Terrorists Hit a New Low

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I can understand and I wish the Palestinians would learn that they could probably get more of their demands by NOT using violence instead of threatening.

[Styles 0]

I can understand and I wish the Palestinians would learn that they could probably get more of their demands by NOT using violence instead of threatening.

Exactly. Unfortunately the Arab World is not conductive to this happening. Hell, the other countries egg Palestinians on like the cool kids in school laughing at the guy in class who just wants to be cool and accepted. The "political cartoons" I saw at the ADL's website that actually appear in major Arab newspapers daily, that amount to nothing more that incredibly offensive Jewish stereotypes, are appaling and just a michrocasm of how that part of the world is thinking, and why Peace under current attitudes is not possible. It's like we can't even comprehend it here in America, because if someone says or writes anything that could even be possibly construed as offensive let alone racist, there is a great outcry and condemnation. In that part of the world it's status quo.

I would love nothing more for everyone to just get along, but time and time again one side has proven it is unable to change with the times and we're in the worldwide mess we find outselves in. Israel has the patience of a saint dealing with all the shit it has to deal with. I could post a daily Arab anti-semetic cartoon of the day to really drive home the point, but hopefully it won't be needed.

[The Ill One 0]

Well I don't think it's possible to achieve peace even if the news papers ditch all the offensive stereotypes in their political cartoons or "improve their attitude." There's always going to be extremists like the terrorists here that think they're going in a hero, out a hero, making a step forward for the cause. Long as there are the extremists attacking one side- the other is going to retaliate. It's human nature to be ethnocentric and the troubles in over there have dated back so long it's not a few treaties are going to make up for all the deaths. That's why I think even if the governments and all the media promotes peace doesn't glorify or give attention or egg or whatever else you say to them- there's going to be the feuding.

[Guest Cerebus]

If blacks used suicide bombings in the 60s we would still have a segregated South, hell we might have a segregated North because fo the backlash. It is a testment not only to MLK but to the blacks from the 1960s that they were able to overcome. Too many possible Palestinians moderates and possible MLKs were killed or imprisoned by Israelis during the 80s and then in the 90s, Arafat was more than happy to take over. Even worse, while the Israelis were able to keep the Christians somewhat protected Arafat's goon squad had no reason to do the same. Bethlehem went from 60% Christian in 93 to barely 30% after 9 years under Arafat's control. As long as Arafat is there things won't get better, he needs to die of natural causes, hopefully its only a matter of time.

[Styles 0]

As long as Arafat is there things won't get better, he needs to die of natural causes, hopefully its only a matter of time.

Arafat is scum, but he hasn't had much power lately anyway and those are who are taking over leadership are even more extreme and violent in their leadership.

I guess it's would you rather have an enemy that admits they have no use for peace or an enemy that lies to your face about it?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

time and time again one side has proven it is unable to change with the times and we're in the worldwide mess we find outselves in.

Agreed.

 

Israel has the patience of a saint dealing with all the shit it has to deal with.

 

Disagreed.

[Styles 0]

Israel has the patience of a saint dealing with all the shit it has to deal with.

 

Disagreed.

For lack of a better example, if New Mexico with the aid of most of South America did half the shit to us that Israel has had to deal with, the entire SouthEast would be a crater.

[Guest Cerebus]

As long as Arafat is there things won't get better, he needs to die of natural causes, hopefully its only a matter of time.

Arafat is scum, but he hasn't had much power lately anyway and those are who are taking over leadership are even more extreme and violent in their leadership.

I guess it's would you rather have an enemy that admits they have no use for peace or an enemy that lies to your face about it?

Neither really. Palestinian internal politics are a much more complex than what you get from watching CNN soundbites and reading biased websites. Israel knows damn well that for all his faults (and beleive me he has PLEANTY) killing him would really let the shit hit the fan. It would remove ANY restrictions the militias are under right now and galvanize them to a war that would make the last couple years look like a picnic (the Israelis learned how beneficial it was to make him a martyr 2 years back). If he died naturally, however things would be much more different but harder to predict, but its better than what we have right now.

[Styles 0]

Oh, I agree cerbus, Israel is walking on proverbial eggshells with this, but still I don't think things will get any better with Arafat out of the picture, since he's been nothing more than a figurehead for a long time now anyway...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

For lack of a better example, if New Mexico with the aid of most of South America did half the shit to us that Israel has had to deal with, the entire SouthEast would be a crater.

