you expel a hostile population without massive loss of life?

Realistic my arse.

This is where realism would have solved the problem long ago.

Expelling the Palestinians from the areas that they forfeited any right to by participating in several wars of genocidal aggression against Israel is the only solution there has ever been.I think you're confusing the term "realism" with the term "racism". It explains a lot.

Eh, its Detroit. I think most of America wouldn't give a darn if Detroit were wiped off the map. :p

However, I do see your point. And it is a valid point. But how far does "defense" allow Israel to go? The deputy defense minister said they'd do a shoah on the Palestinians. Surely you can't say that defense promotes genocide, can you?I would say the man in question is a political hack who used some REALLY dumb words.

Ehud Barak is the current Defense Minister. I think he will likely reprimand his deputy (who is only in that job because he kissed Olmert's ass). I think you can trust that Barak will ensure that things do not get out of hand with the upcoming operations.

‘Realism’?

Where would you expel the Palestinians too? Under what jurisdiction? How, exactly, would you expel a hostile population without massive loss of life?

Realistic my arse.

Well, one could make an argument of expelling them to other Arab or Muslim nations. But look at Jordan and Lebanon to see how loved those Palestinians are now. So yea, there is no realistic solution like that.

‘Realism’?

Where would you expel the Palestinians too? Under what jurisdiction? How, exactly, would you expel a hostile population without massive loss of life?

Realistic my arse.

Into the other Arab nations. And you would expel them with the military force obviously.

Dropping the A-bomb might have killed an awful lot of people, but a war on mainland Japan would have killed probably at least a million of the allies and the Japanese would likely never have recovered from the losses, both in terms of people and infrastructure.

The only solution to the problems the Israelis have is to grow a sack and get rid of the problem. What would have happened to the Israelis if they had lost one of the wars waged against them? Those who didn't escape would have been brutalized and wiped out. Palestinians brought it on themselves many times over. Israel should have forced them out decades ago.

Into the other Arab nations. And you would expel them with the military force obviously.

Dropping the A-bomb might have killed an awful lot of people, but a war on mainland Japan would have killed probably at least a million of the allies and the Japanese would likely never have recovered from the losses, both in terms of people and infrastructure.

The only solution to the problems the Israelis have is to grow a sack and get rid of the problem. What would have happened to the Israelis if they had lost one of the wars waged against them? Those who didn't escape would have been brutalized and wiped out. Palestinians brought it on themselves many times over. Israel should have forced them out decades ago.

The oatmeal plan sounds more realistic than what you're proposing. The other Islamic countries are just going to watch how the Palestinians are being 'forced out'? The Palestinians won't want their land back? The human rights don't count for the Palestinians? Deporting an ethnic group is suddenly good when the Jews do it?

Into the other Arab nations. And you would expel them with the military force obviously.

Dropping the A-bomb might have killed an awful lot of people, but a war on mainland Japan would have killed probably at least a million of the allies and the Japanese would likely never have recovered from the losses, both in terms of people and infrastructure.

The only solution to the problems the Israelis have is to grow a sack and get rid of the problem. What would have happened to the Israelis if they had lost one of the wars waged against them? Those who didn't escape would have been brutalized and wiped out. Palestinians brought it on themselves many times over. Israel should have forced them out decades ago.

See this post:

Well, one could make an argument of expelling them to other Arab or Muslim nations. But look at Jordan and Lebanon to see how loved those Palestinians are now. So yea, there is no realistic solution like that.

I have a few Lebanese friends, and they tell me how much they despise having Palestinian refugees in their country. I am sure there is the same problem with the refugees in Jordan. And doesn't Egpyt have a problem with letting Palestinians in? Where are you going to dump them? What about the economic status of the nations you dump them in? They will undoubtedly go south, just like any nation that has a large influx of refugees. There won't be enough resources to ensure the safety, health and well being of the Palestinian refugees. Simply put, your idea sucks.

The oatmeal plan sounds more realistic than what you're proposing. The other Islamic countries are just going to watch how the Palestinians are being 'forced out'? The Palestinians won't want their land back? The human rights don't count for the Palestinians? Deporting an ethnic group is suddenly good when the Jews do it?

What are they going to do? They all ganged up to do the same thing to the Israelis four times and got their asses kicked.

Of course they'll want "their land" back, but that's not how it works. Israel had the right to take everything they have when they won the wars waged against them in the past. Far as I'm concerned, they should claim all land to the Suez, all of Lebanon and the West Bank. If this was not the PC mass media era, this would never have been the problem. Like when the Turks controlled the area and did what was necessary to the Palestinians.

See this post:
I have a few Lebanese friends, and they tell me how much they despise having Palestinian refugees in their country. I am sure there is the same problem with the refugees in Jordan. And doesn't Egpyt have a problem with letting Palestinians in? Where are you going to dump them? What about the economic status of the nations you dump them in? They will undoubtedly go south, just like any nation that has a large influx of refugees. There won't be enough resources to ensure the safety, health and well being of the Palestinian refugees. Simply put, your idea sucks.

Well I despise the tens of millions of illegal immigrants in my own country, so I don't have much sympathy for them.

What are they going to do? They all ganged up to do the same thing to the Israelis four times and got their asses kicked.

Of course they'll want "their land" back, but that's not how it works. Israel had the right to take everything they have when they won the wars waged against them in the past. Far as I'm concerned, they should claim all land to the Suez, all of Lebanon and the West Bank. If this was not the PC mass media area, this would never have been the problem. Like when the Turks controlled the area and did what was necessary to the Palestinians.

Wow. You are nuts! They should own parts of three different nations? And how would they be able to keep that land? See, they might have technically won those lands, via war, but resistance would be so fierce that they would be crushed in no time. Your solution would end in all out war through out the entire middle east. So much more bloodshed and violence than we already see.

What are they going to do? They all ganged up to do the same thing to the Israelis four times and got their asses kicked.

Of course they'll want "their land" back, but that's not how it works. Israel had the right to take everything they have when they won the wars waged against them in the past. Far as I'm concerned, they should claim all land to the Suez, all of Lebanon and the West Bank. If this was not the PC mass media area, this would never have been the problem. Like when the Turks controlled the area and did what was necessary to the Palestinians.Have you paid restitution for white people owning slaves? Have you gone into indentured servitude under a black family in order to make up for slavery?

Well I despise the tens of millions of illegal immigrants in my own country, so I don't have much sympathy for them.

I think I am going to stop talking to you now. You are so infuriating with your 7th century barbaric views.

The oatmeal plan sounds more realistic than what you're proposing.

And the best part is that the bombs ARE the humanitarian aid. :)

???????????

The entire world was formed through the right of conquest and by using the same methods. Why condemn the Israelis for theoretically doing anything close to the same thing.

How many different nations have made up what is now Germany? From the Romans to the Russians, the world was created that way.

What are they going to do? They all ganged up to do the same thing to the Israelis four times and got their asses kicked.

Of course they'll want "their land" back, but that's not how it works. Israel had the right to take everything they have when they won the wars waged against them in the past. Far as I'm concerned, they should claim all land to the Suez, all of Lebanon and the West Bank. If this was not the PC mass media area, this would never have been the problem. Like when the Turks controlled the area and did what was necessary to the Palestinians.

Let's suppose your answer is realistic (which it isn't, it might get rid of the Palestinians but not of terrorism or the problems the Israelis face and you said it, mass media will be a bitch too) it's still just wrong. You're only considering the interests of the Israelis while ignoring those of the Palestinians and the neighbors. I can't think of any realistic ethical system which would allow such a violation of the 'golden rule'.

Into the other Arab nations. And you would expel them with the military force obviously.
Ahh, ‘obviously’.

So, to get this straight: you’re proposing that to solve the problem of land distribution/rights between two peoples that has not been solved by military means, you would force people onto other nations’ land through military means, thus creating massive problems of land distribution/rights?

Sounds foolproof...

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/large/pw_sign_22.gif

???????????

The entire world was formed through the right of conquest and by using the same methods. Why condemn the Israelis for theoretically doing anything close to the same thing.

How many different nations have made up what is now Germany? From the Romans to the Russians, the world was created that way.Funny. One would assume that the cart of human progress has gotten further down the road by now. Perhaps you fell out along the way.

???????????

The entire world was formed through the right of conquest and by using the same methods. Why condemn the Israelis for theoretically doing anything close to the same thing.

How many different nations have made up what is now Germany? From the Romans to the Russians, the world was created that way.

Yes, but we should have higher standard now! How long has this world seen death and destruction by mindless rulers that want land? As we progress as humanity, we should focus on stopping these idiotic ventures. Why do people want to focus on the past, and not on the future? Its like we think its okay to do something now, because someone did it in the past.

We are talking about solving the problem. Diplomacy, appeasement and agreements on pieces of paper haven't worked.

I believe my solution would solve the problem much quicker. It calls for an iron will and brutal realism, which makes it of course not possible in the future we see now, which means the problem won't be solved.

I believe in the old school Roman method of foreign policy because it works, especially on such a local level.

We are talking about solving the problem. Diplomacy, appeasement and agreements on pieces of paper haven't worked.

I believe my solution would solve the problem much quicker. It calls for an iron will and brutal realism, which makes it of course not possible in the future we see now, which means the problem won't be solved.

by your logic wiping out the entire human population would solve all problems. No more wars, no more discrimination, no more poverty, no more people dying of hunger etc.

We are talking about solving the problem. Diplomacy, appeasement and agreements on pieces of paper haven't worked.They don't? Why am I not being drafted for the Belgo-German war of 2008 then?
I believe my solution would solve the problem much quicker. It calls for an iron will and brutal realism, which makes it of course not possible in the future we see now, which means the problem won't be solved.You misspelled racism again.

This HSH Prince guy must be a troll. There is no way that people actually still believe that way.

Yeah, because anytime it involves people of a different ethnic background, it has to be racism.

The English treated the Irish and Scottish much worse than they did any of the third world colonial powers, yet they are accused of this terrible racism because the latter were different ethnic groups. You think that if the Aboriginals or American Indians were Caucasian that it would have been different? Come on now.

Just because the Arabs are sandier and follow a different religion doesn't make it racism to deal with them.

And I'm a troll? Like I said, they said the same things to Galileo that I hear now for proposing realistic solutions to world problems.

This HSH Prince guy must be a troll. There is no way that people actually still believe that way.People that live in militarily powerful countries or that have to deal with people that are physically weaker but are treated equally may develop such mentalities.

Yeah, because anytime it involved some of a different ethnic background, it has to be racism.

The British did to the Irish and Scottish much worse than they did any of the third world colonial powers, yet they are accused of racism because they were a different ethnic group. You think that if the Aboriginals or American Indians were Caucasian that it would have been different? Come on now.

Just because the Arabs are sandier and follow a different religion doesn't make it racism to deal with them.None of this makes any real point, sorry.

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/large/pw_sign_22.gif
You seem to be confusing ‘Muslim’ and ‘Arab’ again.

We are talking about solving the problem.
On your account, by creating worse problems.

Diplomacy, appeasement and agreements on pieces of paper haven’t worked.
It works when either side keep to agreements.

It calls for an iron will and brutal realism, which makes it of course not possible in the future we see now, which means the problem won’t be solved.

I believe in the old school Roman method of foreign policy because it works, especially on such a local level.
You need to read up on the meanings of the highlighted words.

Just because the Arabs are sandier...
What are you wittering on about?

And I'm a troll? Like I said, they said the same things to Galileo that I hear now for proposing realistic solutions to world problems.
I don't see anyone threatening you with excommunication, torture or execution.

It's best practice to keep those delusions of grandeur to a minimum.

And I wasn't saying that diplomacy never works, I'm saying that it has certainly not worked in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

And I wasn't saying that diplomacy never works, I'm saying that it has certainly not worked in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Diplomacy usually doesn't work, when the talks are held on the battlefield, and the treaties are signed with the blood of children. What I mean by that is that there has never been any real attempt to be diplomatic by either side. They might sign a cease-fire, but then they turn there back on it after leaving the table. Its not because diplomacy won't work with Israel/Palestine, but the participants must be will to give up things, in order to gain peace.

When has Israel ever violated any agreement they signed that wasn't in retaliation for actions against them? This entire situation we are talking about here is a direct provocation and perfectly illustrates the problem. You've got a civilized nation dealing with primitives. They have to deal with them in the same way that others have in the past.

You think the Israelis are the ones who initially break the agreements? Please.

And I wasn't saying that diplomacy never works, I'm saying that it has certainly not worked in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.It certainly has, or are you suggesting Israel is still at war with Egypt and Jordan?
When has Israel ever violated any agreement they signed that wasn't in retaliation for actions against them? This entire situation ever is direct provocation and perfectly illustrates the problem. You've got a civilized nation dealing with primitives. They have to deal with them in the same way that others have in the past.

You think the Israelis are the ones who initially break the agreements? Please.Palestinians are slowly learning that they won't solve problems without peaceful agreements with Israel. Ethnic cleansing won't solve the conflict, it will create more.

When has Israel ever violated any agreement they signed that wasn't in retaliation for actions against them? This entire situation we are talking about here is a direct provocation and perfectly illustrates the problem. You've got a civilized nation dealing with primitives. They have to deal with them in the same way that others have in the past.

You think the Israelis are the ones who initially break the agreements? Please.

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

I am sure there is something in there for you. plenty of broken resolutions to choose from.

Ethnic cleansing is just a word to shock people.

Expelling the Palestinians from lands that they should have already lost due to their instigation and participation in several wars of aggression to commit genocide against the Israelis because of their constant threats and their cause of so many problems is not ethnic cleansing.

Ethnic cleansing is just a word to shock people.

Expelling the Palestinians from lands that they should have already lost due to their instigation and participation in several wars of aggression to commit genocide against the Israelis because of their constant threats and their cause of so many problems is not ethnic cleansing.Yes it is.

hold on, are you arguing against... basic knowledge? Like something so basic as the definition of a word?

Yes it is.

Sometimes the most simple answers are, in fact, the best. ;)

It certainly has, or are you suggesting Israel is still at war with Egypt and Jordan?
Palestinians are slowly learning that they won't solve problems without peaceful agreements with Israel. Ethnic cleansing won't solve the conflict, it will create more.

You overestimate the Palestinians in the same way that the Republicans did the Iraqis. You just assume they would start acting in their best interests and have some grasp of the big picture. It's just not realistic. They are 1,000 years behind human thought evolution. They are in the mental place that accepts theocracy.

You overestimate the Palestinians in the same way that the Republicans did the Iraqis. You just assume they would start acting in their best interests and have some grasp of the big picture. It's just not realistic. They are 1,000 years behind human thought evolution. They are in the mental place that accepts theocracy.The accusation of being behind on human thought evolution is very hypocritical coming from someone that advocates might makes right.

You overestimate the Palestinians in the same way that the Republicans did the Iraqis. You just assume they would start acting in their best interests and have some grasp of the big picture. It's just not realistic. They are 1,000 years behind human thought evolution. They are in the mental place that accepts theocracy.

I think you need to go re-read your own posts before you criticize someone else's thought process. If they are 1000 years behind, then clearly your thought evolution has not gone past the point of throwing poo at people.

