Israel a threat to world peace.

[bunge]

After reading this (http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001/20030625/182502759.htm) article, I was left feeling rather negatively towards Israel. It's not the first time this country has attacked at an 'inopportune' moment.

I think it's fair to say that this attack will do more to damage the current situation than the cease fire the militants were in the midst of signing. If Israel can't control itself, what can be done to force them to cooperate? Since over the past two to three years this has been their consistent response to peace, I can't understand a defense of their government's positions.

This is as much of a threat to stability in the region as Iraq was, but what can be done to keep them from destroying any hopes of peace in the region?

[Scott]

Uh hu and what did Hamas' terror strikes do?

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
Uh hu and what did Hamas' terror strikes do?

I'm more worried about an Israeli stike in the wake of a cease-fire agreement. A cease-fire could bring some stability. Israel hasn't been able to show any restraint under these circumstances. It's destabilizing the region more than isolated 'terror' attacks.

Isolated terror attacks in Iraq are doing relatively little to our military.

[Scott]

What cease-fire agreement?

[Scott]

Oh I get it now. The Jews should shut up and take it. Like they did before. But the arab muslims get ever second chance to stop killing jews.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by Scott
Uh hu and what did Hamas' terror strikes do?


don't lie, you were on the debate team, i can tell.

[Aquafire]

Over 70% of Palestinians want an end to hostilities.
This same majority recognize the authority of their own Prime Minister in these matters.

Hamas and others have refused all calls ( by their own government ) to lay down their arms and to cease all attacks on israelis. But that is not suprising really.

They have made it clear time and again, that they are not interested in negotiating a peace settlement.
They have a zero tolerance attitude towards Israel.

When the leaders of Hamas and other militant ( illegal ) groups recognize the right of Israel to exist without fear of its citizens being murdered, then Israel will cease hitting these murderers of peace.

I use these adjectives carefully, noting that these groups are acting outside the interests of their duly elected Palestinian government and have been condemmed by the United nations.

One final point,

You should recognize that another part of Hamas's agenda is to crush all palestinian attempts at democratic government....

So who are the real enemy to "world peace " ?

[alcimedes]

here's what i don't get.

Earlier in the day, two Hamas militants died after a firefight in Gaza that began when the Palestinians fired on an Israeli military vehicle. (emphasis mine)
The emerging deal was shrouded in some confusion, with Hamas leaders in the Palestinian areas strenuously denying it has been finalized.

the precursor to this in the article was the lead-in:

Islamic militants agreed to halt attacks on Israelis for three months, Palestinian negotiators said Wednesday. But the tenuous deal was immediately undercut by an Israeli airstrike and Hamas threats of revenge.

so again the isreal attack was a response an attack on them first.

how is this their fault?:???:

[Moogs]

Yes, they are.

"They should just sit back and take it?" is a cop out. There have been numerous occasions where things had settled a bit after various bombings and Israeli counter-attacks, and suddenly as progress is being made, Israel will start up the counter-attacks again. The rocket attacks a week or so ago is a prime example. The Israeli military completely fuked up a good starting point for negotiations.

Sharon and the new Palestinian PM had agreed to a basic set of talking points, including a Palestinian state...and what happened. Right wing protests in Israel and the next day there's suddenly another big wave of "counter" attacks, killing more Palestinian civilians.

It's pretty obvious to anyone with a functioning pair of eyes (so to speak) that Sharon is not in complete control of his own military. As long as the right-wing civilian nutbags - the same ones who vehemently protested the peace process and any idea of a Palestinian state, before the details had even been cast - have some say in what the military does, there will never be peace there.

They don't want peace. They want the land and they want it all. They have no respect for any Palestinian and no desire to compromise with them either. It's called arrogance and greed under the guise of self defense and "yah but you started it".

[alcimedes]

moogs, they were fired on first this morning, and their attack was in response. i don't see how this is their fault. to start off a cease fire you should STOP SHOOTING PEOPLE.

if you're shooting people, odds are you'll get shot back.

[bunge]

Originally posted by alcimedes
so again the isreal attack was a response an attack on them first.

how is this their fault?:???:

Not exactly. They killed the perpetrators of the attack earlier in the day. This helicopter attack was unrelated.

Moogs has it right. Israel attacks whenever there is any movement forward for peace. This is troubling and a threat to the region, and thus the world.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by bunge
Not exactly. They killed the perpetrators of the attack earlier in the day. This helicopter attack was unrelated.

Moogs has it right. Israel attacks whenever there is any movement forward for peace. This is troubling and a threat to the region, and thus the world.

SHARON attacks whenever there is a movement towards peace.
just like the walk he took to the temple mount when barak and arafat were so close to peace.
sharon to palestinians is like a kkk march. there will be no peace with sharon in office. he is an impediment to peace. unfortunately he is an elected impediment.

[bunge]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
SHARON attacks whenever there is a movement towards peace.

Yes, you are correct. I implied that in my first post by saying that the government is OOC. He is, for all practical purposes, the current Israeli government.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

not to cave to the groverat/scott doctrine of evenhanded criticism.
but i do believe there will be seats for both sharon and hamas at the purgatory breakfast buffet.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Moogs
Yes, they are.

"They should just sit back and take it?" is a cop out. There have been numerous occasions where things had settled a bit after various bombings and Israeli counter-attacks, and suddenly as progress is being made, Israel will start up the counter-attacks again. ...


Complete bias crap.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by Scott
Complete bias crap.

well yes and no, but again, good argument!
the differences between likud and hamas is likud has a portfolio. each is pretty much committed to each others destruction.

cooler heads should be prevailing at this time and they're not.

[Scott]

Yes but Hamas is a terrorist group. If/when Hamas is destroyed Palestine will exist and peace will have a chance. If/when Israel is destroyed the new nazis of the world will have their first victory. With Europe's help.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

yes and if sharon hadn't have taken his famous stroll hamas might just be another political party in a free palestine. (likewise if arafat hadn't capitulated to hamas on the accords)
don't forget likud's founding fathers beginnings.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by Scott
If/when Israel is destroyed the new nazis of the world will have their first victory. With Europe's help.

it's ironic how you equate intolerance with nazis.

[groverat]

Am I the only person who thought "Oh yeah? *Your mom* is a threat to world peace!" when they first read the title of this thread?

Yes?

hmm

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

i don't know, but that's fascinating, let's all ponder that.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
Yes but Hamas is a terrorist group. If/when Hamas is destroyed Palestine will exist and peace will have a chance.

If Hamas agrees to a ceasefire, they are no longer an active terrorist group. During that period, if Palestine is created, Hamas as a terrorist group representing the Palestinian people would cease to exist. They would be outcasts.

Your arguments make no sense. Hamas doesn't need to be 'destroyed' for peace to exist. Israel needs to work towards peace for peace to exist. Until that time, Israel is a bigger obstacle for peace than even Hamas.

[bunge]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i don't know, but that's fascinating, let's all ponder that.