I think the Israeli people have the right idea going on (they haven't allowed violence to seep into their culture), but like the Palestinian situation, the Israeli governments haven't represented them well. There's a good divide among Israelis over the occupied land, a possibility that a majority of Israelis would support a withdrawl, but those Israelis are spread across so many parties that they aren't quite so heard.

 

Ideally, some sort of compromise would be met (i.e. Israel keeps ownership, Palestinians get a vote or some sort of say in what's happening), but certainly both governments hold some measure of responsibility for pushing their people towards conflict. The Palestinians just simply do it more.

[Styles 0]

I don't think any rational person has a problem with allowing Palestinians to form their own self government, but it's obviously so much more difficult than just letting it be.

You can't encourage violence, because if they get what they want through violence, well then what's stopping them in the future from using more to achieve means. And furthermore, the last thing Israel needs is another hostile, autocratic, racist regime right next store to them.

President Bush had the right idea when he supported a FREE, DEMOCRATIC Palestinian state achieved through diplomatic means after a period of non-violence.

 

But it's just not happening...

[Guest hunger4unger]

A sad and awful attack. Let's remember that just because the people carrying out the killing were Palestinian, it doesn't mean that they had the approval of the Palestinian people. There of course wouldn't be groups of rogue terrorists and killers in Palestine if Israel quit killing Palestinians, stopped grabbing land and got the hell off Palestinian territory. It's a never ending circle of violence over there and whilst it's disgusting that this happened, it's worth remembering that the Israeli army have killed countless Palestinian women and children as well.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

What a bunch of shitbags. I hope somebody sends them straight to Hell where they belong.

[Guest Cerebus]

Oh, I agree cerbus, Israel is walking on proverbial eggshells with this, but still I don't think things will get any better with Arafat out of the picture, since he's been nothing more than a figurehead for a long time now anyway...

He's really not. I can't disprove it with just sticking up a link or something...you just have to trust me on this one.

[EricMM 0]

Let me break this down

 

A sad and awful attack.

 

I guess this could be said to be blaming the Palestinans

 

Let's remember that just because the people carrying out the killing were Palestinian, it doesn't mean that they had the approval of the Palestinian people. There of course wouldn't be groups of rogue terrorists and killers in Palestine if Israel quit killing Palestinians, stopped grabbing land and got the hell off Palestinian territory. It's a never ending circle of violence over there and whilst it's disgusting that this happened, it's worth remembering that the Israeli army have killed countless Palestinian women and children as well.

 

The rest of this is blaming the ISRAELIS.

 

And you don't think you're biased? You don't think you're stupid?

[Guest MikeSC]

A sad and awful attack. Let's remember that just because the people carrying out the killing were Palestinian, it doesn't mean that they had the approval of the Palestinian people.

Nobody ever said all Palestinians approve of it. A frighteningly large number of them do, most likely, though.

There of course wouldn't be groups of rogue terrorists and killers in Palestine if Israel quit killing Palestinians

Ah, so it's ISRAELIS walking into nightclubs in Palestinian areas and blowing up innocents?

stopped grabbing land and got the hell off Palestinian territory.

It never WAS Palestinian territory.

It's a never ending circle of violence over there and whilst it's disgusting that this happened, it's worth remembering that the Israeli army have killed countless Palestinian women and children as well.

Wow, you really ARE that dense. I am shocked.

 

You are a cliche of the anti-Semitic, anti-American, pro-thug int'l left. Kudos to you.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

A sad and awful attack. Let's remember that just because the people carrying out the killing were Palestinian, it doesn't mean that they had the approval of the Palestinian people.

Except that it has already been documented in this thread that the majority of the Palestinian people support attacks such as this.

 

There of course wouldn't be groups of rogue terrorists and killers in Palestine if Israel quit killing Palestinians, stopped grabbing land and got the hell off Palestinian territory. It's a never ending circle of violence over there and whilst it's disgusting that this happened, it's worth remembering that the Israeli army have killed countless Palestinian women and children as well.

 

You really don't even have a fucking clue, do you.

 

Just utterly dense. NOTHING in this entire thread has gotten through to you, at all.

[Styles 0]

The lack of anyone from the Arab World speaking out and condemning these actions without using it as another excuse to blast Israel and its existence just perpetuates their own self fulfilling prophecies. 

Wow, did Hunger prove my point or what?