In many cases, it's the only realistic solution. To believe otherwise is to be ignorant, willfully or naturally.

You don't make agreements with terrorists, it simply doesn't work. Human evolution and history should teach anyone that a person has two hands and should have a sword and a pen.

In many cases, it's the only realistic solution.Again that silly misspelling.
You don't make agreements with terrorists, it simply doesn't work. Human evolution and history should teach anyone that a person has two hands and should have a sword and a pen.Yeah, the sword to kill someone and the pen to write a note "It wasn't me, signed Eric" to pin on the body.

I'll agree some of his views are...disturbing, but I don't think he's a troll. I think he genuinely believes the things he does, and having controversial views does not make one a troll.Actually believing something doesn't mean its not trolling, at least according to the rules of this forum.

Actually believing something doesn't mean its not trolling, at least according to the rules of this forum.

And IIRC, doesn't believing that something such as genocide is okay, make it trolling?

This HSH Prince guy must be a troll. There is no way that people actually still believe that way.

I'll agree some of his views are...disturbing, but I don't think he's a troll. I think he genuinely believes the things he does, and having controversial views does not make one a troll.

I think you need to go re-read your own posts before you criticize someone else's thought process. If they are 1000 years behind, then clearly your thought evolution has not gone past the point of throwing poo at people.

What's wrong with throwing poo at people? :(

j/k

Show me where it says having certain beliefs is trolling. If I recall, as long as someone follows the rules regarding etiquette and stay out of trouble, they can believe whatever they want.

here:
Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs. Intent is difficult to prove over the internet, so mods will work under their best assumptions.

Actually believing something doesn't mean its not trolling, at least according to the rules of this forum.

Show me where it says having certain beliefs is trolling. If I recall, as long as someone follows the rules regarding etiquette and stay out of trouble, they can believe whatever they want.

And IIRC, doesn't believing that something such as genocide is okay, make it trolling?

No, because if it did, then Andaras would have gotten trouble by saying the genocide of the Hmong in Laos is okay (which he did in a thread awhile back).

So expelling people that you believe don't have a legitimate claim to the land is genocide?

I guess they rewrote the definition today.

So expelling people that you believe don't have a legitimate claim to the land is genocide?

I guess they rewrote the definition today.

From wiki:

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group.

While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2 of this defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I'm sure your use of the Israeli military to forcefully remove(which would end in massive bloodshed, no doubt)the Palestinians to a new land, would be considered genocidal.

And yet, people who do the exact same thing (Fassitude, Andaras, etc.) are never punished. Fancy that.

Yeah, a lot of the rules aren't enforced like they are supposed to be. For example, look at a thread that will be locked, and see all the "in before lock" responses. Technically, that should be punished by receiving a warning for doing that. But I never have received one for doing it, or have seen others receive one for it.

And I'm quite sure that it isn't.

I'm not saying that they should wipe out the Palestinians, who are numerous and have immigrated around the world, I'm saying they should remove them from areas that they have rightful claim due to the wars the Palestinians engaged in to actually commit genocide against them.

Removal from a land in dispute and genocide are very different and it really weakens the term to be used so often.

And I'm quite sure that it isn't.

I'm not saying that they should wipe out the Palestinians, who are numerous and have immigrated around the world, I'm saying they should remove them from areas that they have rightful claim due to the wars the Palestinians engaged in to actually commit genocide against them.

Removal from a land in dispute and genocide are very different and it really weakens the term to be used so often.

How have Palestinians used genocide against Israel? They don't have the means to do such a thing. Israel out numbers, out guns, and out maneuvers them in every aspect. So how can the superior force be slaughtered en masse, through genocide, by a weaker force? You are so delusional.

here:

And yet, people who do the exact same thing (Fassitude, Andaras, etc.) are never punished. Fancy that.

How have Palestinians used genocide against Israel? They don't have the means to do such a thing. Israel out numbers, out guns, and out maneuvers them in every aspect. So how can the superior force be slaughtered en masse, through genocide, by a weaker force? You are so delusional.

Yeah, unlike Israel, who have the means, but won't, they don't have the means, but would.

You do know that there is a long history that goes back more than the last 10 years right?

For instance, four wars the Palestinians instigated and participated in that sought to wipe out the Israelis? Which doesn't even include the terrorism and daily provocation that have been giving for 60 years.

Yeah, unlike Israel, who have the means, but won't, they don't have the means, but would.

You do know that there is a long history that goes back more than the last 10 years right?

For instance, four wars the Palestinians instigated and participated in that sought to wipe out the Israelis? Which doesn't even include the terrorism and daily provocation that have been giving for 60 years.

Or, what about the fact that Israel built new settlements on Palestinian land, destroyed Pali infrastructure on a large scale(as well as its neighbors, think Lebanon 2006), destroyed Pali sources of food, have blocked the Palis from reaching adequate health care etc?

All of those incidents happened after they had complete claim over all Palestinian lands and were all provoked by constant violations of previous agreements.

The Israelis have always been far too lenient and tolerant. I don't know how they do it.

All of those incidents happened after they had complete claim over all Palestinian lands and were all provoked by constant violations of previous agreements.

The Israelis have always been far too lenient and tolerant. I don't know how they do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FGijoJ3fl0 Yep, seems tolerant to me.


http://www.revisionisthistory.org/images/palboy_jenin_41802.JPG I wonder what he did for them to be so "lenient"?

You are just as naive as people who think the pali's are totally innocent. Both parties are guilty of crimes of war, but Israel should know better, being a so called western, "civilized" state and all.

Ethnic cleansing is just a word to shock people.

Expelling the Palestinians from lands that they should have already lost due to their instigation and participation in several wars of aggression to commit genocide against the Israelis because of their constant threats and their cause of so many problems is not ethnic cleansing.

Well said.

The so-called "Palestinians" should have been dealt with in the same way that the German inhabitants of Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia were dealt with after WWII. I have yet to hear anyone refer to that population transfer as "ethnic cleansing", "collective punishment" or any of the other teary-eyed cliches that the sympathizers and enablers of Ham-ass, Islamic Jihad etc. routinely quack out.

Well said.

The so-called "Palestinians" should have been dealt with in the same way that the German inhabitants of Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia were dealt with after WWII. I have yet to hear anyone refer to that population transfer as "ethnic cleansing", "collective punishment" or any of the other teary-eyed cliches that the sympathizers and enablers of Ham-ass, Islamic Jihad etc. routinely quack out.

So, because something happened 60 years ago, its okay to do the same thing today? The two have no bearing on each other. This is not about postwar, post nazi Germany. This is about Israel, and Palestine. Come back when you have an argument.

You do know that there is a long history that goes back more than the last 10 years right?
Yes, something you're evidently too stupid to understand yourself.

The Israelis and Palestinians have both brought this kind of thing upon themselves since time immemorial.

The Palestinians continue to not do enough to take out their rogue elements which launch rockets at Sderot etc., just as the Israelis don't do enough to prevent pointless civilian casualties on the Palestinians.

Strangely enough, pointlessly killing Palestian civilians pisses off the Palestinians in the exact same way as pointlessly killing Israeli civilians pisses off the Israelis.

That this has gone on for thousands of years is testament to human endurance, but also the lack of will to learn from experience, but there we go.
For instance, four wars the Palestinians instigated and participated in that sought to wipe out the Israelis?
Because cutting off the Palestinians' food, electricity etc. isn't just a slightly less directly barbaric way of wiping out the Palestinians by the Israelis?
Which doesn't even include the terrorism and daily provocation that have been giving for 60 years.
Right, because Israel's daily provocation and terrorism is somehow different?

Both sides are in the wrong. The sooner people start taking note of what both sides do, the sooner that this whole crisis can start to be over.

The Left (yes, this is broad brush strokes, but there we go) largely like to make excuses for what the Palestinians do, just as the Right try, by and large, to justify Israel's actions.

Both sides are pretty much indefensible. There is no reason to fire rockets at, and occassionally suicide bomb Israelis, just as there is no reason to bomb and cut the supplies off of the Palestinians. Whatsoever.

So, because something happened 60 years ago, its okay to do the same thing today?

The same justification exists for both events.

The two have no bearing on each other.

To the contrary, they are analogous. Germany started WWII, lost, lost territory and had to absorb millions of Germans who were thrown out of the territories they lost. Arabs started the war against Israel, lost, lost territory and should have had to absorb the millions of Arabs who should have been thrown out of the territories they lost.

This is not about postwar, post nazi Germany. This is about Israel, and Palestine.

See above.

Come back when you have an argument.

I'm not going anywhere. May I suggest you reply to the argument rather than engaging in denial.

HSN Prince Eric is right in the fact that this conflict goes back 60 years. However, does anyone here in this forum even know how the Israelis got the land which Palestine at one time controlled?

During WW1 Britain needed more money to continue fighting the war. The government was approached by leaders of the Zionist movement (wanted to take back the Jewish homeland). In exchange for money, the British government promised to take Jerusalem and the surrounding territory and give it to the Zionist movement to form a Jewish State. Britain did not hold its end of the bargain at the end of WW1.

Fast forward to the end of WW2. Germany has been defeated, and the world now has millions of Jewish refugees to deal with. So Britain takes land from Palestine, and forms the current Jewish State of Israel.

This has lead to the decades long conflict between Palestine and Israel. One could say that Britain is to blame for all of the instability and war in the area. Israel was formed from land that rightfully belonged to Palestine. Both Irael and Palestine have committed great injustices against one another.

Point is, Israel shouldn't be there in the first place. However, Israel was created to deal with millions of displaced Jews. So dissolving the state of Israel, and giving the land to Palestine is the wrong way to go. But Palestine was robbed, how do you appease them?

Unfortunately, under the current conditions of a militant Palestine the only way to end this conflict NOW, is to remove Israel. Invasion of the Gaza strip will only further alienate Palestine and other supporters. They will have to come to a diplomatic agreement. But as of now, I don't see that happening.

The so-called "Palestinians"
Sorry, what?

Why do the Palestinians merit "bullshit" marks?
should have been dealt with in the same way that the German inhabitants of Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia were dealt with after WWII. I have yet to hear anyone refer to that population transfer as "ethnic cleansing", "collective punishment" or any of the other teary-eyed cliches
Terrorism was being inflicted upon the Palestinians in the 1920s and onwards by the more radically Zionist end of the Imperial Police in much the same way as the Israelis became victims of terrorism after getting their statehood.

This whole thing is swings and roundabouts. The less powerful group is always biting at its stronger rival, be the less powerful group Jewish or Palestinian.

Kicking anyone out of the area without kicking out the other groups is pretty weak, to be honest.

Clear everyone out and ruin the land with chemical weapons or whatever, yeah, fine, or leave everyone in there to duke it out für ewig und immer and all of that, also sound. Intervening and kicking one group or other out, I think not.
Ham-ass
As classy as always, NM. Do you ever get tired of being utterly pathetic?

Well said.

The so-called "Palestinians" should have been dealt with in the same way that the German inhabitants of Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia were dealt with after WWII. I have yet to hear anyone refer to that population transfer as "ethnic cleansing", "collective punishment" or any of the other teary-eyed cliches that the sympathizers and enablers of Ham-ass, Islamic Jihad etc. routinely quack out.

Sorry, but that just cracked me up. :D

Sorry, what?

Why do the Palestinians merit "bullshit" marks?

There is no state of "Palestine." There has never been such a state. There wasn't a "Palestine" between 1948 and 1967, when the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab control. The so-called "Palestinians" are Arabs who backed the losing side and refuse to recognize that they lost.


Terrorism was being inflicted upon the Palestinians in the 1920s and onwards by the more radically Zionist end of the Imperial Police in much the same way as the Israelis became victims of terrorism after getting their statehood.

There is no comparison between the two, let alone equivalence. Although to the extent that such acts were committed, they should not have been.

Kicking anyone out of the area without kicking out the other groups is pretty weak, to be honest.

That's not the way things work, nor has it ever been. Vae victis.

As classy as always, NM.

I have no need to justify my contempt for Islamo-Nazi terrorist bastards to you or anyone else. If anyone is offended by it, too bad. Your taking offense is itself offensive.

Do you ever get tired of being utterly pathetic?

When I read that profound and thoughtful remark, I was reminded of the words of Sojourner Truth, who once, when a white man told her that her speeches were no more important than a fleabite, replied, "Maybe not, but the Lord willing, I'll keep you scratching."

The more Islamo-Nazi apologists and enablers, wanna-be dhimmis, anti-Semites and left-wing tools and whackos in general think of me as "utterly pathetic," the more it proves to me that I am on the correct, i.e., right, track. :D

This jackass brings up "Shoah" when talking about Israel invading the West Bank?

Wow, I guess people do learn from history after all.

And "Never Again" doesn't apply to brown people.

Israel and Palestinians aren't going to start getting along any time in seeable future, they will just continue killing each other.

I bet if Venezuela or Iran were under attack daily from rockets that they would have a legal reason to go in deal with the threat.

Let me ask you something. Let's say that Detroit were under daily attack from about two dozen rockets a day launched by Windsor. Let's add in the fact that the group launching those rockets is the elected government of Canada. Would you not demand that the US use military force to stop the daily attacks? Israel is in such a situation. They should be commended for their restraint, but it hasn't solved any issues. Military force is the only solution with Gaza.

Well, if Israel would fuck off out of the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem, and relinquish contrrol of Gazan borders, maybe there wouldn't be such an urge to fire rockets at them....

Isreals wrong. Palastines wrong. End of story.

Someone should have just leveled Jeruslaem during the Middle Ages. God knows the Crusaders got half way there when they took the city in 1099.

Israel and Palestinians aren't going to start getting along any time in seeable future, they will just continue killing each other.

Sad but true.

That's why neither Israel nor Palestine should receive so much as a penny in foreign aid, and why time, money, and effort should not be wasted on futile efforts to bring "peace."

Isreals wrong. Palastines wrong.

That's why no one deserves the land. Let the Israelis establish a homeland in Antarctica, and the Palestinians establish one at the North Pole. This is assuming we can stop global warming, of course...

*runs*

This is (....)er been.

Under the bridge with thee.


I have yet to hear anyone refer to that population transfer as "ethnic cleansing", "collective punishment" .

Why not? It was. So were the acts that provoked it.


Arabs started the war against Israel, lost, lost territory and should have had to absorb the millions of Arabs who should have been thrown out of the territories they lost.
.

Arabs are not some amorphous mass.


The so-called "Palestinians" are Arabs who backed the losing side and refuse to recognize that they lost..

As Palestinians were aware of their own distinct identity as far back as the Ottoman days, I suggest that you're once again talking shite. We can go through names and dates there.


There is no comparison between the two, let alone equivalence. ..

They were far more efficient is about the only difference. They launched reprisal raids on civillians, planted large indiscriminate bombs in Arab markets, kidnapped and killed prisoners and executed informers and 'colloborators'. We can go through the gory details if you want.


Islamo-Nazi terrorist bastards ..

*snigger. Thats it!!!!! Type it like it is!!!! Do it for Freedom!!!!!!!

Well, if Israel would fuck off out of the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem, and relinquish contrrol of Gazan borders, maybe there wouldn't be such an urge to fire rockets at them....