Ummmm...pondered. Nope. Doesn't resonate.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by alcimedes
here's what i don't get.

(emphasis mine)


the precursor to this in the article was the lead-in:



so again the isreal attack was a response an attack on them first.

how is this their fault?:???:
Haven't you learned yet? ALWAYS BLAME THE JEW Learning this simple rule will help you understand the point of few of many of our learned liberal colleagues.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge

Moogs has it right. Israel attacks whenever there is any movement forward for peace. This is troubling and a threat to the region, and thus the world.
bullshit. Plain and simple.

Moogs sees everything in the region through a very simple set of conditions. He blames everything on, oh what did he call it, "typical Jewish arrogance". I think I have heard Moogs rantings elsewhere. Congrats on buying into his crap.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Congrats on buying into his crap.

Congrats on being a blind moron. I started the thread because I believe Israel, while led by Sharon, is a threat to peace in the Mid-East and thus the world. Sharon's actions today, well, the Israeli military, back up my sentiments.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Haven't you learned yet? ALWAYS BLAME THE JEW Learning this simple rule will help you understand the point of few of many of our learned liberal colleagues.

i thought the debate had risen above that sort of nonsense, but thanks for dragging it back down.

[Scott]

Originally posted by bunge
If Hamas agrees to a ceasefire, they are no longer an active terrorist group. During that period, if Palestine is created, Hamas as a terrorist group representing the Palestinian people would cease to exist. They would be outcasts.

Your arguments make no sense. Hamas doesn't need to be 'destroyed' for peace to exist. Israel needs to work towards peace for peace to exist. Until that time, Israel is a bigger obstacle for peace than even Hamas.


Let's see. Israel wants to work with the Road Map and move toward two states. At least they say that. Hamas wants to drive all Jews out of the region and create a muslim theocracy. Or at least they say that.

So ...:???:... blame Israel?

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Haven't you learned yet? ALWAYS BLAME THE JEW

:rolleyes:

Arafat was 'replaced' and he isn't a Jew. At least I don't think he's a Jew. I could be wrong on that point.

[Scott]

Arafat was "replaced"? That terrorist still commands many forces and has his terror wing of his government active.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
Israel wants to work with the Road Map and move toward two states.

Did Israel's actions today (yesterday) support this hypothesis you claim? No. Israel had an opportunity to support the road map towards two states and they took an opportunity to stop it.

Hamas, amazingly enough, was willing to work with the road map and agree to a three month cease fire. Does this cease fire support your hypothesis about the desire to drive all Jews into the sea? No.

So, you're wrong on both points. Sorry. Take your ball and go home.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
If Hamas agrees to a ceasefire, they are no longer an active terrorist group. During that period, if Palestine is created, Hamas as a terrorist group representing the Palestinian people would cease to exist. They would be outcasts.

Really? So if Palestine is created, Hamas would cease to exists? Why? Why would extremist groups, seeking the destruction of Israel and not the formation of a Palestinian state cease to exist. That makes no sense at all. Even the PLO was never foolish enough to claim that the creation of a Palestian state was their primary goal. Why would an even more extremist group renounce the goal of the destruction of the jewish state and the creation of another radical islamic state?

Originally posted by bunge

Your arguments make no sense. Hamas doesn't need to be 'destroyed' for peace to exist. Israel needs to work towards peace for peace to exist. Until that time, Israel is a bigger obstacle for peace than even Hamas.
Um yeah, as defined as a group seeking to establish a strict islamic state and the complete and utter destruction of the "Jewish infestation" in palestine, they need to be be destroyed. Whether this means they dismantle themselves, the PA dismantles their infrastructure, or Israel hunts them down, they, as an organization needs to cease to exist, to be destroyed. This doesn't have to mean the members are destroyed or killed, but that Hamas, as an organization needs to be destroyed.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by Scott
Let's see. Israel wants to work with the Road Map and move toward two states. At least they say that. Hamas wants to drive all Jews out of the region and create a muslim theocracy. Or at least they say that.

So ...:???:... blame Israel?
the day after israel said they wanted to pursue the roadmap, they sent helicopter gunships into the gaza strip. (or was it the west bank?) infuriating president bush to no end. hamas is at least up front about it. sharon is not.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
well yes and no, but again, good argument!
the differences between likud and hamas is likud has a portfolio. each is pretty much committed to each others destruction.

So, one is committed to wiping out a terror organization and has a portfolio. The other is committed to wiping out all jews in palestine, man woman and child. You are right, they are the same. I should have seen it sooner.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Really? So if Palestine is created, Hamas would cease to exists?

You didn't read what I wrote.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by Scott
Arafat was "replaced"? That terrorist still commands many forces and has his terror wing of his government active.

arafat's playhouse has been torn down, he hasn't commanded anything in years, precisely why he backed out of the accords. pay no attention to the man behind the curtain indeed.

[Scott]

I guess we could get into battling news links but I remember Hamas being the first to strike this time around. Then there's Hamas saying over and over and over and .... over and over that they would not stop. So ... blame the Jews:???:

Hamas is the major obstacle to peace. They are terrorist that refuse to stop. They refuse to negotiate with anyone and can't be reasoned with. Their only position is no more Israel. That simple.


BUT! Blame the Jews! Oooopps I mean Israeli. God I keep forgeting that.:no:

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Really? So if Palestine is created, Hamas would cease to exists? Why? .

there is plenty of historical data of terrorist groups being legitimized by statehood.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
arafat's playhouse has been torn down, he hasn't commanded anything in years, precisely why he backed out of the accords. pay no attention to the man behind the curtain indeed.
At a very minimum, he still funds and supports terrorist organisations. He provides haven and shelter for many groups. Fatah still answers to him.

He may not be the man in charge any more, but he is still responsible and much of the crap happening there. As much as Sharon is.

[Scott]

Arafat being one of them:lol:

[alcimedes]

from the article.

The emerging deal was shrouded in some confusion, with Hamas leaders in the Palestinian areas strenuously denying it has been finalized.

so was there a truce or not? Hamas was saying no.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
Hamas is the major obstacle to peace.

No. Hamas was committing to a cease-fire. Israel interjected and became, yet again, the obstacle to peace.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
there is plenty of historical data of terrorist groups being legitimized by statehood.
Not the point. Hamas seeks the destruction of Israel and the creation of a fundamentalist islamic state in it's place. How would the creation of a secular Palestinian state appease them in the least?

Bunge claimed they would cease to represent the Palestinian people and lose their support. If the Palestinian goal is simply the creation of a palestinian state, hamas, as an obvious obstacleto this, shouldn't have their support now. Hamas goals wouldn't change if a paletinian state is created, why should one expect their support would?

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by Tulkas
At a very minimum, he still funds and supports terrorist organisations. He provides haven and shelter for many groups. Fatah still answers to him.