 

I don't know why I even bother with Hunger, but at least for the benefit of others with a functioning brain, from... from http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html

 

MYTH

 

“Israel’s complaints about Palestinian terrorists hiding among civilians are just an effort to justify their murder of innocent people.”

 

FACT

 

Israel never intentionally targets civilians. Unfortunately, Palestinian terrorists have purposely tried to hide among the civilian population in an effort to use the Israeli army's morality against it. The terrorists themselves do not care about the lives of innocent Palestinians, which is why they are not hesitant to use them as shields. This behavior is a violation of international law. Article 51 of the 1977 amendment to the 1949 Geneva Conventions specifically prohibts the use of human shields:

 

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to shield military objects from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations.13

 

Thus, the Palestinian terrorists are ultimately responsible for noncombatants who are inadvertently killed or wounded as a result of the terrorists' practice of hiding among civilians to use them as shields.

 

AND...

 

MYTH

 

“Israel has been an expansionist state since its creation.”

 

FACT

 

Israel's boundaries were determined by the United Nations when it adopted the partition resolution in 1947. In a series of defensive wars, Israel captured additional territory. On numerous occasions, Israel has withdrawn from these areas.

 

As part of the 1974 disengagement agreement, Israel returned territories captured in the 1967 and 1973 wars to Syria.

 

Under the terms of the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, Israel withdrew from the Sinai peninsula for the third time. It had already withdrawn from large parts of the desert area it captured in its War of Independence. After capturing the entire Sinai in the 1956 Suez conflict, Israel relinquished the peninsula to Egypt a year later.

 

In September 1983, Israel withdrew from large areas of Lebanon to positions south of the Awali River. In 1985, it completed its withdrawal from Lebanon, except for a narrow security zone just north of the Israeli border. That too was abandoned, unilaterally, in 2000.

 

After signing peace agreements with the Palestinians, and a treaty with Jordan, Israel agreed to withdraw from most of the territory in the West Bank captured from Jordan in 1967. A small area was returned to Jordan, and more than 40 percent was ceded to the Palestinian Authority. The agreement with the Palestinians also involved Israel's withdrawal in 1994 from most of the Gaza Strip, which had been captured from Egypt in 1973.

 

To date, Israel has withdrawn from more than 40 percent of the West Bank and approximately 80 percent of the Gaza Strip, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 95 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip in a final settlement. In addition, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and his successors offered to withdraw from virtually all of the Golan Heights in exchange for peace with Syria.

 

Negotiations continue regarding the final disposition of the remaining disputed territories in Israel's possession. Israel's willingness to make territorial concessions in exchange for security proves its goal is peace, not expansion.

 

Boy, it's fun to dispute ignorance!

[Guest MikeSC]

Your quick reference to your wonderful website, complete with incomplete sourcing of claims, led to my skepticism. You're basically stooping to Mike's "SUBHUMAN MONKEYS!~!" level when it comes to condemning all of the people of Palestine.

In a REAL shocking development, Tyler misses a point.

 

Gee, that NEVER happens.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

what was the old low?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Not tipping the chamber maid would be my guess, or perhaps leaving the potty seat up in all-female Jewish households...

[Ripper 0]

Not tipping the chamber maid would be my guess, or perhaps leaving the potty seat up in all-female Jewish households...

BASTARDS~!

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Meanwhile, I think it's time Israel considers finding if there's a way they can recall (or impeach, or whatever) Sharon. He can't even make decisions without his OWN party throwing crap at him.

 

and...

 

MYTH

 

“Ariel Sharon has made clear that he does not want peace and no deal is possible as long as he is Prime Minister.”

 

FACT

 

Ariel Sharon has been demonized by the Arabs and caricatured by the media, which often insists on referring to him as the "right-wing" or "hard-line" Prime Minister, appellations rarely affixed to any other foreign leaders. Sharon has spent most of his life as a soldier and public servant trying to bring peace to his nation.

 

It was Ariel Sharon who gave then Prime Minister Menachem Begin the critical backing that made the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty possible. At a crucial moment at Camp David, the negotiations were on the verge of collapse over Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's insistence that all Israeli settlements in the Sinai be dismantled. Begin called Sharon and asked if he should give up the settlements; Sharon not only advised him to do so, but ultimately was the one who implemented the decision to remove the settlers, some by force.59

 

Sharon's views have also evolved over time. While he was once fiercely opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state, as Prime Minister he has endorsed the idea, in opposition to members of his own party. Since taking office, Sharon has repeatedly offered to negotiate with the Palestinians on condition only that they end the violence. He asked for only seven days of peace — a demand some found onerous despite the fact that the Palestinians had promised at Oslo eight years of peace — and later even dropped that demand. When he did, the Palestinians answered his gesture with the Passover massacre, the suicide bombing of a religious observance in a Netanya hotel in which 29 people were killed.