You are so hopelessly naive it isn't funny. Israel thought that ending the occupation in Gaza would solve all of the problems. All it has done is lead to 20+ rocket attacks per day. If it wasn't for Israel mandating bomb shelters in every apartment building and every few private houses, the casualties would be in the thousands by now.

The West Bank is actually a stable place to be right now. I was there twice in the month of December on my last trip to Israel. I felt safe driving through the West Bank and walking around some towns there. BTW, this was without being near any IDF soldiers. I only saw IDF soldiers when I was crossing into the West Bank. They really don't stop most people or check them unless they receive news or intelligence to watch for someone.

Gaza is NOT a stable place. It is a hell hole right now and I couldn't go to Sderot or Ashkelon as our tour group wouldn't let us because of the danger from Qassams. Israel did get out of there and things got much worse. I think it is safe to say that the Israeli occupied West Bank is far better than the Hamas controlled Gaza Strip. Things may not be perfect in the West Bank, but the Palestinians there are far better off than the Gazans.

Your idea of opening Gaza's borders is ludicrous. That will just allow more arms in. If Gaza stopped launching rockets, then Israel could open the borders. The people in the West Bank are not aiming to destroy Israel right now. They aren't launching attacks from there so Israel leaves most of the border entrances relatively clear where you slow down and just get waved through.

Tell me, you seem to have such strong opinions, have you ever been to Israel? Please go there and then go into the West Bank. You will see things are much better than than is portrayed in the media.

You are so hopelessly naive it isn't funny. Israel thought that ending the occupation in Gaza would solve all of the problems. .

Actually the idea was to wrong foot the Palestinians, further isolate Arafat, and concentrate resources on the West Bank, with the aim being a finmal unilateral declaration of its borders.


The West Bank is actually a stable place to be right now. .

So is any occupied country if the occupier gets it 'right'.



I think it is safe to say that the Israeli occupied West Bank is far better than the Hamas controlled Gaza Strip. Things may not be perfect in the West Bank, but the Palestinians there are far better off than the Gazans.
.

Are they indeed? Better controlled more like....
Israel passed fewer than 6% of building requests by Palestinians in the occupied West Bank in 2000-07, an Israeli anti-settlement group says.
Peace Now says 91 permits were granted from 1,624 requests, in contrast to the 18,472 homes built for Jewish settlers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7256576.stm

An apartheid province by any other name......


They aren't launching attacks from there so Israel leaves most of the border entrances relatively clear where you slow down and just get waved through.
.

The IDF waving Palestinians through checkpoints.....?

There is no state of "Palestine." There has never been such a state.
Yes, that's quite true. That there aren't Palestinians is a different matter.
There wasn't a "Palestine" between 1948 and 1967, when the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab control. The so-called "Palestinians" are Arabs who backed the losing side and refuse to recognize that they lost.
No, the Palestinians are the ethnic group living in the area. Just as the Kurds live in northern Iraq and have never had a state, so do the Palestinians live in the Levant, and have never had a state.
There is no comparison between the two, let alone equivalence. Although to the extent that such acts were committed, they should not have been.
There absolutely is a comparison between the two. Both were marginalised groups which since gained an upper hand, and for a short time, there was some level of equivalence, in that they were both used essentially to brutalise the majority population of whichever country they were living in by the occupying powers of the time. Both were, and continue to be, resented by the people living in the area.
That's not the way things work, nor has it ever been. Vae victis.
Yes, well Vae Victis can go both ways, and does.
I have no need to justify my contempt for Islamo-Nazi terrorist bastards to you or anyone else. If anyone is offended by it, too bad. Your taking offense is itself offensive.

When I read that profound and thoughtful remark, I was reminded of the words of Sojourner Truth, who once, when a white man told her that her speeches were no more important than a fleabite, replied, "Maybe not, but the Lord willing, I'll keep you scratching."

The more Islamo-Nazi apologists and enablers, wanna-be dhimmis, anti-Semites and left-wing tools and whackos in general think of me as "utterly pathetic," the more it proves to me that I am on the correct, i.e., right, track. :D
Come on, man. "Ham-ass"?

That's pretty lame stuff. I have no love for Hamas, but trying to make a statement through crappy puns is a pretty sorry state of affairs.

*Warning! Common sense ahead!*

If the Palestinians were to immediately stop the rocket attacks today:

1. Any future agression by Israel would be an inexcusable blatant act of war and would destroy Israel's standing in the eyes of the world.

2. Palestine wins legitimacy by ending the stigma of being a terrorist society

3. Speaking as a right-wing fundie christian jesus freak gun-wielding fanatical yankee lunatic, the only objection I have to a Palestinian state is the violent actions of the few nutjobs with R-launchers and their tendency to violence. If they stop acting stupid, no reasonable American would object to a Palestinian state.

Peace comes only when both sides no longer want to fight. The process cannot start until at least one side demonstrates a desire to end hostilities and the ability to keep their nutjobs in line. I don't see either side as having reached even this point. Middle-East peace is not going to happen any time soon.

Actually the idea was to wrong foot the Palestinians, further isolate Arafat, and concentrate resources on the West Bank, with the aim being a finmal unilateral declaration of its borders.
Sharon's plan was to disengage from the West Bank also. Olmert was going to continue it. The Israeli populous showed their support for it when they voted the Kadima-Labor Coalition in the Spring of 06 for the 17th Knesset. Then everything went to hell was rocket attacks from Gaza increased and made Israel decide not to pull out seeing how ending the occupation in Gaza made things worse for both parties.



So is any occupied country if the occupier gets it 'right'.
It is stable without a strong presence of Israeli soldiers. The soldiers only go into Palestinian villages when they have intelligence telling them that something is afoot. Most of the time, they just stand at border crossings and wave people through. Either that or they are guarding the settlements.



Are they indeed? Better controlled more like....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7256576.stm

An apartheid province by any other name......

You specifically chose to highlight a period or high tensions and fighting. There was a quasi war going on. Of course Israel would not grant permits during that time. Can you give me the numbers from 1994-2000? I'm pretty sure they will show a big difference.

You're also ignoring the fact that Israel was going to pull out of the West Bank and end the occupation once and for all, but the people in Gaza decided to shit on themselves and their fellow citzens and start launching rockets.


The IDF waving Palestinians through checkpoints.....?
Most of the time they will do so. They only close the checkpoints and stop people when there is a threat. In the past year or so, the West Bank has been relatively quiet and the soldiers have been waving people through.

If you actually traveled the world and saw things with your own two eyes, then you might not be so naive. Instead you just sit in your living room and take everything in the press for granted. All media have some agenda. The only way you can see a situation for what it is would be looking at it with your own two eyes.

If you actually traveled the world and saw things with your own two eyes, then you might not be so naive. Instead you just sit in your living room and take everything in the press for granted. All media have some agenda. The only way you can see a situation for what it is would be looking at it with your own two eyes.

This is interesting. I thought the paranoia was that the jews controlled the media. Now youre implying that the media is anti-jew.

Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7270650.stm)
Ouch. Not a good word to use.

I would give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he doesn't mean genocide. Of course, I didn't buy that Ahmadinejad really wants to wipe out Israel buy military force either, so maybe I'm naive.

Regardless, both sides needs to get their shit together!

And yet, people who do the exact same thing (Fassitude, Andaras, etc.) are never punished. Fancy that.
Fass? How many nations has he had deleted anyway?

To the contrary, they are analogous. Germany started WWII, lost, lost territory and had to absorb millions of Germans who were thrown out of the territories they lost. Arabs started the war against Israel, lost, lost territory and should have had to absorb the millions of Arabs who should have been thrown out of the territories they lost.
A country starts a war, lost, lost territory and had to absorb millions of their countrymen, and that's analogous to an ethnicity starting a war (against a country), losing, losing territory and having to absorb millions of people of the same ethnicity (people not being their own countrymen)? Interesting view of the term "analogous".



Most of the time they will do so. They only close the checkpoints and stop people when there is a threat. In the past year or so, the West Bank has been relatively quiet and the soldiers have been waving people through.

If you actually traveled the world and saw things with your own two eyes, then you might not be so naive. Instead you just sit in your living room and take everything in the press for granted. All media have some agenda. The only way you can see a situation for what it is would be looking at it with your own two eyes.
What about reports from NGO's? Can they be trusted?

This is interesting. I thought the paranoia was that the jews controlled the media. Now youre implying that the media is anti-jew.
Maybe they're those sneaky self-hating Jews we hear of from time to time, when Jews choose to criticise Israel or whatever.

This is interesting. I thought the paranoia was that the jews controlled the media. Now youre implying that the media is anti-jew.

No, I'm saying that the media loves a good story and trying to make a situation look worse than it is sells. If people saw the West Bank for what it is, then there isn't a great sensational story.

What about reports from NGO's? Can they be trusted?

No, they have very clear agendas. No organization with an agenda is going to paint the true picture no matter what issue we are talking about.

No, they have very clear agendas. No organization with an agenda is going to paint the true picture no matter what issue we are talking about.

And what kind of organisation/person would be free from 'agendas'?

I think the obvious solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is to rename Gaza 'Super-happy-fun-land' and Israel 'my heterosexual urges'. Just think about it: no fundamentalist member of Hamas would be able to call for the destruction of his heterosexual urges without being lynched, and no Israeli politician could suggest that anywhere called Super-happy-fun-land was a threat and expect to be believed by the electorate. It's perfect!

This is THE best theory I've ever heard on this issue :D

EDIT:Siggage in fact.

Sharon's plan was to disengage from the West Bank also. .

..disengage from the parts they hadn't decided to annex.

Mr Weisglass boasted that he had in effect secured US approval "that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all".

"The rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns," he joked.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3720176.stm



It is stable without a strong presence of Israeli soldiers. The soldiers only go into Palestinian villages when they have intelligence telling them that something is afoot. Most of the time, they just stand at border crossings and wave people through. Either that or they are guarding the settlements.
.

So as long as the croppy lies down, all is well. But should they get 'ideas'....The sad thing is you really don't realise that you're agreeing with what I said about the occupiers getting it "right".....


You specifically chose to highlight a period or high tensions and fighting. There was a quasi war going on. Of course Israel would not grant permits during that time. Can you give me the numbers from 1994-2000? I'm pretty sure they will show a big difference. .

emmm, not as far as I can gather, as this has been going on since 1967, not 2000.

If lack of building permission to the inhabitants is due to war, then why are the entirely illegal settlements immune? I'm not following you....

By the way.....(page 86 and down)
For example, between 1996 and 1999, the Civil Administration issued just 79 building permits.
http://www.btselem.org/Download/200205_Land_Grab_Eng.doc



This deals with the situation in the West Bank comprehensively
The planning system on the West Bank, implemented by the Civil Administration, is one of the most powerful mechanisms of the Israeli occupation.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/200205_Land_Grab.asp

If people saw the West Bank for what it is, then there isn't a great sensational story.

Strange that Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu saw it and came to the "Apartheid" conclusion. I look at the numbers, the reports and come to much the same.

*Warning! Common sense ahead!*

If the Palestinians were to immediately stop the rocket attacks today:

1. Any future agression by Israel would be an inexcusable blatant act of war and would destroy Israel's standing in the eyes of the world.

2. Palestine wins legitimacy by ending the stigma of being a terrorist society

3. Speaking as a right-wing fundie christian jesus freak gun-wielding fanatical yankee lunatic, the only objection I have to a Palestinian state is the violent actions of the few nutjobs with R-launchers and their tendency to violence. If they stop acting stupid, no reasonable American would object to a Palestinian state.

Peace comes only when both sides no longer want to fight. The process cannot start until at least one side demonstrates a desire to end hostilities and the ability to keep their nutjobs in line. I don't see either side as having reached even this point. Middle-East peace is not going to happen any time soon.

Your optimism is remarkable. The fact is that Israel is a US ally. Israel wants land in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. As long as they don't go totally overboard in how they get to that, the US are willing to let them carry on regardless. This went on before there was such a thing as a suicide bomber and before the Palestinians became more drawn to Islamic organisations. Should they all convert to Jesus tommorrow it will roll on regardless. Its realpolitik in action.

Must be someone else I was thinking of, never mind. :)

What are they going to do? They all ganged up to do the same thing to the Israelis four times and got their asses kicked.

Of course they'll want "their land" back, but that's not how it works. Israel had the right to take everything they have when they won the wars waged against them in the past. Far as I'm concerned, they should claim all land to the Suez, all of Lebanon and the West Bank. If this was not the PC mass media era, this would never have been the problem. Like when the Turks controlled the area and did what was necessary to the Palestinians.


opposite side of that argument...


Well....if it was not tha "PC media era" then hitler would have been able to finish his job and we wouldent have this problem right now and saved the region and world a whole lot of trouble.


By your logic...what hitler did, expelling the jews and when nobody would take them killed them is right. Not so nice when it's happening to your own kind is it.

:mp5:
:mp5:
:sniper:
:mp5:
:mp5:

No, they have very clear agendas. No organization with an agenda is going to paint the true picture no matter what issue we are talking about.

Aha. So you're saying that we can't trust any reports at all then, and we can only make up our minds by actually going there and...

...


...see what the authorities decides to let us see? Hmm...

I find this topic to be funny. Some people accused one guy of not having progressed past the flinging poo stage of human mental development then decided to fling internet poo(Name calling) at him. Hypocrisy is funny. Then another guy decides that the only solution is for Israel to leave, which is a funny idea because it has about a good a chance as aliens coming down to earth and using as zoo animals. The best idea, sadly, is the one where we rename the countries so as to stop attacls. :fluffle:

Actually there are 3 solutions

1. Peace deal enforced by the UN... ie UN troops are stationed at the border with orders to shoot anyone who starts hostilities :sniper:

2. Build a big wall around Israel/Palistine, throw in a bunch of weapons and let them fight it out.:mp5:

3. Finally get p***ed with both sides and decide to reduce the world's nuclear bomb stockpile by flattening and killing everyone in the place.:eek:


More seriously..

The vast majority of the both populations want peace... they all want nothing more than to live their lives and make money/babies.
Sadly you have a bunch of extremist nutjobs on the Palestinian side, funded by countries who use the actions of Israel to distract their own populations from the actions of their own government... Syria springs to mind here
"Hey look at the Israelis killing 10 innocent Palestinians" while shelling one of their own cities and killing 15 000 of their own people.

Then you have the extremist christian nutjobs in the US putting pressure on the US government to support Israel on the basis it will bring about armeggedon.

There will never be peace while the nutjobs of both sides exist... remember it was an Israeli who shot their prime minister who signed a peace treaty with Arafat.

The vast majority of the both populations want peace... That's the big misconception. Israel keeps voting governments into office that expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which means they have no intention of peace with Palestinians at all.

That's the big misconception. Israel keeps voting governments into office that expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which means they have no intention of peace with Palestinians at all.

Agreed. And Hamas was elected on the Palestinian side, also with no intention of peace.

However, Araft and teh current hamas government have both asked for U.N troops stationed in palstine and isreal...however, ther isralis refused any action by the U.N, while the pasltinians were pushing for it.