He may not be the man in charge any more, but he is still responsible and much of the crap happening there. As much as Sharon is.

the weight of the world was taken of arafat's shoulders when he was taken out of the loop. he was laughed at (by his own people) every time he suggested he could police palestine. if there is leadership in palestine, (and i don't think there is, i think it's chaos at best) it will be found in hamas.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Bunge claimed they would cease to represent the Palestinian people and lose their support. If the Palestinian goal is simply the creation of a palestinian state, hamas, as an obvious obstacleto this, shouldn't have their support now. Hamas goals wouldn't change if a paletinian state is created, why should one expect their support would?

Your logic doesn't fly.

The Palestinians are almost powerless. If Hamas is the only group that can get support so they can achieve independence, then that's the group they'll have to support. That doesn't mean Palestinians support the goals of Hamas. It means that they'll ride the coattails of Hamas if that's what it takes to achieve their goals.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
Congrats on being a blind moron. I started the thread because I believe Israel, while led by Sharon, is a threat to peace in the Mid-East and thus the world. Sharon's actions today, well, the Israeli military, back up my sentiments.
Open ended argument. You will always believe that Israel is a threat to mideast peace. And you are right. As long as Israel exists, they are a threat to mideast peace. I guess it depends on your definition of peace. Since Israel responding to attacks is a threat to peace, then only an Israel that is docile and non-threatening can lead to peace. So, basically, castrate Israel and everythig is good.

Since you believe that Israel, while led by Sharon, is a threat to mideast peace, please explain, what type of Israel, would not be a threat to mideast peace? I honestly would like you take of this.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Hamas seeks the destruction of Israel and the creation of a fundamentalist islamic state in it's place.

Rhetoric.

Once a Palestinian state is established, any cross border activity is an official act of war. A Palestinian state would have to eliminate that potential internal threat or suffer the effects of a legitimate war against them that they could in no way survive. Hamas would suffocate.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by Tulkas

Since you believe that Israel, while led by Sharon, is a threat to mideast peace, please explain, what type of Israel, would not be a threat to mideast peace? I honestly would like you take of this.

where were you 4-5 years ago? israel before sharon was on the verge establishing the peace.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
Your logic doesn't fly.

The Palestinians are almost powerless. If Hamas is the only group that can get support so they can achieve independence, then that's the group they'll have to support. That doesn't mean Palestinians support the goals of Hamas. It means that they'll ride the coattails of Hamas if that's what it takes to achieve their goals.
So, what about the creation of a Palestian state would end the support of hamas? Sure, support might not be as high, but they would still have support and would still attack Israelis.

[BostonMJH]

Hey if the Palestinians & Arabs put down there weapons there will be peace.

If Israel puts down there weapons there will be no Israel.

I not sure where I heard but I thought that there is a great deal of truth in that.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by bunge
Rhetoric.

Once a Palestinian state is established, any cross border activity is an official act of war. A Palestinian state would have to eliminate that potential internal threat or suffer the effects of a legitimate war against them that they could in no way survive. Hamas would suffocate.

i agree, if there is no solution, then it's in israel's best interests to legitimize palestine asap.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
where were you 4-5 years ago? israel before sharon was on the verge establishing the peace.
You mean when Arafat unilaterally nixed the peace accord? Where were you? But that was Sharons fault too, right?

[bunge]

Originally posted by alcimedes
so was there a truce or not?

It had yet to be officially announced.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
Rhetoric.

Once a Palestinian state is established, any cross border activity is an official act of war. A Palestinian state would have to eliminate that potential internal threat or suffer the effects of a legitimate war against them that they could in no way survive. Hamas would suffocate.
????
No, then Israel take blame for daring to blame the legitimate government of Palestine for the actions of a small group of extremist orgs. PA could do nothing if they chose to and Israel would be condemned for any actions defying the sovereignty of the state of Palestine.

It would be very wrong to believe that any cross boarder activity would be viewed internationally as an act of war, unless those acts were specifically the acts of the nations involved. Israel would face even more critizisms if the responded to attacks by terrorist groups, by crossing international borders. Look at the reaction to Lebanon.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
You mean when Arafat unilaterally nixed the peace accord?

Was that right after Israel increased their expansion of settlements at a greater rate than ever before?

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
It had yet to be officially announced.
And Hamas said it didn't exist

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by Tulkas
You mean when Arafat unilaterally nixed the peace accord? Where were you? But that was Sharons fault too, right?

i was there. or shortly before.
sharon's visit to the temple inflamed palestinians to no end.
and yes i believe arafat realized if he'd gone through with the accord's he'd have been doomed. i feel this is when arafat realized he was a paper tiger.
and yes i believe sharon's walk to the temple mount that day was designed to derail the peace accords.

[bunge]

Originally posted by BostonMJH
I not sure where I heard but I thought that there is a great deal of truth in that.

What about when Hamas puts down their weapons? Why should Israel attack then? And if/since they did attack when Hamas was in the midst of a cease-fire negotiation, why should the world take Sharon any more seriously than Arafat?

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by Tulkas
????
No, then Israel take blame for daring to blame the legitimate government of Palestine for the actions of a small group of extremist orgs. PA could do nothing if they chose to and Israel would be condemned for any actions defying the sovereignty of the state of Palestine.



israel was created by extremists! america was created by extremists!
all the groovy places were created by extremists baby!

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
And Hamas said it didn't exist

Wrong. Re-read the article. A formal announcement had yet to be made.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Sure, support might not be as high, but they would still have support and would still attack Israelis.

This is the greatest of all straw-men arguments. There will always, at least for years and probably decades, be extremists on both sides that attack each other.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i was there. or shortly before.
sharon's visit to the temple inflamed palestinians to no end.
and yes i believe arafat realized if he'd gone through with the accord's he'd have been doomed. i feel this is when arafat realized he was a paper tiger.
and yes i believe sharon's walk to the temple mount that day was designed to derail the peace accords.
The peace accords were already dead, a la Arafat.

Sharon's visit was cleared by the Palestinian authorities (strange that a jew should need permission to visit their holiest of sites) and was meant at worst, to embarrase Barak...related to Barak allowing the destruction of Jewish artifacts etc at the temple mount. Related to the peace accords? No. But it is easy to say he meant it that way, since the palestinians used it as an excuse for the intifatah, then Sharon must have meant for it to cause the intifatah.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
israel was created by extremists! america was created by extremists!
all the groovy places were created by extremists baby! Any based on the single premise of the complete destruction of another people?

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Any based on the single premise of the complete destruction of another people?

Based on the removal of said people, yes.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
This is the greatest of all straw-men arguments. There will always, at least for years and probably decades, be extremists on both sides that attack each other.
Yeah? And how many jewish extremists infiltrate civilian areas? One jew is a couple years attacking civilians, vs hundreds of attacks against jewish civilians.

It is not a strawman arguement to say that Hamas will continue to attack Jews is Israel, palestinian state or not. And this constitutes an obvious threat to the security of Israel. Oh, I forgot, Jews are supposed to just roll over. Please name another country that is expected to remain responseless when they are attacked repeatedly.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Please name another country that is expected to remain responseless when they are attacked repeatedly.