 

Sharon subsequently proposed a peace conference, an idea the Bush Administration endorsed. Even when Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah proposed a peace initiative that was filled with provisions the Saudi knew Israel could never accept, Sharon did not reject the plan, and called for direct negotiations to discuss it. Now, Sharon has agreed to negotiate with the Palestinians according to the road map formula devised by the United States, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations, despite serious reservations about many elements of the plan.

 

Sharon also has said he is prepared to dismantle settlements, despite virulent opposition from his own party, and being regarded as one of the architects of their growth. In a speech to the Likud Central Committee, Sharon said, “Clearly, in the permanent agreement we will have to give up some of the Jewish settlements.” He has also spoken of unilaterally relocating some of them.

 

If the Arabs doubt Sharon's commitment to peace, all they need do is put him to the test – end the violence and begin negotiations. So long as the Palestinians keep up their terrorist attacks, no Israeli Prime Minister can offer them concessions.

 

“To keep 3.5 million people under occupation is bad for us and them....I want to say clearly that I have come to the conclusion that we have to reach a [peace] agreement.”

 

— Prime Minister Ariel Sharon59a

 

Now, I'm not really sure what that one has to do with JOTW's statement. You basically posted a "Sharon isn't opposed to peace" blurb when that wasn't the issue brought up. It IS a fact that two thirds of the members of the Lihkud party voted against Sharon's withdrawl proposal a few days ago. Sharon had stated on the record previously to the vote that he would consider a vote against him a no-confidence vote and that it would probably result in new elections. After getting trounced, he quickly backtracked from those positions; it's obvious they were just empty threats being used to try and steer voters to his position.

 

Sharon should be turfed regardless of what is happening with the peace process, because he's a blatant criminal who has commited influence peddling and other offenses that will result in his indictment in Israeli court. He's so corrupt he makes the Italian government look on the level.

[Guest hunger4unger]

A sad and awful attack. Let's remember that just because the people carrying out the killing were Palestinian, it doesn't mean that they had the approval of the Palestinian people.

Nobody ever said all Palestinians approve of it. A frighteningly large number of them do, most likely, though.

There of course wouldn't be groups of rogue terrorists and killers in Palestine if Israel quit killing Palestinians

Ah, so it's ISRAELIS walking into nightclubs in Palestinian areas and blowing up innocents?

stopped grabbing land and got the hell off Palestinian territory.

It never WAS Palestinian territory.

It's a never ending circle of violence over there and whilst it's disgusting that this happened, it's worth remembering that the Israeli army have killed countless Palestinian women and children as well.

Wow, you really ARE that dense. I am shocked.

 

You are a cliche of the anti-Semitic, anti-American, pro-thug int'l left. Kudos to you.

-=Mike

So it's Palestinians rolling tanks into Israeli settlements? It works both ways. Violence is on BOTH sides and as I said, it's a never ending circle.

 

Yes, it WAS Palestinian territory. Over the years Israel have edged more and more into Palestinian territory.

 

I certainly am not anti-semetic. It's the natural response from pro-Israeli's: "you're criticizing Israel therefore you must be anti-semetic!".

 

I am not anti-American either, just anti-their current government. There is a difference. I'm all for America and perhaps care a little TOO much about what happens over there.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by pro-thug but I don't like violence.

 

International left - certainly I could be classed as being to the left but that doesn't mean that I agree with all ideas of the left.

[Guest hunger4unger]

A sad and awful attack. Let's remember that just because the people carrying out the killing were Palestinian, it doesn't mean that they had the approval of the Palestinian people.

Except that it has already been documented in this thread that the majority of the Palestinian people support attacks such as this.

 

There of course wouldn't be groups of rogue terrorists and killers in Palestine if Israel quit killing Palestinians, stopped grabbing land and got the hell off Palestinian territory. It's a never ending circle of violence over there and whilst it's disgusting that this happened, it's worth remembering that the Israeli army have killed countless Palestinian women and children as well.

 

You really don't even have a fucking clue, do you.

 

Just utterly dense. NOTHING in this entire thread has gotten through to you, at all.