Agreed. And Hamas was elected on the Palestinian side, also with no intention of peace.That was a reaction to Fatah's inability to achieve anything. Which was in turn caused by a complete failure by Israel to cooperate with the Palestinians when they should have supported Abbas.

I am sorry to say this, but the USA is to blame for a lot of it, as it backs the Israeli government and is the reason why Israel has never ever applied any of the 100+ UN resoutions which have condemned its actions in relation to occupation of territories outside the pre1967 borders.

This below is the only solution:
1) revert to the pre 1967 borders
2) East Jerusalem to be Palestinian capital.
3) Holy sites in Jerusalem to be placed under permanent UN supervision.
4) A Locarno style agreement on all borders throughout the Mid East
In return
The Israelis would receive
1) Security guarantees which would morph into non agression pact and friendship treaty which over time would give way to a Free Trade Area and Common Security and Defence Pact, which would be very good especially with Russia starting to re-arm itself.

But I'm probably to optimistic as it'd require the Israeli government to become as war-weary as its people for that to happen and let's face there is no Yithzak Rabin type politician on the Israeli political scene at the moment.

Why can't they just get along.

OK, so the Arabs nicked the Holy Land from the Romans who'd nicked it from the Jews etc.

So what? They should learn to live and let live.

That said, Palestine should move out of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, simply because Arabs have a lot more countries under their dark ages opressive regimes (mentioning no names Mr President of What I still call Persia), than the Jews have soverign nations.

That was a reaction to Fatah's inability to achieve anything. Which was in turn caused by a complete failure by Israel to cooperate with the Palestinians when they should have supported Abbas.

That's absolutely true. However, it could also reasonably be said that Israel's election of militaristic governments has been a reaction of the non-militarist factions to stem the tide of violence.

I don't think either side really wants peace at this point. Palestine feels it's been painted into a corner, and must show defiance. Israel believes they cannot trust the palestinians to obey any treaty or ceasefire, and must crush the militants to stop the attacks. Until one side or the other tires of the bloodletting, there will be no peace.

That said, Palestine should move out of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, simply because Arabs have a lot more countries under their dark ages opressive regimes (mentioning no names Mr President of What I still call Persia), than the Jews have soverign nations.

I'll start off by pointing out that the Iranians are not Arabs.

That said, Palestine should move out of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, simply because Arabs have a lot more countries under their dark ages opressive regimes (mentioning no names Mr President of What I still call Persia), than the Jews have soverign nations.Bullshit. Why don't the US give up one of their states to the Jews? After all they have 49 more states.

And Iran (which has been named thus long before it was named Persia) is not an Arab country.

That's absolutely true. However, it could also reasonably be said that Israel's election of militaristic governments has been a reaction of the non-militarist factions to stem the tide of violence.

I don't think either side really wants peace at this point. Palestine feels it's been painted into a corner, and must show defiance. Israel believes they cannot trust the palestinians to obey any treaty or ceasefire, and must crush the militants to stop the attacks. Until one side or the other tires of the bloodletting, there will be no peace.The reason why there is a conflict is the irrational Jewish desire for a state. Give that up and all will turn out fine.

set up schools and get the economy running again then you can watch the rocket attacks stop and have a very good chance at peace (see: Europe/Japan 1946-present)

if someone was playing Israels little game in my residence I would probably end up blowing up a bus too

The reason why there is a conflict is the irrational Jewish desire for a state. Give that up and all will turn out fine.

but how would a religion that has lasted thousands of years without a state possibly last if it doesn't have a nation!?!

not that I would advocate expelling people who have lived there their whole lives but less on the promised land (and the whole anti-integration stance) would be nice

The reason why there is a conflict is the irrational Jewish desire for a state. Give that up and all will turn out fine.

Or the Palestinians could do the same. In neither case is it actually going to happen.

This conflict is going to end in one of two ways. Either we gain two sovereign states, mutually respecting each other's right to exist, or one side will be driven out in another diaspora. Whichever side, it would be a tragedy, and currently, it would be the palestinians.

The reason why there is a conflict is the irrational Jewish desire for a state. Give that up and all will turn out fine.

And this is different from this below how?

The reason why there is a conflict is the irrational Palestinian desire for a state. Give that up and all will turn out fine.

No, you may not use claims of long standing tenancy. Else we might as well kick out all peoples of European descent from anywhere that isn't Europe. And

No, you may not use the "x number of nations hates them" argument. Else we might as well relocate half the globe to the moon.

Mass relocation of either the Israelis or the Palestinians is not possible without sparking a much wider conflict and widespread slaughter of one side or both.

In fact, forced relocation of the Israelis would probably be messier than that of the Palestinians. To date, only the Israeli's in that stretch of land have been semi-confirmed to possess nuclear arms. It is likely that any forced relocation attempt that looks to succeed would spark their use.

No practical manner of solving the issue will place the burden of doing so solely on one side. Because then it would cease to be practical, much less viable.

And this is different from this below how?Simple. The Arabs were already there and just wanted to be left alone while Jews had their lives in Europe. Arabs were promised self-rule and self-determination by the British for their assistance in bringing down the Turks. But they were deceived when the British allowed a flood of Jews into Palestine. The entire Jewish-state thing was planned and executed without the consent, and later against the expressed will, of the actual inhabitants of the land, the Arabs. It was an act of imperialism and colonialism. And just as other colonies have been handed back, so could what is now called "Israel" be handed back.

Simple. The Arabs were already there and just wanted to be left alone while Jews had their lives in Europe. Arabs were promised self-rule and self-determination by the British for their assistance in bringing down the Turks. But they were deceived when the British allowed a flood of Jews into Palestine. The entire Jewish-state thing was planned and executed without the consent, and later against the expressed will, of the actual inhabitants of the land, the Arabs.

Entirely true. Also, now, completely irrelevant.

We cannot correct the errors of the past. To attempt to correct the injustices of fifty years ago, would be only to impose still more injustice. Further, once you start to "correct" such things, where do you stop? Will you go back just a few years earlier, and force the Poles to leave East Prussia and make that area German again? For that too was sure unjust. Or perhaps a couple of decades earlier, and give the Boers back the land "stolen" from them by the British? Ah, no - you'd then have to take it away again and give it to the African tribesmen the Boers took it from.

Moaning about the founding of Israel is pointless. Face the reality that confronts us today, else the solution will ever be beyond your grasp.

Bullshit. Why don't the US give up one of their states to the Jews? After all they have 49 more states.

And Iran (which has been named thus long before it was named Persia) is not an Arab country.

Yes, I have to say starting a break up of the USA would be good.

I thought Iran (ancient name Persia) was Arab. Aren't they?

Yes, I have to say starting a break up of the USA would be good.

I thought Iran (ancient name Persia) was Arab. Aren't they?

No, they're a quite different ethnicity. They also don't accept several of the more "Arab" traditions of Islam - which is why most are Shi'ite.

Also, while the first Persian Empire (Xerxes and company) called themselves "Persian", from the time of the second Persian Empire (which was a neighbour and rival of Rome) they have referred to themselves as Iranian. They haven't been "Persians" for a very long time.

Entirely true. Also, now, completely irrelevant.

We cannot correct the errors of the past. To attempt to correct the injustices of fifty years ago, would be only to impose still more injustice. Further, once you start to "correct" such things, where do you stop? Will you go back just a few years earlier, and force the Poles to leave East Prussia and make that area German again? For that too was sure unjust. Or perhaps a couple of decades earlier, and give the Boers back the land "stolen" from them by the British? Ah, no - you'd then have to take it away again and give it to the African tribesmen the Boers took it from.

Moaning about the founding of Israel is pointless. Face the reality that confronts us today, else the solution will ever be beyond your grasp.The point is that Israel is a guilty nation from the beginning. There is no justification to support any of their expansionist activities. While Israel continues pumping 20000 new Jewish settlers into the West Bank each year and while Israel continues to build the Wall/Fence and withhold water supply and infrastructure of the West Bank from Palestinian Arabs, every rocket on Israel is well-deserved. Revert Israel to the Green Line.

It seems things are getting worse in the area, despite recent polls suggesting most people on both sides would favour negotiations for a peace deal. Why do politicians not listen to their citizens?

If Israel does invade, will this stabilise the area, or just force Palestinian fighters underground even more? Certainly Israel does not have a good international reputation after its disastrous invasion of Lebanon in 2006. Would other countries in the area retaliate in response?

Personally, I can't see anything good coming out of an invasion, only more deaths and destruction and ill-feeling towards Israel.

Gaza is a small place. There isn't any place to hide if there's an invasion, as it is quite feasible to go house to house.

Israel appeared to be quite content to let Gaza alone. Which is why the Palestinians continue to fire homemade rockets from Gaza and attempt to infiltrate Israel through the fence with armed militants. The Palestinians are trying to continue the fight against Israel - if you watch the Gaza kids television shows, you can see that the aim of the Palestinians in Gaza is not peace through negotiation, but peace through the absolute genocide of every Jew in Israel.

There are the same threats from Hezbollah recently. And from Iran. I think it's odd of the international community to forbid a nation to defend itself from unwanted rocket attacks, as there were before the recent invasion of Lebanon, or from Gaza.

If someone were to constantly rain rockets into the US, I would expect the US military to hammer them down.

No, they suffered from pogroms and antisemitism.It's not the Arabs fault that Jews are outsiders and seem to get into trouble everywhere they appear.

And they got it... In about 20 nations.No they did not. They were sliced up into petty states and ruled by corrupt regimes and colonial powers.
And for an Arab living in Palestine it would not have mattered whether elsewhere Arab states existed. As an Arab back then would you just have left the home and earth your family has lived in and from for the last 1500 years because some land-hungry Jew from Europe wanted to move in and wanted you to just disappear?

Jews had their lives in Europe.

No, they suffered from pogroms and antisemitism.

Arabs were promised self-rule and self-determination

And they got it... In about 20 nations.

Would you stop it already? What will it take to make you realize that Israel is not going to disappear? We're not some colonials here that can be removed, no matter what people like you, Haniya, Nasrallah or Ahmadinejad think.

The point is that Israel is a guilty nation from the beginning. There is no justification to support any of their expansionist activities. While Israel continues pumping 20000 new Jewish settlers into the West Bank each year and while Israel continues to build the Wall/Fence and withhold water supply and infrastructure of the West Bank from Palestinian Arabs, every rocket on Israel is well-deserved. Revert Israel to the Green Line.

I don't support the settlements. However, the numbers are more like 2000, not 20 000, and there is little evidence of the Israeli government actively assisting them anymore - nor for some time. Of course, it would be even better if the Israeli government were putting some effort into stopping the zionist zealots - but there's no evidence of that, either.

I actually support the wall. Only for one reason - it is saving lives. Effective attacks on Israeli civilians have dropped massively since it's implementation.

As to the Green Line - that's pretty much not going to happen either. And Israel has good reasons not to do so - like not setting themselves up to be attacked again. The precise borders of a two-state solution will need to be negotiated.

As to guilt - that is true of every nation on earth.

I don't support the settlements. However, the numbers are more like 2000, not 20 000, and there is little evidence of the Israeli government actively assisting them anymore - nor for some time. Of course, it would be even better if the Israeli government were putting some effort into stopping the zionist zealots - but there's no evidence of that, either.

I actually support the wall. Only for one reason - it is saving lives. Effective attacks on Israeli civilians have dropped massively since it's implementation.

As to the Green Line - that's pretty much not going to happen either. And Israel has good reasons not to do so - like not setting themselves up to be attacked again. The precise borders of a two-state solution will need to be negotiated.So you are basically saying that the Palestinians should just go away.

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/WestBankWall.jpg
the map does not feature the planned section E which would also cut off the Jordan valley from rump-Palestine.


As to guilt - that is true of every nation on earth.No. Other nations were not created based on ideology, and based on the replacement of the population of a distant land.

No. Other nations were not created based on ideology, and based on the replacement of the population of a distant land.

Apparently you have never heard of the manifest destiny. In fact, what the fuck are you talking about? Expansionism is based on ideology, such huge portion of countries were created due to expansionism, whether it was for nationalistic ideals like an empire, for God, or even for lebensraum. It was very rarely created for any pragmatic purpose. And your assumption that the only reason Israel was created is because it is allegedly their chosen land is also flawed.

Why can't the Israelis either act with excessive force or stop whining. It's driving me up the Pole!

No. Other nations were not created based on ideology, and based on the replacement of the population of a distant land.


Thats....actually horridly incorrect. From Ancient Greece to Rome to France to the Birtish Empire (and even now the UK) to the US, nations have been created "based on ideology, and based on the replacement of the population of a distant land".

Why can't the Israelis either act with excessive force or stop whining. It's driving me up the Pole!

With excessive force? Would that help anything? :confused:

Simple. The Arabs were already there and just wanted to be left alone while Jews had their lives in Europe.

No. I told you that you cannot use length of tenancy as a valid argument and told you why.

In fact, I'll give you another reason why that sort of argument is not valid. Since you argue that the Jewish people have no right to be there, though their long ago ancestors apparently did, then likewise, the Palestinian people have no right to the currently occupied territories because they too, left them for a time and the Israeli's moved in.

See why the argument fails?

No. Other nations were not created based on ideology, and based on the replacement of the population of a distant land.

America, Japan, Mexico, Africa, Rome, Mongolia, need I go on?

So you are basically saying that the Palestinians should just go away.

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/WestBankWall.jpg
the map does not feature the planned section E which would also cut off the Jordan valley from rump-Palestine.

Yup, the wall is doing nasty things to the Palestinians. Absolutely true, no question.

It is also absolutely true that the Palestinians brought it on themselves. If they want to fight a guerrilla war with Israel, hey, I don't have any problem with it. Blow up checkpoints, Police Stations, snipe soldiers on patrol - all of these things are valid tactics against military objectives. Infrastructure hits, like factories and bridges and train lines - this is a truth of modern war, that such things are legitimate targets.

So, what did they actually destroy? Markets. Buses. Crowds. In short, deliberate attacks on civilian populations - actions which cannot ever be justified under any circumstance.

So, Israel solved that problem. Boo hoo, the Palestinians lost some land. I don't fucking care, if it means less civilians getting blown apart.


No. Other nations were not created based on ideology, and based on the replacement of the population of a distant land.

Please, think before you post.

Palestinians are slowly learning that they won't solve problems without peaceful agreements with Israel.
No, apparently they aren't learning that at all. They have chosen to settle the matter by violence: fine, it will be.

Rubbish.
Only Jews sat in Europe and thought "let's make a state in Palestine regardless who already lives there" and went on to do it with the aid of a certain colonial power. If Balfour was so fond of Jews, he should have invited them all to come to the UK and give them half of Wales instead of stealing Palestine from the Arabs.

You have no conception of history at all, do you? That's exactly what the US did with every state beyond the first 13. Precisely what the British Empire did to everywhere except England itself. And every single one of the Imperial powers.

Want to go further back? The establishment of the province of Cisalpine Gaul by Julius Caesar. Or of Hispania, whch they took militarily from the Carthaginians.

"let's make a state in X regardless who already lives there" has been standard operating procedure for nations for thousands of years. Israel is no different.