Palestine? :???:

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
Palestine? :???:
You know, I was going to qualify my question, reminding you that Palestine is not yet a state, but convinced myself you wouldn't need reminding. So, since Palestine isn't a country and has never been a country, try again.

But, I wantto ask you my other question, related to your orginal statement in the threat. What can Israel to, in your eyes, to no longer be a threat to mideast peace?

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Any based on the single premise of the complete destruction of another people?

in the heat of the moment, probably, yes.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
You know, I was going to qualify my question, reminding you that Palestine is not yet a state, but convinced myself you wouldn't need reminding. So, since Palestine isn't a country and has never been a country, try again.

What you end up with is a semantic argument then. Oh, the Palestinians don't have a state, so they can be slaughtered....

Originally posted by Tulkas
But, I wantto ask you my other question, related to your orginal statement in the threat. What can Israel to, in your eyes, to no longer be a threat to mideast peace?

The same thing I believed three years ago.

You even say there is no Palestine, no state. But when an uncontrolled faction or group within this geographical area strikes Israel or the occupied territories, the entire non-existant state is held accountable. Israel wants it both ways. That's impossible.

Israel needs to enter into peace negotiations, even if 'extremist' groups, or 'terrorist' groups, or whatever you want to call them groups, try to intercede. The Palestinian Authority is being held accountable for extremists. That's the equivalent of the US Federal Government being held accountable for the wackos in Waco, or Timothy McVeigh's bombing.

Israel needs to work out an agreement regardless. When someone other than the government of the non-state of not-Palestine tried to intercede, it must be ignored.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge



The same thing I believed three years ago.

You even say there is no Palestine, no state. But when an uncontrolled faction or group within this geographical area strikes Israel or the occupied territories, the entire non-existant state is held accountable. Israel wants it both ways. That's impossible.

No, the entire Palestinian people are not held accountable. But the PA is held responsible. You are right, Israel wants it both ways. They want peace with the Palestinian people, and they want that peace to mean they are secure from being targetted with terrorist attacks against their civilians.
Originally posted by bunge


Israel needs to enter into peace negotiations, even if 'extremist' groups, or 'terrorist' groups, or whatever you want to call them groups, try to intercede. The Palestinian Authority is being held accountable for extremists. That's the equivalent of the US Federal Government being held accountable for the wackos in Waco, or Timothy McVeigh's bombing.

If McVeigh and the like were attacking civilians in another sovereign state and using US territory and govenment for funding and, then yes, the US gov would be held accountable for stopping them.
Originally posted by bunge

Israel needs to work out an agreement regardless. When someone other than the government of the non-state of not-Palestine tried to intercede, it must be ignored.
So, for Israel to have peace, they must ignore their civilians being targetted and killed? Then you saying that Israel must just roll over for peace. That's not peace. That's suicide.

Israel must work out a peace agreement, but not at the cost of her people's lives. Israel should not have to accept a peace that allows jews to be slaughtered and no one is held accountable for those deaths.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by groverat
Am I the only person who thought "Oh yeah? *Your mom* is a threat to world peace!" when they first read the title of this thread?

Yes?

hmm

No you are just alone, i have just discovered this thread. I will keep an eye on it ;)

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
So, for Israel to have peace, they must ignore their civilians being targetted and killed?

So, for the Palestinians to have peace, they must ignore their civilians being targetted and killed? Or because they don't have an official state, there are no true Palestinian civilians to be killed?

Your logic states that Israel can attack while trying to make peace while the Palestinians can't. That's suicide for Palestinians.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
No, the entire Palestinian people are not held accountable.

Look at the conditions in 'Palestine' and come back and try and argue this truthfully. You can't.

[grad student]

I read the posts in these threads, specifically posts like moogs', but there are others... anyway - it gives me a great deal of comfort to know that if ever a hateful anti-jewish organization takes power with the goal of destroying the jewish people, Israel has weapons preventing it from happening, and as much as they hate, and as much as they would like to see the destruction of the jews and israel - they will never see it.

"typical jewish arrogance".

People can think whatever the f*ck they want to - I can still live my life and nobody can stop it - regardless of what some dimwit racist lowlife thinks - as if I need them to like me, ha! go ahead and hate yourself into a stroke. [deep breath, with sense of inner peace]. I'll live my life - happily too.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by bunge
After reading this (http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001/20030625/182502759.htm) article, I was left feeling rather negatively towards Israel.
Let's not be foolish, you have been harbouring similar feelings quite some time before reading it.
Originally from the article (http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001/20030625/182502759.htm)
JERUSALEM (AP) - Islamic militants agreed to halt attacks on Israelis for three months,…
They did not. There are talks of a cease-fire, but none had been agreed to.
Suicide bombing suspects nabbed in Kafr Qasem (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=311654&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)
A terrorist attack was foiled yesterday morning when a large explosive charge was found and diffused in Kafr Qasem. Police captured two 21-year-old Tanzim activists from Nablus - a suicide bomber who brought the explosives and his guide.

The bomber had intended to blow himself up in the crowded Petah Tikva market, which could have caused many casualties, police sources said.

The two suspects, both members of the Tanzim's Al Aqsa Brigades, were caught due to accurate intelligence information.
I suppose some would claims that what's ceaee-fires look like.

Palestinian negotiators said Wednesday. But the tenuous deal was immediately undercut by an Israeli airstrike and Hamas threats of revenge.
Follows long verbiage about the talks of reaching such a cease-fire, which has not actually been reached. Not much about the actual Israeli attack. So here's something about it:
IDF missiles kill two in Gaza strike on cars (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=311646&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)
Israeli helicopters fired missiles at two cars near the southern Gaza city of Khan Yunis yesterday, killing two people, including a woman.

The Israel Defense Forces said the helicopters fired the
missiles at a Hamas cell that was about to fire mortar shells at an Israeli settlement. The attack came minutes after Palestinian officials announced that Hamas and other militant groups had agreed to a three-month halt to attacks against Israelis.
A reasonable person wouild be more serious about getting mortar operators than about listening to unsubstantiated “cease-fire” mentioned by splinter groups. It's with the PA that Israel is supposed to reach a cease-fire and negociate, not with Hamas. When the PA disarms all other armed factions and reaches a cease-fire with Israel will it be known it means business.

It's not the first time this country has attacked at an 'inopportune' moment.
It is always opportune during an armed conflict to attack militia combatants.

I think it's fair to say that this attack will do more to damage the current situation than the cease fire the militants were in the midst of signing.
With whom, thmeselves?

If Israel can't control itself, what can be done to force them to cooperate? Since over the past two to three years this has been their consistent response to peace,…
What peace? do you mean, the PA-initiated campaign of “armed struggle” of the last three years?
I can't understand a defense of their government's positions.
While there is mich worng with that government, it had not rejected any offer of cease-fire, nor was it offered any.