And this thread is true evidence that the vast majority of Palestinians support attacks like the one discussed in this thread? What did you do, send Mike out to do a poll on the streets of Palestine? I sincerely believe that the vast majority of palestinians want to live in peace. They don't want to take over Israel - they want their land back and occupying forces to go away. Sure, they are going the wrong way about it and I don't for one second condone any killing on either side.

 

I have a clue and I certainly am not dense. It's not a matter of "getting through" to me. I can see the situation as it is.

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

Well, If anything, the way things are in this thread is sort of similar to the way things are in the Isreal-Palestine conflict., both sides thinking they are right, coming to a small compromise, than back arguing, thinking they are right

[Styles 0]

Violence is on BOTH sides and as I said, it's a never ending circle.

 

Yes, it WAS Palestinian territory. Over the years Israel have edged more and more into Palestinian territory.

 

You really are that stubborn aren't you. No problem, I can keep posting sources that dispute your gibberish.

 

MYTH

 

“Israel has consistently refused to take any steps to calm the situation, and its unrelenting attacks provoked Palestinian violence despite Yasser Arafat's appeals for restraint.”

 

FACT

 

On May 22, 2001, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared a unilateral cease-fire in an effort to calm the situation, and in the hope the Palestinians would reciprocate by ending their violent attacks against Israelis. Instead the Palestinians intensified the level of violence directed at Israeli civilians. Yasser Arafat did nothing to stop or discourage the attacks. More than 70 attacks were recorded in the next 10 days, during which Israel held its fire and eschewed any retaliation. The campaign of Palestinian terror during the Israeli cease-fire culminated with the suicide bombing at a Tel Aviv disco June 1 that killed 20 people and injured more than 90, mostly teenagers. In the face of overwhelming international pressure generated by the horrific attack, and the fear of an Israeli counterattack, Arafat finally declared a cease-fire. It too didn't last.

 

and...

 

MYTH

 

“Israel indiscriminately murders terrorists and Palestinian civilians.”

 

FACT

 

It is always a tragedy when innocent civilians are killed in a counterterrorism operation. Civilians would not be at risk, however, if the Palestinian Authority arrested the terrorists, the murderers did not choose to hide among noncombatants and the civilians refused to protect the killers.

 

Israel does not attack Palestinian areas indiscriminately. On the contrary, the IDF takes great care to target people who are planning terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Israeli forces have a history of accuracy in such assaults, nevertheless, mistakes are sometimes made. Whereas the terrorists make no apology for their attacks on civilians, and purposely target them, Israel always investigates the reasons for any errors and takes steps to prevent them from reoccurring.

 

Israel is not alone in using military force against terrorists or in sometimes inadvertently harming people who are not targets. For example, on the same day that American officials were condemning Israel because a number of civilians died when Israel assassinated the leader of the military wing of Hamas, news reports disclosed that the United States bombed a village in Afghanistan in an operation directed at a Taliban leader that instead killed 48 Afghan civilians at a wedding party. In both cases, flawed intelligence played a role in the tragic mistakes.

 

 

and...

 

 

 

MYTH

 

“Palestine was always an Arab country.”

 

FACT

The term "Palestine" is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C.E., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what are now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century C.E., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word "Filastin" is derived from this Latin name.3

 

The Hebrews entered the Land of Israel about 1300 B.C.E., living under a tribal confederation until being united under the first monarch, King Saul. The second king, David, established Jerusalem as the capital around 1000 B.C.E. David's son, Solomon built the Temple soon thereafter and consolidated the military, administrative and religious functions of the kingdom. The nation was divided under Solomon's son, with the northern kingdom (Israel) lasting until 722 B.C.E., when the Assyrians destroyed it, and the southern kingdom (Judah) surviving until the Babylonian conquest in 586 B.C.E. The Jewish people enjoyed brief periods of sovereignty afterward before most Jews were finally driven from their homeland in 135 C.E.

 

Jewish independence in the Land of Israel lasted for more than 400 years. This is much longer than Americans have enjoyed independence in what has become known as the United States.4 In fact, if not for foreign conquerors, Israel would be 3,000 years old today.

 

Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not."5

 

Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:

 

We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.6

 

In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."7

 

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."8

 

Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.

 

 

AND...

 

MYTH

 

“Israel has no right to be in the West Bank. Israeli settlements are illegal.”