America, Japan, Mexico, Africa, Rome, Mongolia, need I go on?Rubbish.
Only Jews sat in Europe and thought "let's make a state in Palestine regardless who already lives there" and went on to do it with the aid of a certain colonial power. If Balfour was so fond of Jews, he should have invited them all to come to the UK and give them half of Wales instead of stealing Palestine from the Arabs.

Yup, the wall is doing nasty things to the Palestinians. Absolutely true, no question.

It is also absolutely true that the Palestinians brought it on themselves. If they want to fight a guerrilla war with Israel, hey, I don't have any problem with it. Blow up checkpoints, Police Stations, snipe soldiers on patrol - all of these things are valid tactics against military objectives. Infrastructure hits, like factories and bridges and train lines - this is a truth of modern war, that such things are legitimate targets.

So, what did they actually destroy? Markets. Buses. Crowds. In short, deliberate attacks on civilian populations - actions which cannot ever be justified under any circumstance.

So, Israel solved that problem. Boo hoo, the Palestinians lost some land. I don't fucking care, if it means less civilians getting blown apart.

The Palestinians brought it on themselves? They invited the Jews in or what?

And there are no civilians in Israel. The entire "nation" is an occupying force, maintaining it with their taxes and votes.

The Jews were immigrating to Palestine in the 19th century before the British had any involvement. The British promised the Jews to allow such immigration to continue, but "without prejudice to the rights of the native community", expecting to establishing a state in which all the inhabitants would have equal citizenship regardless of religion; this was not acceptable to the Muslims, who insisted that all others continue to acknowledge their superior status. The Palestinian Muslims began a campaign of murders, which they have never stopped. I refuse to pity them because the violence has turned out badly for them, especially when they are so insistent on continuing it.

The Palestinians brought it on themselves? They invited the Jews in or what?

And there are no civilians in Israel. The entire "nation" is an occupying force, maintaining it with their taxes and votes.

Oh, get off your high horse and visit reality occasionally.

First, I should point out that there were a fair number of Arabs who supported the creation of Israel and the partition. The families of those people live in Israel today - practicing their faith, living as they have always lived, alongside their Jewish (and Christian, and Ba'hai, among others) neighbours. The "stealing of Arab land" is a modern myth that covers a complex and long series of events that led up to the founding of Israel.

As to your "no civilians" bullshit - I guess we can now peg you as pro-genocide and mass murder, because that's what you're stating your support for.

Prototype Israel-u32 Engaged.

...No really.

: )

Muslim's are gonna get it, hard and up the arse. :D

"without prejudice to the rights of the native community"
you know pretty well that that's laughable. they didn't give a shit for the Arabs, they were Europeans after all. they went there to claim the land for themselves. or how were they planning to establish their state? home-sharing with the original inhabitants?
and why the fuck should any Arab family have given up their homes for immigrating Jews? why? why was it expected from Arabs to just make way? just because Jews said so? this imperialistic arrogance is unacceptable until this very day.

Think before you post, idiot. Palestine was hrdly well populated in the 19th century - there was room for everyone. No one was being asked to move anywhere.

I know the events that led up to the "founding" of Israel. Concerted mass immigration with the sole aim to remove Arab families from their homes and create a state for a retarded religious group.

Then clearly you know nothing, given how completely inaccurate that statement is.

Oh, and watch it - your anti-semitism is showing.

The Jews were immigrating to Palestine in the 19th century before the British had any involvement. The British promised the Jews to allow such immigration to continue, but "without prejudice to the rights of the native community", expecting to establishing a state in which all the inhabitants would have equal citizenship regardless of religion; this was not acceptable to the Muslims, who insisted that all others continue to acknowledge their superior status. The Palestinian Muslims began a campaign of murders, which they have never stopped. I refuse to pity them because the violence has turned out badly for them, especially when they are so insistent on continuing it.

"without prejudice to the rights of the native community"
you know pretty well that that's laughable. they didn't give a shit for the Arabs, they were Europeans after all. they went there to claim the land for themselves. or how were they planning to establish their state? home-sharing with the original inhabitants?
and why the fuck should any Arab family have given up their homes for immigrating Jews? why? why was it expected from Arabs to just make way? just because Jews said so? this imperialistic arrogance is unacceptable until this very day.

First, I should point out that there were a fair number of Arabs who supported the creation of Israel and the partition. The families of those people live in Israel today - practicing their faith, living as they have always lived, alongside their Jewish (and Christian, and Ba'hai, among others) neighbours. The "stealing of Arab land" is a modern myth that covers a complex and long series of events that led up to the founding of Israel.
I know the events that led up to the "founding" of Israel. Concerted mass immigration with the sole aim to remove Arab families from their homes and create a state for a retarded religious group.
As to your "no civilians" bullshit - I guess we can now peg you as pro-genocide and mass murder, because that's what you're stating your support for.
Expressing support for Israel means to say that it is OK to take land from Arabs, because that is what Israel is all about from the start. Israel is the aggressor, not the Arabs. Jews have forced themselves into the land and they are to blame for all consequences that have come form that. They continuously expand their settlements to perform gradual ethnic cleansing. The Wall is already running deep inside the West Bank borders of the Green Line, and with the completion of section E they will have created the world's largest detention camp in history. It seems Jews have learned quite well from their Nazi masters, but that's not surprising given the similarities in their ideologies of choseness.

"without prejudice to the rights of the native community"
you know pretty well that that's laughable. they didn't give a shit for the Arabs, they were Europeans after all. they went there to claim the land for themselves.
Your ignorance of the history is abysmal. The British had no interest in taking the land for themselves, and never planted any colonists there.
or how were they planning to establish their state? home-sharing with the original inhabitants?
The British organized elections. The Palestinians voted in the faction of Amin al-Husseini, whose campaign slogan was "Exterminate the Jews."
The Jews hoped to immigrate in sufficient numbers to overwhelm the Palestinians; the British hope to quiet the fears of the Arabs on this score by immigration laws limiting the number of Jewish immigrants to be less every year than the number of Arab immigrants, so that the Arabs would remain a majority (this held until the 1940's). British and Jewish investment was creating an economic boom in a territory which had previously only supported a half million by subsistent agriculture: so there was considerable Arab immigration, and about half the "Palestinians" are descended from people who lived in Egypt or Yemen, not Palestine, under the Ottomans (Arafat's family was from Cairo, for instance).
and why the fuck should any Arab family have given up their homes for immigrating Jews? why?
For the same reason anyone moves: at that time the Jews were entering as PURCHASERS, not invaders.

there was room for everyone.Arrogant prick.

No one was being asked to move anywhere.Right. They were forced away.

Expressing support for Israel means to say that it is OK to take land from Arabs, because that is what Israel is all about from the start.

No, I can easily support the existence of Israel while condemning the settlements. Likewise can I support the existence of a Palestinian state while condemning the murdering slime who target the innocent.



Not in the modern world.

[QUOTE]Jews have forced themselves into the land and they are to blame for all consequences that have come form that.

Ah, then you would support a campaign of suicide bombing throughout North America to drive out the Whites?

They continuously expand their settlements to perform gradual ethnic cleansing.

First thing you've brought up that's anywhere near accurate. Yes, this should be stopped. No, it doesn't justify mass murder.

The Wall is already running deep inside the West Bank borders of the Green Line, and with the completion of section E they will have created the world's largest detention camp in history.

Yep. And if the Palestinians would just STOP KILLING PEOPLE, it wouldn't be necessary.

It seems Jews have learned quite well from their Nazi masters, but that's not surprising given the similarities in their ideologies of choseness.

:rolleyes:

Your ignorance of the history is abysmal. The British had no interest in taking the land for themselves, and never planted any colonists there.I referred to the Jews, not the British.

The Jews hoped to immigrate in sufficient numbers to overwhelm the Palestinians;That was their plan from the start.

For the same reason anyone moves: at that time the Jews were entering as PURCHASERS, not invaders.and? Jewish land ownership in Palestine prior to the creation of Israel was around 7%.

Arrogant prick.

Don't deny it. But at least I'm trying to find a way for less people to die.

Right. They were forced away.

No, they LEFT. And mostly without need.

I referred to the Jews, not the British.
I quoted the British statement (Balfour Declaration) about the intentions of the British (in response to your claims about the intentions of the British). Apparently you are not paying any attention whatsoever.
That was their plan from the start.
Certainly there were many on the Jewish side who expected no other outcome. It was however entirely the Palestinians' choice.
and? Jewish land ownership in Palestine prior to the creation of Israel was around 7%.
So how exactly does this fit with your twisted presentation of what happened during the Mandate period?
I reiterate, for decades the Jews were immigrating as purchasers, not invaders, under legal restrictions against their coming in too great a numbers, and this was economically very much to the benefit of the native population. However, rather than live in peace with their neighbors, the Palestinians chose a path of brutal senseless murder, and have been punished for their crimes.

First thing you've brought up that's anywhere near accurate. Yes, this should be stopped. No, it doesn't justify mass murder.But it is not stopped and it will not be stopped. We all know Israel. And that is why violence to fight the invaders is justified.

Yep. And if the Palestinians would just STOP KILLING PEOPLE, it wouldn't be necessary.Israel started the violence. And now they complain that their victims fight back.
If Israel would just revert to the Green Line, Palestinians wouldn't find it necessary to blow up those who are the cause of their woe.

Don't deny it. But at least I'm trying to find a way for less people to die.Jewish people. While the settlements continue.

No, they LEFT. And mostly without need.Maybe the Jewish militias assaulting Arab villages were a reason.
And when the Jews declared statehood and thus war, they left because they were afraid of the military action that were to come.

But it is not stopped and it will not be stopped. We all know Israel. And that is why violence to fight the invaders is justified.

Israel started the violence. And now they complain that their victims fight back.
If Israel would just revert to the Green Line, Palestinians wouldn't find it necessary to blow up those who are the cause of their woe.

Bullshit. Every time Israel has "stolen" big chunks of land, it has been because they were attacked. The Palestinians attacked them when the held a sliver of land and half a city; when they held the whole city; when they held the Green Line; when they held well past the Green Line...

Israel did not start the violence. But they've finished it, every time. Your precious Palestinians semingly cannot get their heads around the fact that they're LOSING, and that every attack just makes it easier for Israel to justify taking more, and more, and more.

I don't want to see the Palestinians crushed under Israeli tank treads and driven out of what little they have left, but unless they grow a brain, that's what is going to happen. And people like you, who keep trying to justify murder and end hopes for a peaceful solution, will just have to live with the fact that you're just as guilty of bringing that about as the suicide murderers and rocketeers that are going to trigger it.

Rubbish.
Only Jews sat in Europe and thought "let's make a state in Palestine regardless who already lives there" and went on to do it with the aid of a certain colonial power. If Balfour was so fond of Jews, he should have invited them all to come to the UK and give them half of Wales instead of stealing Palestine from the Arabs.

This is nothing but an outright lie.

Britain certainly thought nothing of the natives when they exported their people to the Americas and Australia. Nor did Spain have any qualms about wiping out what few of the Aztecs remained once smallpox had spread among them to make the territory theirs.

The colonial powers, and the powers before them, were well at this game centuries before anyone even entertained the idea that Jews could have a state of their own.

Try and prove that didn't happen. Go ahead. I'll be waiting, but I won't hold my breath.

Maybe the Jewish militias assaulting Arab villages were a reason.
And when the Jews declared statehood and thus war, they left because they were afraid of the military action that were to come.

Sorry, but even you can't say the Israelis started that war. They said they were a state, as they had every right to do under aegis of the United Nations. The responsibility for starting a war always rests with those who declare it - and in this case, it was the Arab States.

The fact that they got their asses kicked is merely a rare case of perfect justice.

And people like you, who keep trying to justify murder and end hopes for a peaceful solution, will just have to live with the fact that you're just as guilty of bringing that about as the suicide murderers and rocketeers that are going to trigger it.

Maybe that's UB's ultimate goal. Maybe he's one of those super fundamentalist Christians who want Israel and Palestine to wipe each other off the face of the planet and trigger Armageddon or whatever its called.

It would explain why he's such a rabid supporter of mass warfare between the two.

Sorry, but even you can't say the Israelis started that war. They said they were a state, as they had every right to do under aegis of the United Nations. The responsibility for starting a war always rests with those who declare it - and in this case, it was the Arab States.The declaration of Israel was a declaration of war. Don't be silly. If you declare a state in someone else's land, you declare war. And the UN is irrelevant. The UN decided to divide Palestine over the heads of those who actually lived there and against the votes of all Arab countries. They overruled the Arabs' right to self-determination in what was Palestine at the time and before. A further act of imperialism.

The declaration of Israel was a declaration of war. Don't be silly. If you declare a state in someone else's land, you declare war. And the UN is irrelevant. The UN decided to divide Palestine over the heads of those who actually lived there and against the votes of all Arab countries. They overruled the Arabs' right to self-determination in what was Palestine at the time and before. A further act of imperialism.

I'd actually agree with you - except that it wasn't someone else's land. None of the Arab states had any claim over that land. It was, in fact, British land, by right of conquest. They had taken it from the Ottoman Turks, also not Arabs. In fact, the last time Arabs had held sovereignty over that territory was in the time of Caliphate, which none of the modern Arab states claim descent from.

As to the self-determination issue, that was the thorny issue the UN spent quite a long time debating. They felt that partition into a sovereign Jewish state and a sovereign Arab state would best reflect the actual ethnic makeup of the province at the time.

I must state, you are amusingly stupid at times. In one sentence you declare the UN irrelevant, in another you invoke self-determination - which is a UN Founding Concept! Sorry, but I'm not going to let you have it both ways. Make a choice.

I'd actually agree with you - except that it wasn't someone else's land. None of the Arab states had any claim over that land. It was, in fact, British land, by right of conquest. They had taken it from the Ottoman Turks, also not Arabs. In fact, the last time Arabs had held sovereignty over that territory was in the time of Caliphate, which none of the modern Arab states claim descent from.The Arabs were deceived by the British, and you know that pretty well. Slicing up the Arab Middle East up into petty states and spheres of European control was not what the British had been promising the Arabs when they supported their war against the Turks. And they certainly did not expect the British to open the floodgates for Jewish immigration/invasion.
Arabs were living in the land and made over 90% of the population. It was their land, no question.

As to the self-determination issue, that was the thorny issue the UN spent quite a long time debating. They felt that partition into a sovereign Jewish state and a sovereign Arab state would best reflect the actual ethnic makeup of the province at the time.The UN gave a shit for the Palestinian Arabs' right to self determination. When the division plan was first drawn up Jews did not even make the majority in the part that was to be the Jewish state. And they never bothered to ask the Arabs, they only voted them down.

I must state, you are amusingly stupid at times. In one sentence you declare the UN irrelevant, in another you invoke self-determination - which is a UN Founding Concept! Sorry, but I'm not going to let you have it both ways. Make a choice.Self-determination does not need the UN to be (a) right. It is natural.

The Arabs were deceived by the British, and you know that pretty well. Slicing up the Arab Middle East up into petty states and spheres of European control was not what the British had been promising the Arabs when they supported their war against the Turks. And they certainly did not expect the British to open the floodgates for Jewish immigration/invasion.
Arabs were living in the land and made over 90% of the population. It was their land, no question.