This is as much of a threat to stability in the region as Iraq was, but what can be done to keep them from destroying any hopes of peace in the region?
If Israel was remotley comparable with Saddam's Iraq, it would have no more a problem with the Palestinians than Iraq had with the Shias or the Kurds in 1990.

But perhaps what you'd actually like to see is a big military campaign against Israel by the world's major powers, just to make the fight a “fair” one.
You could find some better arguments for such noble cause but the one you're making above is a very poor one indeed.

[rashumon]

Originally posted by bunge
No. Hamas was committing to a cease-fire. Israel interjected and became, yet again, the obstacle to peace.

That is a plain lie!
Maybe you don't really check the news out but hamas has not yet agreed to a cease fire ever - they were merly considering it... and that two, only after getting a serious kicking by the IDF.
Now, you were saying that the Sharon government is to blame for not really wanting peace because it hit at hammas since the Aqaba summit - well, look at the facts:

the next day after the summit (which BTW Hamas flatly rejected and even went to the trouble of lambasting Abu Mazen for being an apeaser of the usurper Zionists) the bodies of a young Israeli couple were found mutilated in a forest outside of Jerusalem. the next day Hamas attacked an IDF post on the Gaza strip border and Killed 5 soldiers, another soldier was killed in Hebron - and all this within 2 days of Bush, Mazen and Sharon talking all those lovely words of peace - I'd say that's a very clear message AGAINST peace or a ceasefire.
As a result of these attacks Israel tried to kill Abdul Aziz Rantisi the Hamas top man in Gaza - the attempt sadly failed. the next day 17 People were murdered in a bus bombing in Jerusalem including the niece of the US ambassador to Israel and over 50 people were wounded including the daughter of a US senator.
the result of all this was that Israel escalated its attacks on top Hamas activists killing around 10 of them within 3 days and arresting lots of others -that campaign has been so effective that it has now forced Hamas to consider a ceasefire which they have still not accepted - earlier today another innocent Israeli civilian was killed by gunfire on the border between the west bank and Israel.

Its dead simple - no other sovereign self respecting country would have it otherwise - until the fire ceases Israel will keep defending itself against those who attack it! you do the same in the US.
This is a war for us - you dont deal with a war by turning your back to the enemy - you fight until it has given up the hope of beating you...
Blame Israel if that gives you a kick but the above stated simple fact will not change - ever!
And I can assure you that if a real ceasefire takes effect Israel will not be the one to break it!

[rashumon]

Originally posted by bunge
Your logic doesn't fly.

>>> It means that they'll ride the coattails of Hamas if that's what it takes to achieve their goals.

Care to focus on those goals?

[rashumon]

Originally posted by BostonMJH
Hey if the Palestinians & Arabs put down there weapons there will be peace.

If Israel puts down there weapons there will be no Israel.

I not sure where I heard but I thought that there is a great deal of truth in that.

Spot ON!!! look at Egypt and Jordan - as soon as they were willing to renounce war they got peace with us, same went for the Palestinians during the Oslo years - only they chose to revert to a strategy of war - well, we are allways ready to defend ourselves! we have become quite good at it over the years....

[rashumon]

Originally posted by bunge
What about when Hamas puts down their weapons?

When did they do that?
Hamas has never put down its weapons - not once since its establishment in the late 80s...

[rashumon]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
No you are just alone, i have just discovered this thread. I will keep an eye on it ;)

LOL Doc - the two of you should consider marriage ;)

[Scott]

I have to wonder with all the anti-Israel tunnel vision here followed up quickly with Hamas blinders what do bunge et al think the Final Solution will be for this problem?

[groverat]

Found this (http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=E83152E1-6873-4812-80A3A56D905FC898)during my morning GoogleNews perusal.

Hamas officials say their organization, along with Islamic Jihad and Fatah, are discussing the ceasefire with Palestinian officials but have not yet reached an agreement. Palestinian sources were quoted Wednesday as saying the three organizations had signed a ceasefire document in Damascus, Syria.

bunge lied to promote his agenda. He should be impeached.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
So, for the Palestinians to have peace, they must ignore their civilians being targetted and killed? Or because they don't have an official state, there are no true Palestinian civilians to be killed?


Your logic states that Israel can attack while trying to make peace while the Palestinians can't. That's suicide for Palestinians.
No, they have to agreed to stop groups that are specifically targetting civilians and they actually take steps to stopping those groups. That is not suicide, that is what the UN and Europe expect of them. That is what the PA acknoloedges.

[Chinney]

Earlier posted by grad student (in another thread)
...until the day comes (in the very distant future) that indeed Israel is defeat-able by a neighboring country. At which point - which I am convinced will come some day - Israel will cease to exist.

Later posted by grad student (in this thread)
...and as much as they would like to see the destruction of the jews and israel - they will never see it


Which is it?

In the other thread, I called the earlier quote above one of the most depressing I had recently seen. (I have seen others more depressing since.) However, I fear that Israel really will be destroyed someday unless a real peace is reached. The current roadmap is not the way, and all this killing does not seem ready to stop (Who shot first? - Who can really tell? - How far back do you want to go on that question?)

I will not repeat that elements of what I consider to be the real road to peace. You can read that in the other thread (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25273). I'll just say that ethnic nationalism - whether by Arabs, Jews, Irish, Germans, Tamils, Hindus, Russians, or anyone else - is a scourge. Those who support it should reconsider the so-called justice and morality of killing in its name.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by Scott
I have to wonder with all the anti-Israel tunnel vision here followed up quickly with Hamas blinders what do bunge et al think the Final Solution will be for this problem?

again scott, i find it ironic that you are using these kind of terms.

i think the final solution is palestine being legitimized, including hamas in negotiations, and once doing so, if the violence continues, deal with hamas at that time.
i feel sharon and likud don't want a palestine, legitmate or otherwise, they'd probably even like to see the camp david accords overturned.
i think it's imperative to the peace process that if sharon is involved he has to deal (as in wheel and deal) with hamas.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
I have to wonder with all the anti-Israel tunnel vision here followed up quickly with Hamas blinders what do bunge et al think the Final Solution will be for this problem?

Peace?

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by groverat
bunge lied to promote his agenda. He should be impeached.
(cc: bunge)

Do you mean “heavens above he lied to start a war!”?
Pity the humanity.

[bunge]

Just as Arafat had to be set aside for Israel (and the US) to consider moving foward with the peace process, there's no chance for peace until Sharon is gone. The US should pressure Israel to dump him.

[bunge]

Originally posted by groverat
Found this (http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=E83152E1-6873-4812-80A3A56D905FC898)during my morning GoogleNews perusal.

What the hell would your morning GoogleNews perusal have to do with yesterday's story? Oh yeah, nothing.

[groverat]

Your entire premise of Israel being the threat is that they broke a ceasefire or pre-empted the essentially-finished ceasefire's "formal announcement".

Both of which are lies.

[bunge]

Originally posted by groverat
Both of which are lies.

You sometimes have trouble with logic. Your article proves my article is a lie? :???:

I know this is difficult for you, because you know Sharon must go, but you've got to fight to keep up the facade.