 

FACT

 

Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria — the West Bank — since ancient times. The only time Jews have been prohibited from living in the territories in recent decades was during Jordan's rule from 1948 to 1967. This prohibition was contrary to the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations, which provided for the establishment of a Jewish state, and specifically encouraged "close settlement by Jews on the land."

 

 

Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are "illegal." International law scholar Stephen Schwebel notes that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Schwebel also observes that a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory.1

 

According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution. Rostow noted, "allows Israel to administer the territories" it won in 1967 "until 'a just and lasting peace in the Middle East' is achieved," Rostow wrote.2

 

 

Anymore histoy lessons or common sense lessons will be helpfully provided...oh, and since you once again accused Israel of aquiring more land over time, even though IN THIS THREAD I quoted a source that unequivocally disproves that, I realize for "slow" people like yourself, repetition is the best way to learn. Maybe you should read it this time...:

 

MYTH

 

“Israel has been an expansionist state since its creation.”

 

FACT

 

Israel's boundaries were determined by the United Nations when it adopted the partition resolution in 1947. In a series of defensive wars, Israel captured additional territory. On numerous occasions, Israel has withdrawn from these areas.

 

As part of the 1974 disengagement agreement, Israel returned territories captured in the 1967 and 1973 wars to Syria.

 

Under the terms of the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, Israel withdrew from the Sinai peninsula for the third time. It had already withdrawn from large parts of the desert area it captured in its War of Independence. After capturing the entire Sinai in the 1956 Suez conflict, Israel relinquished the peninsula to Egypt a year later.

 

In September 1983, Israel withdrew from large areas of Lebanon to positions south of the Awali River. In 1985, it completed its withdrawal from Lebanon, except for a narrow security zone just north of the Israeli border. That too was abandoned, unilaterally, in 2000.

 

After signing peace agreements with the Palestinians, and a treaty with Jordan, Israel agreed to withdraw from most of the territory in the West Bank captured from Jordan in 1967. A small area was returned to Jordan, and more than 40 percent was ceded to the Palestinian Authority. The agreement with the Palestinians also involved Israel's withdrawal in 1994 from most of the Gaza Strip, which had been captured from Egypt in 1973.

 

To date, Israel has withdrawn from more than 40 percent of the West Bank and approximately 80 percent of the Gaza Strip, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 95 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip in a final settlement. In addition, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and his successors offered to withdraw from virtually all of the Golan Heights in exchange for peace with Syria.

 

Negotiations continue regarding the final disposition of the remaining disputed territories in Israel's possession. Israel's willingness to make territorial concessions in exchange for security proves its goal is peace, not expansion.

[Guest MikeSC]

So it's Palestinians rolling tanks into Israeli settlements? It works both ways. Violence is on BOTH sides and as I said, it's a never ending circle.

WHEN do Israeli tanks "roll into" Palestine?

 

Why, AFTER an attack by Palestinians.

 

Funny how that works.

 

Israel still manages to avoid targeting a pregnant woman and her four daughters to butcher.

Yes, it WAS Palestinian territory. Over the years Israel have edged more and more into Palestinian territory.

You know, just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

I certainly am not anti-semetic. It's the natural response from pro-Israeli's: "you're criticizing Israel therefore you must be anti-semetic!".

No, but it is funny that you have a much bigger problem with Israeli retaliation than you do with Palestinians using young kids (some of whom DON'T want to do it) to walk into public buses and discos and kill as many innocents as possible.

I am not anti-American either, just anti-their current government. There is a difference. I'm all for America and perhaps care a little TOO much about what happens over there.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by pro-thug but I don't like violence.

 

International left - certainly I could be classed as being to the left but that doesn't mean that I agree with all ideas of the left.

No, you're the type of guy to think that what has happened to the Iraqi prisoners is the worst thing ever --- but the mass graves just don't really bug you all that much.

 

It's sad that Slapnuts uses PROOF and EVIDENCE --- and you just ignore it to maintain a firm grasp on your illusions.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

No, but it is funny that you have a much bigger problem with Israeli retaliation than you do with Palestinians using young kids (some of whom DON'T want to do it) to walk into public buses and discos and kill as many innocents as possible.

Seriously, ain't it something?

 

I bitch and moan when Israel uses an abusive form of overpowered intimidation (think "firing live rounds near a kid for throwing rocks at a tank" or "targeting people who aren't being dangerous") but people like h4u don't seem to understand.