Of course I know the Arabs got screwed over by the Brits (and the French). It doesn't change the fact that none of the Arab States had any reasonable claim over Palestine - they had never ruled it, it was not part of their territory. Their attack on Israel was prompted by simple racism.

The UN gave a shit for the Palestinian Arabs' right to self determination. When the division plan was first drawn up Jews did not even make the majority in the part that was to be the Jewish state. And they never bothered to ask the Arabs, they only voted them down.

Actually, there were arab delegates on the comittee that proposed the partition plan. It was their opinion that a single unified state would be unstable.

Plus, you forget, a certain number of UN delegates proposed simply giving Palestine to the Jews period. Politics being the art of the deal, the partition plan won the most number of votes.

Self-determination does not need the UN to be (a) right. It is natural.

Rights exist only within a framework of law and order. And self-determination is not and never has been a right, but only a reasonably good guideline.

At any rate, while correcting your inacurate considerations of history is amusing, the ultimate facts of the matter are that Israel exists, Palestine exists, and either they are going to have to live together, or Palestine, and not Israel, is going to disappear. This is reality. Deal with it.

So you say that the fact that the population was Arabs is not relevant? You would require them to have ruled?

I would require the states which declared war to have a reasonable claim to the territory they were fighting over. Just because some of the people there are of the same ethnicity as you does not give you a claim on that land.

You are morally bankrupt, just like Israel.

Say's the one who advocates blowing up people on the grounds of their residence, even if they had no say in the matter.

Of course I know the Arabs got screwed over by the Brits (and the French). It doesn't change the fact that none of the Arab States had any reasonable claim over Palestine - they had never ruled it, it was not part of their territory. Their attack on Israel was prompted by simple racism.So you say that the fact that the population was Arabs is not relevant? You would require them to have ruled?
At any rate, while correcting your inacurate considerations of history is amusing, the ultimate facts of the matter are that Israel exists, Palestine exists, and either they are going to have to live together, or Palestine, and not Israel, is going to disappear. This is reality. Deal with it.Palestine does not exist. Palestine is completely under Israeli military control.
And you are on the "might makes right" track. You are morally bankrupt, just like Israel.

Palestine does not exist. Palestine is completely under Israeli military control.
And you are on the "might makes right" track. You are morally bankrupt, just like Israel.

Of course Palestine exists. The Israelis are not responsible for Gaza, nor the West Bank - the Palestinians have their own government and police. The fact they seem unabble to either govern effectively or control their own militants (or do not want to control their own militants) shows they have problems, but does not obviate their existence.

*I* support might makes right? I have been arguing for coexistence, mutual respect and an end to violence.

You are supporting mass murder and genocide.

If I am outside your moral compass - then I am proud to be so!

The population of a land have a natural claim to the land. Foreign religious retards don't.

I never said the Palestinians didn't have a claim. Only, say, Syria, Transjordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Which were the ones who declared war, in case you hadn't noticed.

They have every say in the matter. They could just return the land and leave, as would be decent.

Those born in that land have right to it, regardless of where their parents came from.

We are all, save the Africans, immigrants.

I would require the states which declared war to have a reasonable claim to the territory they were fighting over. Just because some of the people there are of the same ethnicity as you does not give you a claim on that land.The population of a land have a natural claim to the land. Foreign religious retards don't.

Say's the one who advocates blowing up people on the grounds of their residence, even if they had no say in the matter.They have every say in the matter. They could just return the land and leave, as would be decent.

At the Palestinian Arabs' expense.

No. At everyone's expense. And for everyone's betterment, most assuredly including the Palestinians.

I support a peaceful return of Palestine to the Palestinian Arabs.

No you don't. You support murder and slaughter and anything but improvement for the people you claim to support, and a continuation down a road that can only lead to their total destruction! Yes, the Palestinians got fucked over fifty years ago. But if they can't get past that and start working for a better world in the HERE AND NOW things will never get better for them, it will only get worse and worse until they are no more.

And believe it or not, I would count that a real pity, for everyone's sake.

Of course Palestine exists.Only on paper.

*I* support might makes right? I have been arguing for coexistence, mutual respect and an end to violence.At the Palestinian Arabs' expense.

You are supporting mass murder and genocide.I support a peaceful return of Palestine to the Palestinian Arabs.

They have every say in the matter. They could just return the land and leave, as would be decent.

Are you saying that 2 year olds are capable of arranging land transfer titles, while making emigration arrangements?

Yet they, by your blanket statement of "no civilians in Israel", are by your reckoning, fair game.

You claim that others are morally bankrupt, but you advocate the killing of others because of where they were born, something they had no choice in. Clearly then, the converse should equally apply to you.

Killing you to return the land to its previous inhabitants is just and good.

Go ahead and disagree. It would only prove how fragile your position is.

Also, you have failed to disprove that other nations throughout history have not done exactly what Israel did.

Yet, as I said, those born to place have a righteous claim on that place.

Are you saying that 2 year olds are capable of arranging land transfer titles, while making emigration arrangements?

Yet they, by your blanket statement of "no civilians in Israel", are by your reckoning, fair game.

You claim that others are morally bankrupt, but you advocate the killing of others because of where they were born, something they had no choice in. Clearly then, the converse should equally apply to you.

Killing you to return the land to its previous inhabitants is just and good.

Go ahead and disagree. It would only prove how fragile your position is.

Also, you have failed to disprove that other nations throughout history have not done exactly what Israel did.

I did not know the population of Israel is made up of 2 year olds. In other societies parents are responsible for their kids. I would apply that here as well. Let them pack and go. They have no business in Palestine. Never had.

No. At everyone's expense. And for everyone's betterment, most assuredly including the Palestinians.What would be Israel's expense? They will not give up anything they have gained in 80 years. Instead the continue to expand their settlements in the West Bank and continue their land grab through means of the Wall until they have it all. Israelis are not trustworthy. All Israel has ever offered would have resulted in a de facto annexation of the West Bank and the political marginalization of its Palestinian inhabitants.

No you don't. You support murder and slaughter and anything but improvement for the people you claim to support, and a continuation down a road that can only lead to their total destruction! Yes, the Palestinians got fucked over fifty years ago. But if they can't get past that and start working for a better world in the HERE AND NOW things will never get better for them, it will only get worse and worse until they are no more.

And believe it or not, I would count that a real pity, for everyone's sake.No. Palestinian have got fucked for the last 80 years at the least, not just once 50 years ago. They lose more and more every day to Jewish expansion. Don't tell me they should just get over it. And there are still the refugee camps with Palestinians waiting to return.
HERE AND NOW will never get better for them as long as Israel exists as it does at present.

What would be Israel's expense? They will not give up anything they have gained in 80 years. Instead the continue to expand their settlements in the West Bank and continue their land grab through means of the Wall until they have it all. Israelis are not trustworthy. All Israel has ever offered would have resulted in a de facto annexation of the West Bank and the political marginalization of its Palestinian inhabitants.

Why do you automatically assume that a negotiated settlement would aid only one side? Israel has said several times that "peace for land" deals are acceptable in principle. The wall could probably also be negotiated away.

As to "Israelis are not trustworthy", at least they are more so than the Palestinians have been. 90% of the ceasefires, truces and negotiated changes have been broken by the Palestinians.

No. Palestinian have got fucked for the last 80 years at the least, not just once 50 years ago. They lose more and more every day to Jewish expansion. Don't tell me they should just get over it. And there are still the refugee camps with Palestinians waiting to return.

Which isn't going to happen. The policy of Palestine - war to the knife with Israel - has had the continuing result of - more Israel, less Palestine. IT ISN'T WORKING FOR FUCK's SAKE! Israel is not going away, and that is just simple fact.

HERE AND NOW will never get better for them as long as Israel exists as it does at present.

Then you condemn the Palestinian people to destruction. Israel has no REASON to change. It's winning.

The power to change lies not with Israel, but with Palestine. If it stops doing stupid, moronic things like launch rockets into Israel, makes peace and sticks by it, Israel is powerless, as the international pressure will prevent it from doing anything to the nascent Palestinian State. The Palestinian people will get outside help, to build infrastructure, create an economy, change those camps into proper cities. No, they won't get everything they want, but nobody ever does. This way they can be happy and healthy, have their young men go to college instead of coming home in body bags, live a life that's worth something.

Palestine can never have victory. They can have prosperity. Or death. Their choice.

More so do they who were born there before.

No. That is simply untrue.

Yet, as I said, those born to place have a righteous claim on that place.More so do they who were born there before.

So in effect you only want the Palestinians to shut up and accept whatever Israel dictates. As you say Israel has no reason to change, and it won't, no matter what the Palestinians do. Israel will continue its settlements and Wall building no matter whether the the Palestinians stop fighting back. The power to change lies solely with Israel.

Israel would have no choice. The settlements are already on the nose throughout the world, and it would take little effort for Israel to stop them. Likewise the wall is unpopular - but there will be no political pressure to end it as long as it is saving lives.

Oh, and I keep saying "negotiate a deal" and you keep saying that I'm saying "accept the status quo". Are you sure you speak english well?

Why do you automatically assume that a negotiated settlement would aid only one side? Israel has said several times that "peace for land" deals are acceptable in principle. The wall could probably also be negotiated away.

As to "Israelis are not trustworthy", at least they are more so than the Palestinians have been. 90% of the ceasefires, truces and negotiated changes have been broken by the Palestinians.



Which isn't going to happen. The policy of Palestine - war to the knife with Israel - has had the continuing result of - more Israel, less Palestine. IT ISN'T WORKING FOR FUCK's SAKE! Israel is not going away, and that is just simple fact.



Then you condemn the Palestinian people to destruction. Israel has no REASON to change. It's winning.

The power to change lies not with Israel, but with Palestine. If it stops doing stupid, moronic things like launch rockets into Israel, makes peace and sticks by it, Israel is powerless, as the international pressure will prevent it from doing anything to the nascent Palestinian State. The Palestinian people will get outside help, to build infrastructure, create an economy, change those camps into proper cities. No, they won't get everything they want, but nobody ever does. This way they can be happy and healthy, have their young men go to college instead of coming home in body bags, live a life that's worth something.

Palestine can never have victory. They can have prosperity. Or death. Their choice.So in effect you only want the Palestinians to shut up and accept whatever Israel dictates. As you say Israel has no reason to change, and it won't, no matter what the Palestinians do. Israel will continue its settlements and Wall building no matter whether the the Palestinians stop fighting back. The power to change lies solely with Israel.

In other societies parents are responsible for their kids. I would apply that here as well. Let them pack and go.

Then clearly the Palestinian people are responsible for every child of theirs dying, and is no fault of Israels.

Or will you reverse your stance specifically because it deals with the Palestinian people?


They have no business in Palestine. Never had.

Yet another blatant falsehood. They had as much business there as their Arab neighbors some 2000 odd years ago. They left true, but so did the Palestinian people some 1970 odd years later.

Why do you persist in lying UB? Is it because you cannot handle the truth? Will it cause your petty little world to crumble? Silly me, of course it would.

That's why you continue to ignore my points. Acknowledging them would mean acknowledging that your claims are false. And by ignoring them, you indicate that you know your claims to be false.

Ergo, you are a conscious liar.

You would make an excellent Zionist Israeli politician.

The trouble is though that Israel and indeed Washington's approach to Gaza has borne little fruit.

Isolating Hamas has served little purpose. Hamas has shown a remarkable level of political dexterity both in its initial assault against Fatah and, more recently, in organising the orchestrated break-out of Palestinians into Egypt. Both events appear to have taken the Americans and the Israelis by surprise.

Hamas has been able to demonstrate that it can influence events and make life uncomfortable not just for the Israelis but for the Egyptians too.

It is the government in Gaza and it is very hard to see how living conditions there can be improved and any sort of normality achieved as long as Hamas is ignored.

That is why this latest Israeli opinion poll published by the Haaretz newspaper is so interesting.

Even half of the generally more conservative Likud voters backed some kind of talks with Hamas.

Some prominent security experts like the former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy also believe that a dialogue with Hamas should be explored.

There are signs that the terms of the debate are shifting in Israel. But it is hard to see how the Mr Olmert's government can change its line as long as the rocket fire continues.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7268876.stm

Both sides must stop arguing so much about the past, and rather look to the future and try to solve things. Both sides need to stop their criminal and destructive acts, and get a grip. Some sacrifices must be made on both sides.

I hope for the best, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

I don't support the settlements. However, the numbers are more like 2000, not 20 000, and there is little evidence of the Israeli government actively assisting them anymore - nor for some time.
.

A small example of "Actually....."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7172253.stm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=955968
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7256576.stm



I actually support the wall. Only for one reason - it is saving lives. Effective attacks on Israeli civilians have dropped massively since it's implementation.
.


They are entitled to build the wall along and inside their borders. Its where they use it to annex land the problem arises.



As to the Green Line - that's pretty much not going to happen either.

Then let it be a negotiated settlement.


Only Jews (.....)Arabs..

You damage the Palestinian cause with every word you type. You have nothing to contribute. Your presence on these threads is an embarrasment.


The Jews (...........)on continuing it...

A biased oversimplification which has been shredded here in detail before.


). British and Jewish investment was creating an economic boom in a territory which had previously only supported a half million by subsistent agriculture: so there was considerable Arab immigration, and about half the "Palestinians" are descended from people who lived in Egypt or Yemen, not Palestine, under the Ottomans (Arafat's family was from Cairo, for instance)....

Then why was 76% of all agricultural produce from Arab held, owned and worked lands in 1946? And thats not a rhetorical question - I expect an answer and a detailed one at that.


No, they LEFT. And mostly without need....

Unfortunately, (probablydue to the 'broken clock' effect, hes right as regards expulsions.


It was, in fact, British land, by right of conquest.....

Incorrect. I suggest you look up the terms of the British mandate.


It doesn't change the fact that none of the Arab States had any reasonable claim over Palestine - they had never ruled it, it was not part of their territory. Their attack on Israel was prompted by simple racism

The fact that the Arab states are and were less than "nice" is really neither here nor there. One must ask onself just how much should the Palestinian civillians of then and now be held responsible for the deeds of a few dictatorships and monarchies.


The Israelis are not responsible for Gaza, nor the West Bank

Yet they control them on every level they deem fit. Never think otherwise.

(I might point out that old axiom about feeding them, btw)

I wouldn't even classify the settlements as part of Israel per say, it's not like the government can control them except through force. What they are is some thousands of militant Jewish expansionists who are stuck in the fanatical mindset of bulldozing the land and putting a synagogue on topic, the whole 'Greater Israel' and radical Zionist viewpoint.

The real irony in all this is that those palestinians who did'nt listen to the arab leaders and stayed in Israel have ended up with more political, civil and religous rights than any of the surrounding countries.

And remember, Eygpt and Jordan basically annexed gaza and the west bank after the 1948 war, leaving the palestinians who fled to these areas with nothing.

They are entitled to build the wall along and inside their borders. Its where they use it to annex land the problem arises.

Oh, I quite agree. The "land grab" aspect of the wall is the main argument against it. However, many have been the arguments that Isral should not build it at all - arguments I frankly don't understand.



Then let it be a negotiated settlement.

Hallelujah!