[Scott]

Legitimizing Hamas would only legitimize terror. At that point you may as well add terror to the Geneva Convention as being an acceptable form or warfare. The biggest mistake in this whole process what legitimizing Afatat and the PLO.

[rashumon]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

i feel sharon and likud don't want a palestine, legitmate or otherwise, they'd probably even like to see the camp david accords overturned.
i think it's imperative to the peace process that if sharon is involved he has to deal (as in wheel and deal) with hamas.

1. The camp david accords have been overturned - by Arafat who rejected these flatly just like he did in Taba 4 months later...

2. Maybe Sharon needs to deal with hamas - but how can that happen when hamas refuses to deal with him or indeed anyone who is classed as a ZIonist?
for them its - "no talking! ever, not until the complete redemption of our holy occupied lands takes place" with the word occupation referring to the entirety of the land between the river and the sea, not just the post 67 OT...

3. what is there to deal with them about? the positions are diametrically opposed and Hamas claim to renounce any possible compromise with - the 'Evil Zionist Entity" so what is there to deal with them over?

[bunge]

rashumon,

I think you're seeing why this helicopter attack was so detrimental. Sharon wasn't dealing with Hamas and maybe he doesn't have to. Let the cease-fire begin and deal with the new PM.

But that might lead towards peace. So, instead, we have Sharon provoking yet another breakdown.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

the way i understand it now, israel is in fact negotiating with hamas, they are letting jailed hamas leaders communicate with leaders on the outside.

i also understand there to be much division in in the israeli government as there seems to be in hamas. so any truce is going to be shaky at best.
but considering the alternative......

[rashumon]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
the way i understand it now, israel is in fact negotiating with hamas, they are letting jailed hamas leaders communicate with leaders on the outside.

i also understand there to be much division in in the israeli government as there seems to be in hamas. so any truce is going to be shaky at best.
but considering the alternative......

NO ! one big no !!!
your information is incorrect - Israel is NOT talking to Hamas - the said ceasefire BS is between the PA and Hamas not between Israel and Hamas - that's blasphemy for the Hamasnics.

Re devision in government - I don't know where you get that from so let me inform you about this:
Sharon is at an unprecedentedly powerful position politically - in israeli politics in recent years his is the most powerful position of any of the last 6 prime ministers. he has no opposition from within Likud (after crushing Netanyahoo completely in the internal elections last year) and he does not have to reckon with the religious right wing Spharadi party - 'Shas' which has lost many seats in the last elections and is not a member of the coalition. his second largest partner in the coalition in 'Shinui' - a popular centrist secularist party with a moderate agenda that will support any progress on the RoadMap. together these two have nearly the 61 seats needed to form a coalition... as for his right wing partners - well to be honest he can easily forget about them if they get too troublesome - he only needs about 6 - 8 seats for a majority in the Kneset and he could always join up with Labor (now headed by old dove Peres) and form a secular national unity government with Likud, Shinui and Labor if the right wing gets too problematic for him to operate - which will give him total national and political support to move on with the peace process (this is what most Israelis want to see happen since put together these 3 parties stand for about 80% of Israelis). Sharon has so many options and in every one of these he will still be in full control.
The question is - will he? I believe he realizes he has no other choice - peace is the only way forward for israel and this is what the majority of Israelis wish for... the US is very much trusted by Israelis and if it stands firmly behind a peace deal most Israelis will trust that deal! (unless of course the palestinians bungle it up again) - but who knows reading Sharon's mind is a task wiser and more knowledgeable people then me have failed to do... ;)

Who knows....But the wild cards here are the Islamists and extremist Fatah groups who would like to foil any attempt at Palestinian moderation - the big question is will the Palestinian nation allow these few to control their destiny or will they take their future into their own hands.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by rashumon
NO ! one big no !!!
your information is incorrect - Israel is NOT talking to Hamas - the said ceasefire BS is between the PA and Hamas not between Israel and Hamas - that's blasphemy for the Hamasnics.



well certainly time will tell.

[rashumon]

Originally posted by bunge
rashumon,

I think you're seeing why this helicopter attack was so detrimental. Sharon wasn't dealing with Hamas and maybe he doesn't have to. Let the cease-fire begin and deal with the new PM.

But that might lead towards peace. So, instead, we have Sharon provoking yet another breakdown.

The problem is that there is not and never was any ceasefire from hamas, throughout the 4 weeks since the Aqaba summit Israelis have been dying and terrorists have been attacking relentlessly.
Just got off the phone with my parents in Jerusalem - and they were saying alerts for the weekend are red hot, only yesterday a couple of suicide bombers were ambushed and killed and large amounts of explosives were found on them on their way to attack a shopping mall in Petah Tikva near Tel Aviv.
This morning a jewish telephone company worker who was working in an Arab Israeli town was murdered by a 15 year old Palestinian from the west bank.
We expect more for Friday.....
You call this a ceasefire?
Since the discussions about that bogus ceasefire are internal - between the palestinians themselves and not with Israel - what can Sharon do? his people are being attacked - the Palestinians are debating amongst themselves indefinitely, is he supposed to simply sit quietly while people are being killed and wait politely for Egypt and Mazen to convince Hamas to maybe agree not to murder anyone for 3 months
would you do that if you were the PM of Israel?

HA ! :D :lol:

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by rashumon

HA ! :D :lol:

i understand your passion for the problem and your viewpoint on it.
this HA! business. i do not understand. i do not understand it one bit.

[rashumon]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i understand your passion for the problem and your viewpoint on it.
this HA! business. i do not understand. i do not understand it one bit.

Sorry if it seems as if I meant it as spite - I didn't!!
I was merely expressing my sense of amazement and ridicule at the impossible expectations being placed on Israel in this issue.
It is being attacked but it can't respond
its expected to entrust its security to the hands of the very people who fight it and claim to wish for it's destruction.
And when it expresses skepticism about the so called ceasefire talks within the Palestinian side which have been going on for over 6 weeks now and have only resulted in more Israelis killed it gets blamed for subverting the whole peace process....

Indeed some hopeful peace process....

OK, let me ask you this simple question - Do you seriously believe that were the palestinians to stop all attacks on Israelis tomorrow Israel would not put down its arms too?
Lets be frank here - they keys to all this is in Palestinian hands - they can make a decision NOW and the roadmap would start progressing no ifs or buts - you simply cannot say the same thing about Israel, all it can do is sit and wait and defend itself until such time arrives when Palestinians choose to stop the violence.

As i have said before it is really that simple!

[grad student]

Originally posted by Chinney
Which is it?

In the other thread, I called the earlier quote above one of the most depressing I had recently seen. (I have seen others more depressing since.) However, I fear that Israel really will be destroyed someday unless a real peace is reached. The current roadmap is not the way, and all this killing does not seem ready to stop (Who shot first? - Who can really tell? - How far back do you want to go on that question?)



I stand by my fears and beliefs that one day Israel will be destroyed...

but not our lifetimes.