 

I don't agree with Israel on all the political issues (what's up with Palestinian families unable to get clean, disease-free water with Israeli settlements nearby watering their fresh-cut lawns?) but retaliaiting for something like the first post only makes sense. If some cult was in our country doing half the shit these guys do they'd get a full Waco-style parade of FBI and military vehicles coming at their door.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

All I can say that terrorists are terrible people. Anyone who uses religion to justify their cause, are wrong. Since Isreal is here to stay, they do have a right to exist, and defend themselves. Even though sometimes I think Isreal does take a few things a little too far, for I am sure innocent Palestinians have been caught in the cross fire on more than one occasion, it is usually in retaliation for a terrorist act that was commited by Palestinian terror group. But I will agree that innoncents are by no means the targets, just unfortunate victims. And the pregnant lady who was killed was so sad. Where in the Koran does it say "though shall kill pregnant woman"? I know that Muhammad (?) was more of a warrior, but even I am sure he would hate people being killed in his name.

 

But I do believe that the Palestinians deserve their own homeland. I just wish that Isreal was more of the size of Texas, than New Jersey. That, and I wish Jerusleum was not such religious area, where three religions gather and claim as their own holy city. I also wish that back in 1948, the UN might have used a little more common sense when they decided to give the Jewish people a homeland right in the middle of the Arab world. Yeah, they were thrilled as we all can tell. It is so sad that the Palestinians have been used as the reason for justifying invasion of Isreal time and time again. It is sad that many grow up being force fed hatred, having the sections of the Koran be used to justify the killing of all Jews, even when the Koran strictly forbids killing of innocents. And so when innocents are killed, of course Isreal has the right to strike back, but this just seems to be a neverending cycle of violence.

 

I wonder what life would have been if the Prime Minister for Isreal who actually appeared to have good peace plan (I forgot his name) had not been gunned down by his own people. I am not too familiar with the details, but he appeared that he really wanted peace. So sometimes its the Isrealis who do dumb things. And the one thing I wish Clinton had worked more on, instead of getting blown in the Oval Office by a Jenny Craig spokeswoman, was working on a peace between Isreal in Palestince. I think that Clinton waited too long, but I do feel he was onto something, but ran out of time. That of course is up for debate, but I do feel Clinton could have done more, but who knows.

 

This is such a mess. But I posted a few years back about a cartoon in a discussion, where there is a picture of a war torn Palestinian area, where two Palestinians stand by two walls, and one of them wonders what else can we do? And all the other one does is look at a poster of Ghandi. I think that they way that the Palestinians are handling this is all wrong. They don't have the fire power of Isreal. And suicide bombings are winning no one's sympathy. Anytime a new leader is elected by the Palestinians, who might actually be willing to work towards peace, he gets undermined by Arafat (Yes Mike, he was a bad choice for the Nobel Peace Prize). I think that the Palestinians need to take a peacefull approach to this all. And Isreal needs to leave the land they occupy illegally. Yes, Isreal needs to give a little here too, only because I do believe the Palestinians deserve a land to call their own.

 

But, no more terrorism. That doesn't work. Violence only begots violence. And Isreal will hit back harder than you can imagine. And I think that in the Palestinians case, they are frustrated people. And many are uneducated, and so they don't learn to see the big picture, but what gets painted through the clerics who preach "death to Isreal, US, etc". Now terrorists are scum, but I would never degrade a whole group of people based on the actions of the scum. I think that a new Ghandi, or new Martin Luther King type person needs to arise within the Palestinians, and preach non-violence resistence, hopefully that they are able to speak over the hatred. And use the methods that helped India break free from the British.

 

So much many have died, and it makes me sad. As it seems that this will get a whole lot worse, before it gets better. But I can hope, can't I. One thing I will commend Bush on, was him saying that the Palestinians do need their own homeland. But for that to happen, the guns need to be thrown down, and the Palestinians should realize that they should take whatever land is left, and be happy with it, because Isreal is not going anywhere, and nor should they. Unfortunately Allah is not going to strike Isreal down. But, as it was, the Palestinians were there before Isreal, and so partial land belongs to them. Hence the reason I feel they need a homeland of their own... Why did Isreal have to be so small? And why was that the place the decided to put all the Jews after WWII? Very short sighted on the UN's part. Oh well rhetorical questions aside, I hope this can be worked out, but right now it does not look good. And no, the way the terrorists have acted, does not help the situation, which is why a new leader needs to rise up, preach a non violent message. That would bring more progress than any innocents being killed could ever do.