Unfortunately, (probablydue to the 'broken clock' effect, hes right as regards expulsions.

There were indeed expulsions. There were indeed raids on Arab towns. There were also organized raids on Kibbutzes and Jewish towns. And a bad time was had by all.

What there wasn't, by and large, were the so called mass pogroms of Arabs. Most of the Arabs who left the Jewish-held territories did so by choice (though I don't doubt fear was one of the reasons for that choice).

Incorrect. I suggest you look up the terms of the British mandate.

A League of Nations mandate has no force if there is no League of Nations to back it up. Britain was nice enough to hold to those conditions, but was not required to.

The fact that the Arab states are and were less than "nice" is really neither here nor there. One must ask onself just how much should the Palestinian civillians of then and now be held responsible for the deeds of a few dictatorships and monarchies.

I don't hold the modern Palestinian responsible for any of that. They're responsible for their own actions - nothing else. Unfortunately, responsible or not, they inherit the situation brought about by their predecessors' and others decisions.

It's not the least bit fair, and I don't blame them for being angry about it. But we have to live with the world as it is, not how we wish it was.

Yet they control them on every level they deem fit. Never think otherwise.

Here you have a good point.

(I might point out that old axiom about feeding them, btw)

If the troll be starved...he still be troll.

Both sides must stop arguing so much about the past, and rather look to the future and try to solve things.But it is the crimes of the past that create the present problems. And while it is easy for Israel to forget the past it is not for the Palestinians.
And what future is there really? Israel will not stop the settlements and it will not stop the Wall. And it will not return the land it grabbed and it will not allow the refugees back to their places. So what do Palestinians have to negotiate when Israel has already taken everything from them and keeps taking?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/West_Bank_&_Gaza_Map_2007_(Settlements).gif/482px-West_Bank_&_Gaza_Map_2007_(Settlements).gif

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Landownership_UN-Partition.gif
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Zionistmilitaryoperations.gif

Oh, and I keep saying "negotiate a deal" and you keep saying that I'm saying "accept the status quo". Are you sure you speak english well?Negotiate what deal? So far all Israel has ever proposed included maintaining full military control of the area and maintaining the settlements. The offered "autonomy" for the hilltops while the valleys with the roads and water supply would remain under Israeli control. They wanted to officially annex 44% of the West Bank and leave the Palestinians with two landlocked enclaves plus Jericho.
http://blog.mmadsen.org/west-bank-options-2003-big.jpg

And today? What does Israel offer?

Negotiate what deal? So far all Israel has ever proposed included maintaining full military control of the area and maintaining the settlements. The offered "autonomy" for the hilltops while the valleys with the roads and water supply would remain under Israeli control. They wanted to officially annex 44% of the West Bank and leave the Palestinians with two landlocked enclaves plus Jericho.
http://blog.mmadsen.org/west-bank-options-2003-big.jpg

And today? What does Israel offer?

There's been plenty of negotiation over the decades. It's pretty clear that the Palestinians really aren't going to accept anything short of the genocide of every Jew in the area, followed by their sole rule of the area.

Why would you bother to negotiate with someone like that? When you can wall off where they live, and leave them with no recourse except to make homemade rockets and occasionally try to sneak a militant through the fence only to get riddled with bullets?

I see nothing unreasonable in the Palestinian or Israeli response to what's been going on - I only see the Palestinian urge to commit genocide as the unreasonable thing.

There's been plenty of negotiation over the decades. It's pretty clear that the Palestinians really aren't going to accept anything short of the genocide of every Jew in the area, followed by their sole rule of the area.

Actually, no. See Oslo accords, and the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Prime Minister. The accords might have worked had he not been assassinated by an ultra nationalist Jewish nut who believed that all Palestine should be Israel's. This sentiment is not a tiny minority in Israel, and can be commonly found in the illegal settlements built outside of Israel's borders proper.

Both sides have enough screw loose people to make peace without reining them in impossible.

A possible solution would be to give every one of them (the screw loose ones) sponge foam bats and put them in a gladiatorial match against each other.

While their busy poofing others, the ones interested in peace can work out a deal.

Actually, no. See Oslo accords, and the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Prime Minister. The accords might have worked had he not been assassinated by an ultra nationalist Jewish nut who believed that all Palestine should be Israel's. This sentiment is not a tiny minority in Israel, and can be commonly found in the illegal settlements built outside of Israel's borders proper.

Both sides have enough screw loose people to make peace without reining them in impossible.

A possible solution would be to give every one of them (the screw loose ones) sponge foam bats and put them in a gladiatorial match against each other.

While their busy poofing others, the ones interested in peace can work out a deal.

If Israel really thinks that walls are a political solution, we should implement your idea by putting a 20 foot high reinforced concrete wall topped with mines and barbed wire all around the whole area, and shoot anything that tries to get out.

We inform them that as they are being stupid, which should be a crime, we are incarcerating their nations until such time as they get a clue about how to treat each other. Just declare it a "prizon zone".

I wouldn't even classify the settlements as part of Israel per say, it's not like the government can control them except through force.

It can. Easily. "After x date, we withdraw our troops and our funds." The settlers would follow.

The use of force is just for show, so that the horrific national trauma can be referenced when people want to remove more settlements.

Actually, no. See Oslo accords, and ... The accords might have worked ...Never. Oslo I as well as Oslo II would have meant the practical annihilation of West Bank Palestine and the factual takeover by Israel.

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Oslo-II.gif
---
http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=944

Most of the Arabs who left the Jewish-held territories did so by choice (though I don't doubt fear was one of the reasons for that choice).

Yes, technically speaking, everyone does everything by choice.

But generally when people are scared into something (by the war in general, but also by deliberate policies of the Zionists, who carried out the attacks and expulsions that contributed greatly to the fear), we don't pretend that it was an exercise of free choice.

Oh, I quite agree. The "land grab" aspect of the wall is the main argument against it. However, many have been the arguments that Isral should not build it at all - arguments I frankly don't understand..

Its taken as being redolent of a very negative and extreme form of Zionism. However as the phillosphers say, "shit happens" and if a wall (along borders) acts as a temporary solution for them, then so be it. Its better than what they used do in the 1950's.


There were indeed expulsions. There were indeed raids on Arab towns. There were also organized raids on Kibbutzes and Jewish towns. And a bad time was had by all.

What there wasn't, by and large, were the so called mass pogroms of Arabs. Most of the Arabs who left the Jewish-held territories did so by choice (though I don't doubt fear was one of the reasons for that choice).
..

Even where the Jewish populace tried to get them to stay, there were Hagannah from other areas brought in to tell them to go. Benny Morris and a few others have written extensively on the subject. Rabin expelled 50,000 in one incident alone. They were effectively expelled as surely as I'm sitting here.


A League of Nations mandate has no force if there is no League of Nations to back it up. Britain was nice enough to hold to those conditions, but was not required to...

I don't follow you. You stated that the British held the area by right of conquest. In fact they held it under the terms set out post 1918 under the auspices of the league of nations, which existed until the foundation of the United nations.....
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/palmanda.htm

But it is the crimes of the past that create the present problems. And while it is easy for Israel to forget the past it is not for the Palestinians.
I didn't say frget about the past, but rather that you should learn from it and not let the sins of the fathers rule you completely. What is done is done. Try to find a better way towards a better tomorrow.

And what future is there really?
I hope for a better one.

So what do Palestinians have to negotiate when Israel has already taken everything from them and keeps taking?
Because it's one of the best way to go about getting them back.

I didn't say frget about the past, but rather that you should learn from it and not let the sins of the fathers rule you completely. What is done is done. Try to find a better way towards a better tomorrow.The lesson from the past is that Israel is an aggressive, untrustworthy entity. What you ask is to simply forget all that Israel has done to the Palestinian Arabs and accept the status quo as if things had never been different. Accept the present extent of settlements, accept the present Wall, accept present Israeli control over the West Bank. What is done is done. But what was done (and still persists) is not acceptable. The only way to a better tomorrow is a complete withdrawal of Israel from all the West Bank.

I hope for a better one.Knowing Israeli politics of the past 40 years that hope is unjustified.

Because it's one of the best way to go about getting them back.No it is not. Everytime Palestinians negotiated with Israel, Israel something to their disadvantage. Israel always waits to get media attention for "peace initiatives" and then while the media focus elsewhere they expand settlements or know down Palestinian homes.

The lesson from the past is that Israel is an aggressive, untrustworthy entity. What you ask is to simply forget all that Israel has done to the Palestinian Arabs and accept the status quo as if things had never been different. Accept the present extent of settlements, accept the present Wall, accept present Israeli control over the West Bank. What is done is done. But what was done (and still persists) is not acceptable. The only way to a better tomorrow is a complete withdrawal of Israel from all the West Bank.
I like how you ignore what I actually said and go off on a rather ranting monologue instead. It's cute :)

Knowing Israeli politics of the past 40 years that hope is unjustified.
So without hope, why even bother arguing? You have no constructive ideas to offer, so you only waste space here as it is if you don't believe in the possibility of change.

No it is not. Everytime Palestinians negotiated with Israel, Israel something to their disadvantage. Israel always waits to get media attention for "peace initiatives" and then while the media focus elsewhere they expand settlements or know down Palestinian homes.
So Israel should just stop all attempts at negotiations then, since their initiatives are just bluffs and they have already taken anything. Then what?

Then you would really have to accept the status quo.

Strange... One thing that I notice is that you lack constructive and realistic ideas for peace, and prefer to argue about who did what in the past and about hypotheticals that won't ever happen.

The only way to a better tomorrow is a complete withdrawal of Israel from all the West Bank.



Where upon the demands will suddenly become 'Israel should only have the land assigned to it under the 1948 UN mandate"

And then assuming Israel complies, another demand will popup , and another...

The extremists on both sides DO NOT WANT PEACE

Peace destroys their power, therefore only by waging war whether by F-16 or quassem rocket do the political groups on both sides maintain their grip on power.

Both sides could have peace tommorrow if the various parties wanted it, but they dont , because of the above, and the fact that nutjobs on both sides would either try to start the war again or assasinate anyone who signed a peace deal with the other.

I like how you ignore what I actually said and go off on a rather ranting monologue instead. It's cute :)I read what you wrote. And it's just naive and extremely hateful towards the Palestinians. You ask to let the past be past, as if the sins of the past have already been unmade. But the occupation of the West Bank has not ended, has it? And the refugees in all the camps on the Lebanese and Jordanian borders have not been allowed to return, have they?

So without hope, why even bother arguing? You have no constructive ideas to offer, so you only waste space here as it is if you don't believe in the possibility of change.The only change can be achieved by force against Israel, because Israel will not change out of free will. The current situation is too convenient for Israel.

So Israel should just stop all attempts at negotiations then, since their initiatives are just bluffs and they have already taken anything. Then what?
Then you would really have to accept the status quo.That's true. Israel should just stop all attempts at negotiations and finally admit that they never had the intention to do anything for a peace that doesn't cost the Palestinians everything.

Strange... One thing that I notice is that you lack constructive and realistic ideas for peace, and prefer to argue about who did what in the past and about hypotheticals that won't ever happen.There are no realistic ideas for peace with the current setup of Israeli politics.

I read what you wrote. And it's just naive and extremely hateful towards the Palestinians.
I stopped reading there, as you proved that you either actually didn't read what I wrote, or have great difficulty understanding the language.

Enjoy your pointless ranting.

Israel overreacts again, and under the threat of a Palestinian Holocaust and as fighting is flairing up in the West Bank Abbas breaks off talks.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has suspended contact with Israel in protest at an assault on Gaza which has killed about 100 people, an aide says.

The suspension came amid demonstrations in Gaza and fresh clashes with Israeli troops in the West Bank.

The violence intensified on Saturday, when nearly 70 people were killed in one of Gaza's bloodiest days in years.

Local doctors said at least 13 of the Palestinians were civilians, including eight children.
There have also been clashes in the West Bank.

A Palestinian teenager was killed in Hebron as troops responded to stone-throwing youths with rubber bullets and tear gas.

Other protests were held in Nablus, Ramallah and Bethlehem, AFP news agency reported.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7273686.stm

The only way I see peace ever having a chance to work is if outside powers invade and take control of both Israel and the Palestinian territories. The two sides are too used to the circle of violence going on there to ever seriously give peace a chance. The few times a halfhearted attempt is made they allow extremists to destroy the chance. They could easily ignore their actions but instead choose to respond equally extremely. As long as Israel tries to keep its settlements in the West Bank and Palestine keeps insisting that they want ALL of Israel, since you know they shouldn't exist in the first place, what chance for peace is there?


Or maybe lock Olmert and Abbas in a room with a timer set to a poison gas canister set to go off in say 6 hours killing both of them unless they come to a deal. SOMETHING radical clearly needs to be done.

I stopped reading there, as you proved that you either actually didn't read what I wrote, or have great difficulty understanding the language.You wrote "What is done is done" and that's not true. What is done can be undone. There is no reason to accept crimes just because they are in the past. Every house that was built by Jewish settlers in the West Bank can be removed. 60 years ago Arabs were asked and then forced to just disappear from half of Palestine, I don't see why Israel can't be asked and forced to do the same now. And for the past 40 years the population of the West Bank had to suffer violent Israeli domination of every aspect of their lives and had to give up ever more of land and livelihood because of Israeli greed for land. That has to end, but all you say is to "learn from the past" and accept that "what is done is done". You completely ignore the Palestinian perspective and excpect them to go into negotiations as if the lessons learned would justify that.

The only way I see peace ever having a chance to work is if outside powers invade and take control of both Israel and the Palestinian territories. The two sides are too used to the circle of violence going on there to ever seriously give peace a chance. The few times a halfhearted attempt is made they allow extremists to destroy the chance. They could easily ignore their actions but instead choose to respond equally extremely. As long as Israel tries to keep its settlements in the West Bank and Palestine keeps insisting that they want ALL of Israel, since you know they shouldn't exist in the first place, what chance for peace is there?
They need to give up the settlements and stop the occupation. The Palestinians need to stop their acts of terror. Outside powers invading won't be the solution however.

Or maybe lock Olmert and Abbas in a room with a timer set to a poison gas canister set to go off in say 6 hours killing both of them unless they come to a deal. SOMETHING radical clearly needs to be done.

Wouldn't work. I don't think Olmert and Abbas are the difficult people here.

Israel overreacts again, and under the threat of a Palestinian Holocaust and as fighting is flairing up in the West Bank Abbas breaks off talks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7273686.stm

I wonder what you would recommend Mr Abbas to have learned from this. Should he say, oh "what is done is done" and get the fuck over it?

*snip*

It's always fun to see the points flying above your head.

Let me ask you this: Do you think Abbas and Olmert spent their days debating who did what back when, or do you think they tried to find viable solutions for the future?

They need to give up the settlements and stop the occupation. The Palestinians need to stop their acts of terror. Outside powers invading won't be the solution however.

If both were occupied then hopefully neither side will be in a position to continue their acts of terror against each other. And even if radical elements continue their attacks they won't have the same results and their government won't be able to take official action. Who know if it really would have any effect but I really am tired of both sides whining to the world about how bad things are. They are both contributing to the problem and my sympathy for both is non existant.