[filmmaker2002]

Maybe the Israelis and Palestinians finally figure out that they shouldn't fight when they kill each other off. That and the we (the U.S.) shouldn't get involved. Let them deal with it themselves. No point in getting involved in the mindless suicide of two religious groups.

[Moogs]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Haven't you learned yet? ALWAYS BLAME THE JEW Learning this simple rule will help you understand the point of few of many of our learned liberal colleagues.

Oh, [wtf] ... [spare me anymore of that crapola] please. It may work with media tards and politicians, but let's dispense with the Jewish guilt trip thing shall we? At least try to be subtle about it for cryin out loud.

You know, I don't think I have ever - once - heard a Jewish or Israeli individual come out and admit "Yah, we screwed that one up" or "Yep, we are to blame for this latest problem" or "It was a mistake for us to launch that particular attack". However, I frequently hear "we've been attacked! we'll defend to the death, you 9-11 flag-waving hypocrits!"

Admit it: the Israelis are their own worst enemies in the peace process, because those with power and influence refuse to give anything up in the process, and also refuse to accept any blame for anything. Proud, arrogant, greedy Israelis are the predominant cause of the continued violence IMO... note I say predominant, not "only".

[bunge]

Originally posted by rashumon
OK, let me ask you this simple question - Do you seriously believe that were the palestinians to stop all attacks on Israelis tomorrow Israel would not put down its arms too?

Would they stop the settlements as well? The answer to that has been, up until this point, no.

[Aquafire]

A LESSON IN HISTORY

It all goes back to Israel's formation 1948-49.

The moment they established their state. (consisting of 400,000 people ) the combined forces of all the surrounding arabic countries declared unilateral war on the fledgling state of Israel.

Note well..... Israel did not declare war in them
They declared war on Israel.....OK !

Only an idiot would suggest otherwise.

So it was the Arabic states who were the aggressors OK !


WHY THE PALESTINIANS FLED

As a result of hysterical propaganda from the Arab radio stations and newspapers, over a million Palestinians fled the hostilities. Israel on its behalf did NOT inititiate this blind panic into exile.

As the weeks and months passed into years & decades, successive Israeli governments became deeply apprehensive as to what effect the re-absorption of a 1,000,000 + Palestinian refugees would have on it's own security. They feared being swamped and having to fight for survival all over again.Hence the initial reluctance of Israel to absorb on mass, such numbers.
The plight of the Palestinan refugees could have been solved decades ago with the willing co-operation of all neighbouring arabic states. But it was these same states who continued in the belief that Israel could be crushed militarily.

WHO KEEPS THE PALESTINIAN PROBLEM GOING ?

The Palestinian refugee question has long been a pawn of power politics ( regional & international ). However it is often forgotten that those with the MOST Palestinian blood on their hands are the Arabic states themselves.

Blaming all the middle eastern problems on Israel serves as a neat slight of hands trick that certain of these countries continue to use to stop their own people focussing on their government's endemic corruption and incompetence.

Hamas etc are a reaction to all these failures, but like many in the region who oppose Israel, they would rather perpetuate a fantasy map based on the non existence of Israel than deal with the reality that actually is.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

i think you really need to read more about the israel founding fathers.

israel is the most profound, fascinating, infuriating, and mostly misunderstood places in the world.
it's a nut a/i'ers are not going to crack.

i love israel, and it should be a place all people should be able to call home. and it can happen, but not until everyone puts their blame away.
funny thing is, when i was last there (5 years ago?) i was in a club in tel aviv were muslims and jews disco'd til dawn. i left feeling great about the future. in haifa they still lived amicably up til a few months ago.

i'm very tired of this thread. whatever happens is whatever is going to happen, and i don't think i can read any more of this nonsense.
it's bad enough i have to read it in the papers.
i hope it works out.
en shallah.
peace.
shalom.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Moogs
...

You know, I don't think I have ever - once - heard a Jewish or Israeli individual come out and admit "Yah, we screwed that one up" or "Yep, we are to blame for this latest problem" or "It was a mistake for us to launch that particular attack". However, I frequently hear "we've been attacked! we'll defend to the death, you 9-11 flag-waving hypocrits!"

...

Well you haven't been listening then. Like any liberal democracy the voices in Israel are as varied as any other democracy. Jews all over the world take exception to Israel's action. One jew in Paris was beaten when he joined a peace rally that turned into an anti-Jew hatefest.


But what do you have on the other side? When ever do you hear an arab muslim stand up and say loudly that terror is not the answer and that Hamas, IJ, PA et al are the wrong solution and work against peace and Islam? Never! You never hear that. They are either to brainwashed or I think to afraid to say so. Say the wrong thing in Arafat's territory and you'll end up dead and then ipso facto sentenced to death by the PA "courts" as a jewish collaborator.

But eff that. Blame the Jews.

[alcimedes]

When ever do you hear an arab muslim stand up and say loudly that terror is not the answer and that Hamas, IJ, PA et al are the wrong solution and work against peace and Islam?

isn't that what the students in Iran have been saying for years now? maybe not, i stopped listening to NPR during their funds week.

[Scott]

Um not from what I've heard. Rightly so they are focused on their own country.

[Moogs]

Here we go with the "Blame the Jews" thing again. Cut it out already!

Scott, I'm saying "Blame the Israelis as much as the Palestinians"... because face it, it's pretty damn close to a 50/50 problem here. At this point there isn't much "high ground" to be claimed, if you know what I'm saying.

The fact that the people I am criticizing are Jewish, is pretty much immaterial to the argument I'm making, which is that pride, arrogance and greed are getting in the way of the peace process. For some reason the Israeli government refuses to take a step towards the high ground, why do you suppose that is? Are these men and women - some of the most intelligent in the world - simply incapable of thinking their way through this...or are they letting something get in the way? Looking for excuses NOT to take the high ground maybe?

I don't know how many different ways one can make the point I'm trying to make, but is it that hard to see two kids in the sand box with bloody noses, and the wiser of the two simply allows himself to constantly get pulled back into a brawl? Over-simplified sure, but to some degree this is what we have -- a strong, intelligent kid who doesn't know how to walk away from the beligerent kid, who, knows of no other way to "best" the strong kid, other than to bloody his nose.

Someone has to take the high ground...do you think the little insecure beligerent kid is going to take it? No. The Palestinians have to be lead to a solution they can live with, they will not do the leading....

[grad student]

Originally posted by Moogs
Here we go with the "Blame the Jews" thing again. Cut it out already!

Scott, I'm saying "Blame the Israelis as much as the Palestinians"... because face it, it's pretty damn close to a 50/50 problem here. At this point there isn't much "high ground" to be claimed, if you know what I'm saying.

The fact that the people I am criticizing are Jewish, is pretty much immaterial to the argument I'm making, which is that pride, arrogance and greed are getting in the way of the peace process. For some reason the Israeli government refuses to take a step towards the high ground, why do you suppose that is? Are these men and women - some of the most intelligent in the world - simply incapable of thinking their way through this...or are they letting something get in the way? Looking for excuses NOT to take the high ground maybe?