Wouldn't work. I don't think Olmert and Abbas are the difficult people here.

How about doing the same with the Knesset and palestinian parliament then?

*hopes*

It's always fun to see the points flying above your head.

Let me ask you this: Do you think Abbas and Olmert spent their days debating who did what back when, or do you think they tried to find viable solutions for the future?I cannot speak for any of the two, but I seriously doubt that either man's "viable solution for the future" included a viable solution for the opponent's future. Abbas has no real control over any Palestinian "terrorist" and Olmert has no intention of ending the expansion of settlements or of ultimately giving up the occupation. I suppose Olmert keeps trying to sell small pieces of "autonomy" as anything meaningful to Abbas. That's what Israel has done for the past 15 years.

I cannot speak for any of the two, but I seriously doubt that either man's "viable solution for the future" included a viable solution for the opponent's future. Abbas has no real control over any Palestinian "terrorist" and Olmert has no intention of ending the expansion of settlements or of ultimately giving up the occupation. I suppose Olmert keeps trying to sell small pieces of "autonomy" as anything meaningful to Abbas. That's what Israel has done for the past 15 years.

But disregarding your rhetoric, you would think it to be probable that they did not debate who did what back when, would you not?

BTW: It is funny how you can't speak for them, yet make the absolute claim that Olmert "has no intention of ending the expansion of settlements or of ultimately giving up the occupation".

I did not know the population of Israel is made up of 2 year olds.
Among others. The current escalation started when a Palestinian rocket blew the legs of an 8-year-old, still in the hospital and not yet certain to survive (football was his major passion, ironically), and injuring his older brother. You continually urge the continuation of such murders. Have you ever lost a child?

Among others. The current escalation started when a Palestinian rocket blew the legs of an 8-year-old, still in the hospital and not yet certain to survive (football was his major passion, ironically), and injuring his older brother. You continually urge the continuation of such murders. Have you ever lost a child?No, but I have not been part of an occupational force either. You fail to see that Palestinians only react to what is being done to them.

No, but I have not been part of an occupational force either. You fail to see that Palestinians only react to what is being done to them.

Which is exactly what the Israelis do by that logic. A suicide attack leads to an airstrike. You cannot excuse the actions of one side they are both at fault for their problems.

Which is exactly what the Israelis do by that logic. A suicide attack leads to an airstrike. You cannot excuse the actions of one side they are both at fault for their problems.No, the sides are not the same. The Palestinians are not occupying anyone's homeland, are they?

No, the sides are not the same. The Palestinians are not occupying anyone's homeland, are they?

That is a matter of opinion to me. It can be argued that the Palestinians never had an actual homeland. Regardless, if they want to have a country of their own, continuing their terrorist attacks against Israel will not help their goal. It lets them whine to the world when Israel overreacts to whatever occurs but it doesn't advance their cause one bit.


Israel certainly should give up most of the West Bank to get peace just as the Palestinians should stop blowing themselves up. But getting into an argument of who "started it" is something kids do, they should act like adults and work something out instead of using violence to advance their goals.

It can be argued that the Palestinians never had an actual homeland.Living in a land for a thousand years does not make it someone's homeland? Why? Because Jews claim that land for themselves?

Living in a land for a thousand years does not make it someone's homeland? Why? Because Jews claim that land for themselves?

The Jews were there millenia ago as well, I don't see why you can't say its theirs as well, just because it was stolen from them anymore than you can say that its the Palestinains even though they have consistanly been ruled by a foreign power. Besides, given the migrations of people i'd find it hard to prove that they were "always" there. The demographics contantly change over time after all.

Even if you were correct though it still does not excuse their actions. They do not have a "right" to murder civilians. No more right than Israel has to carelessly bomb suspected terrorist hideouts often killing innocents at the same time. There is NO EXCUSE.

*Snip*

No point in responding when you see your "point" crumble, is it?

Your arguments, if they had any impact on the conflict, would hurt the Palestinians more than help them. I would suggest you stop being so disrespectful towards them and stop being so hateful towards both the Palestinians and the Israelis.

You fail to see that Palestinians only react to what is being done to them.
That's simply untrue. The Palestinians started murdering many decades before there was an "occupation", decades before there was a "state of Israel".

Folks, take that proverbial chill pill. Blatant flaming, like this ...Arrogant prick.

I must state, you are amusingly stupid at times.

Think before you post, idiot.

.. adds nothing to the debate except heat and may bring it to an untimely end, at least for the flamers. Tossing in terms like "troll" and "liar" doesn't help, either.

You all know this is an emotive topic, but you can surely accept that other posters will disagree with you. If you can't accept that, you'll be leaving, voluntarily or involuntarily.

Never. Oslo I as well as Oslo II would have meant the practical annihilation of West Bank Palestine and the factual takeover by Israel.

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Oslo-II.gif
---
http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=944

Yasser Arrafat disagrees with you.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Rabin_at_peace_talks.jpg

And considering the tendency of either side to rewrite events to their favor, I would be suspicious of Israeli and Palestinian records on the Oslo accords since it fell through.

Yasser Arrafat disagrees with you.

Yes, and at the time he was very harshly criticized for playing the opportunistic games supporters of Israel were so fond of pointing out in other contexts.

Yasser Arafat, at least in his last years, was concerned for Yasser Arafat.

whatever but as for the title name, The only thing that israel will achive by invading gaza is more bloodshed.

This is the daily occurence....

Palistinians pissed

They fire home made rockets that are proppled by from soap,baking soda and a tad bit pf fuel and teh explosivies used are usally low..low explosives even lower then WW1 explosives. The rarly ever reach isreali resadntial areas to make any real impact cause outta the 50 they fire a day only 2 usally hit and even that, they usally only hit the outskirts. The most they'd leave dead is 3

Isrealis go in with a dozen helicopters and machine gun an area relentlessly and aimlessly for hours usally leaving 70+ palstinians dead and the people who fired rockets usally get away.


The group thats fireing rockets thus get more support

They fire rockets the next day

ect...and it goes on and on




(sorry for spelling errors did this in kind of a rush)

Now the UN is trying to step in, and Israel is rattling its saber at them...

March 3 (Bloomberg) -- The United Nations demanded an end to escalating violence in the Gaza Strip as an Israeli ground and air offensive against militants firing rockets killed more than 70 Palestinians.

The Security Council expressed concern about the loss of civilian life and said the fighting ``must not be allowed to deter the political process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, aimed at establishing two states,'' Ambassador Vitaly Churkin of Russia, which holds the body's monthly rotating presidency, said yesterday.

Israel began its offensive late Feb. 29 in response to an increase in the number and range of Palestinian rocket attacks. About 150 rockets have been fired at Israel in the past six days, some of them hitting Ashkelon, a city of 110,000 residents that lies 17 kilometers (11 miles) from Gaza, the army said in a statement yesterday.

Four Palestinian militants were killed early today as Israeli aircraft raided Gaza City and the navy shelled the Gaza Strip, Agence France-Presse reported, citing an unidentified Palestinian security official.

``Let it be clear that Israel has no intention to stop the fighting for a single moment,'' Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in comments broadcast on army radio as the Cabinet met in Jerusalem yesterday. ``If anyone is under the illusion that extending the range of the Qassam and Grad rockets will cause us to limit our operations, that's a serious mistake.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aLyZdF2fucGg&refer=home


*sigh*

whatever but as for the title name, The only thing that israel will achive by invading gaza is more bloodshed.

This is the daily occurence....

Palistinians pissed

They fire home made rockets that are proppled by from soap,baking soda and a tad bit pf fuel and teh explosivies used are usally low..low explosives even lower then WW1 explosives. The rarly ever reach isreali resadntial areas to make any real impact cause outta the 50 they fire a day only 2 usally hit and even that, they usally only hit the outskirts. The most they'd leave dead is 3

Isrealis go in with a dozen helicopters and machine gun an area relentlessly and aimlessly for hours usally leaving 70+ palstinians dead and the people who fired rockets usally get away.


The group thats fireing rockets thus get more support

They fire rockets the next day

ect...and it goes on and on




(sorry for spelling errors did this in kind of a rush)

So shouldn't the Palestinians be killing the idiots who are causing it? Someone in my neighborhood starts firing mortars at the next town and my house gets bombed because of it, I'm killing them, not the people retaliating.

Then again, these are Palestinians we are talking about. Chewing gum and walking at the same time is probably too much of a mental challenge.

So shouldn't the Palestinians be killing the idiots who are causing it? Someone in my neighborhood starts firing mortars at the next town and my house gets bombed because of it, I'm killing them, not the people retaliating.



Why would they? Think about it this way. Someone comes into your neighborhood and wants to kill your neighbor. But through incompetence or intent, whipes out half your neighborhood, including say, your wife, but your neighbor is fine.


Suddenly, arent you going to start sympathizing with your neighbor who says hes fighting against the group who does such things?


Hamas are terrorists. Israel is stupid because they are just indiscriminitally slaughtering Palastinians and just making themselves look like "the evil western puppet state bent on whiping out Arabs" that Hamas paints them as.

Then again, these are Palestinians we are talking about. Chewing gum and walking at the same time is probably too much of a mental challenge.

Yes, yes. Brown people, especially brown people who follow Islam, are surely intellectually inferior and are not capable of the cognetive process us superior white people have.

You honestly believe Israel is not targeting the areas and positions they believe the rockets are coming from and just would rather shoot randomly?

Please. That's the problem with sympathizing with terrorists. They always hide behind everyone else and the people getting attacked get attacked for retaliating because wow, the terrorists hide among the people.

Though the Palestinians are like 90%+ supporters of Osama bin Laden. So I really don't think of them as being innocent victims at all, that's just a perception. They are mostly terrorist supporters to a person.

You honestly believe Israel is not targeting the areas and positions they believe the rockets are coming from and just would rather shoot randomly?

I think they go into the area the rockets are coming from and open fire. If rockets are coming from a house, yet you send in helicopters and kill 72 people, half of them civillians, you fucked up. Either through intent or incompetence.

Please. That's the problem with sympathizing with terrorists. They always hide behind everyone else and the people getting attacked get attacked for retaliating because wow, the terrorists hide among the people.

Thats why terrorism and guerilla war is effective. Look at 'nam.

Though the Palestinians are like 90%+ supporters of Osama bin Laden. So I really don't think of them as being innocent victims at all, that's just a perception. They are mostly terrorist supporters to a person.


And you know why many of them probably support Hamas? Because Hamas is fighting against the guy who killed their brother/sister/father/mother/son/daughter in a botched (or intentionally) attack. You damn well better believe that if the US military sent in Apaches to tak out the house of the guy who blew up a post office and whiped out half our neighborhood in the process, 90% of all of us would not be big fans of the US Military or Government.

They are mostly terrorist supporters to a person.

This makes no sense. I'm not arguing that they are or are not, but grammatically that is paradoxical.

Mostly all of them?

Why does everything have to be about race? I mean the Palestinians basically look like the Israelis. Have you ever seen a Palestinian? They are whiter than Italians and Spaniards, what is the big deal with sandy people?

You just want to go to LCD territory and just use racism as an excuse to shut down any opposition to the portrayal of the Palestinians as these primitive, violent terrorist supporters who are living on land they forfeited in wars of aggression.

This makes no sense. I'm not arguing that they are or are not, but grammatically that is paradoxical.

Mostly all of them?

I'm sorry Mr. Worldly Intellectual. I'll make sure to perfect my grammar before I even think about posting, you know so I can be all superior about my Mr. Collins complex.

Why does everything have to be about race? I mean the Palestinians basically look like the Israelis. Have you ever seen a Palestinian? They are whiter than Italians and Spaniards, what is the big deal with sandy people?


My father is second generation Italian. This is simply false.


Palestinians as these primitive, violent terrorist supporters who are living on land they forfeited in wars of aggression.



This is what makes you, if not a racist, than a bigot.

My father is second generation Italian. This is simply false.

This is what makes you, if not a racist, than a bigot.

I was just pointing out that Palestinians do not look that different Israelis and plenty of them are whiter than "white" people. The racism angle is just nonsense.

I never said I wasn't a bigot. Tolerance is the reason we have so many of the problems in the West today. Instead of just dealing with it, it's always out being all PC and tolerant.

You honestly believe Israel is not targeting the areas and positions they believe the rockets are coming from and just would rather shoot randomly?

Please. That's the problem with sympathizing with terrorists. They always hide behind everyone else and the people getting attacked get attacked for retaliating because wow, the terrorists hide among the people.

Though the Palestinians are like 90%+ supporters of Osama bin Laden. So I really don't think of them as being innocent victims at all, that's just a perception. They are mostly terrorist supporters to a person.

So you justify white people killing and stealing from brown people, in other words terrorism (so long as the terrorists are white). But when it's brown people, it's wrong?

I never said I wasn't a bigot. Tolerance is the reason we have so many of the problems in the West today. Instead of just dealing with it, it's always out being all PC and tolerant.



Ah. Well. Debating with you just became pointless in all futre endevours. Its hard to make you see reason when you see another group of people as inherantly beneth you and your glorious white American culture.

Ah. Well. Debating with you just became pointless in all futre endevours. Its hard to make you see reason when you see another group of people as inherantly beneth you and your glorious white American culture.

My bigotry has to do with political beliefs and intellect. I have no tolerance for stupidity.

I would chose an Arab with a grasp of political realism as my comrade over another dumb PC leftist white jerk-off.

My bigotry has to do with political beliefs and intellect. I have no tolerance for stupidity.

I would chose an Arab with a grasp of political realism as my comrade over another dumb PC leftist white jerk-off.



But Im sure that youd never find such a thing as by your own admission "mostly all" Arabs support terrorism.

Yes, and at the time he was very harshly criticized for playing the opportunistic games supporters of Israel were so fond of pointing out in other contexts.

Yasser Arafat, at least in his last years, was concerned for Yasser Arafat.

Maybe so, but taken at face value, the Oslo accords certainly didn't mean the end of Palestine, or anything close to that, as UB so likes to rant. And unless he has some crystal ball somewhere to tell him the future, it was a reasonable accord at the time, with concessions on both sides and a workable potential for a peaceful future.

But Im sure that youd never find such a thing as by your own admission "mostly all" Arabs support terrorism.

Which is the whole point. It's because most of them support terrorism that I have a problem with them, not because they are sandy or worship ancient science fiction.

Which is the whole point. It's because most of them support terrorism that I have a problem with them, not because they are sandy or worship ancient science fiction.

Ah, but that is the problem. You believe that because they are brown, live in the desert, and are Islamic that they MUST support terrorism. That is at worst bigotry, and at best ignorance.

I was just pointing out that Palestinians do not look that different Israelis and plenty of them are whiter than "white" people. The racism angle is just nonsense.

I never said I wasn't a bigot. Tolerance is the reason we have so many of the problems in the West today. Instead of just dealing with it, it's always out being all PC and tolerant.

Skin color is irrelevant. Through the usage of the word brown, one implies that they are not Western, or European. Whether some Arabs are whiter than some Europeans does not matter, because you support European domination over non-Europeans, yet if non-Europeans attempt to reverse this, you get mad. This, is what we call a double-standard. If you're going to be an asshole, you might as well be one all around.