I don't know how many different ways one can make the point I'm trying to make, but is it that hard to see two kids in the sand box with bloody noses, and the wiser of the two simply allows himself to constantly get pulled back into a brawl? Over-simplified sure, but to some degree this is what we have -- a strong, intelligent kid who doesn't know how to walk away from the beligerent kid, who, knows of no other way to "best" the strong kid, other than to bloody his nose.

Someone has to take the high ground...do you think the little insecure beligerent kid is going to take it? No. The Palestinians have to be lead to a solution they can live with, they will not do the leading....

you mean typical jewish arrogance - don't you moogs.

does it sound TOO racist to say twice? but just enough to say once?

[bunge]

Originally posted by grad student
you mean typical jewish arrogance - don't you moogs.

Perhaps Israeli arrogance is better, but I'm sure that will still rub some people the wrong way.

rashumon,

I really hope you're correct and Sharon realizes that peace is his, and Israel's, only option. I don't see it in him yet though, and I believe this attack was an example of his inability to work towards peace.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Moogs
Oh, [wtf] ... [spare me anymore of that crapola] please. It may work with media tards and politicians, but let's dispense with the Jewish guilt trip thing shall we? At least try to be subtle about it for cryin out loud.


That's right Moogs, just because you say you aren't spewing "blame the jew" crap, means that you aren't. It is a very common tact for anti-semites to take to say "but I ain't blaming it all on the jews." Your quote in another thread, was very telling of you true beliefs about this conflict. "Typical Jewish arrogance / pride."

BR has said I throw around accusations of anti-semitism and nazi like behaviour to easily. I think that even he might agree you comments are vile and disgusting. Why do you even try to be coy about your hatred of the jews. Be a man and at least stand up for your beliefs.

Originally posted by Moogs

You know, I don't think I have ever - once - heard a Jewish or Israeli individual come out and admit "Yah, we screwed that one up" or "Yep, we are to blame for this latest problem" or "It was a mistake for us to launch that particular attack".
Then you are a very sheltered person.

Originally posted by Moogs

Admit it: the Israelis are their own worst enemies in the peace process, because those with power and influence refuse to give anything up in the process, and also refuse to accept any blame for anything.
You are a liar. Camp David was killed by Arafat. Plain and simple. But, that is the fault of prideful arrogant jews right? (to use your own words) Israel negotiates the return of what, 98% of the OT, but they are unwilling to give up anything. People like Bunge suggest Israel should accept a peace where Hamas is allowed unfettered access to murder Israelis, and Israel wants a peace where they are secure and that then is again an example of Israeli arrogance.

Originally posted by Moogs

Proud, arrogant, greedy Israelis are the predominant cause of the continued violence IMO... note I say predominant, not "only".
Again, why do you argue that I should bring up your single minded blame of the jews for everything, when you so obviously do? Your list of abjectives for describing jews is only missing comments about blood drinking and hooked noses to be complete. Come out of denial and just admit that you will blame the jews regardless of the situation.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Moogs
Here we go with the "Blame the Jews" thing again. Cut it out already!

Keep doing it, regardless of reality, and that arguement will inevitably come up.

Originally posted by Moogs


The fact that the people I am criticizing are Jewish, is pretty much immaterial to the argument I'm making, which is that pride, arrogance and greed are getting in the way of the peace process. For some reason the Israeli government refuses to take a step towards the high ground, why do you suppose that is? Are these men and women - some of the most intelligent in the world - simply incapable of thinking their way through this...or are they letting something get in the way? Looking for excuses NOT to take the high ground maybe?

Hmmm..could it be the security of their own people? No that couldn't be it, they are after all typically arrogant jews. (again, to use your own words)

Originally posted by Moogs

I don't know how many different ways one can make the point I'm trying to make, but is it that hard to see two kids in the sand box with bloody noses, and the wiser of the two simply allows himself to constantly get pulled back into a brawl? Over-simplified sure, but to some degree this is what we have -- a strong, intelligent kid who doesn't know how to walk away from the beligerent kid, who, knows of no other way to "best" the strong kid, other than to bloody his nose.

An appropriate analogy in some regards.

At what point in you analogy, does the strong, wiser of the two react as he does out of typical greed, arrogance and pride? I guess his acting out of self-defence is not allowed, since he is a jew.
Originally posted by Moogs

Someone has to take the high ground...do you think the little insecure beligerent kid is going to take it? No. The Palestinians have to be lead to a solution they can live with, they will not do the leading....
How about this as a solution to lead them to: Stop killing jews and the jews will stop killing Palestinians. Since Hamas etc al refuse to do so in any meaningful way, this is still Israel's fault how?

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
Perhaps Israeli arrogance is better, but I'm sure that will still rub some people the wrong way.

Complete it and see how it rubs you. Typical Israeli arrogance/pride.

Replace what you want, it still has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?

Once you recoqnise that as the root cause of the problem, you come to the same conclusions Moogs has...as others have. Perhaps you will also come to the same Final Solution I am sure Moogs has in mind.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Tulkas
You are a liar. Camp David was killed by Arafat. Plain and simple.

How many times have a lie to be told before veryon e start to believe it?:rolleyes: :no:

Not even the people involved (from the Israeli and american side) share your POW.

[Aquafire]

Originally posted by Anders
How many times have a lie to be told before veryon e start to believe it?:rolleyes: :no:

Not even the people involved (from the Israeli and american side) share your POW.

Somewhere in the not too distant future, Arafat & Sharon will be wowing the audiences in Broadway, where they have been playing " The Odd couple " to rave reviews.

In the meantime, the new movers & shakers in the midle east will have patched up their differences and the whole place will be flooded with tourists taking photos of the original ark, buying bits of the true cross, eating shiskababs and generally doing the Funky Disko...
:D

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Anders
How many times have a lie to be told before veryon e start to believe it?:rolleyes: :no:

Not even the people involved (from the Israeli and american side) share your POW.
Fact: Arafat rejected the 2000 Camp David accord. Who denies this?

But you are right in one respect, tell a lie enough and it will become true to some. The blood libel is still held to be true by many.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Fact: Arafat rejected the 2000 Camp David accord. Who denies this?

Noone is denying that. But that has nothing to do with who killed it.

Have you followed th erecent conference at UTA to understand what actually happened at Camp David? If you had you would understand that to put the blame on Arafat alone (or even the large part of the blame) is false.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Anders
Noone is denying that. But that has nothing to do with who killed it.

Have you followed th erecent conference at UTA to understand what actually happened at Camp David? If you had you would understand that to put the blame on Arafat alone (or even the large part of the blame) is false.
So Israel comes to the table with an offer brokered by Clinton. The 3 parties spend 15 days hammering it out and Arafat Rejects it. Arafat also publically states that any agreement with Israel will be used only as a step in the primary goal of eliminating Israel and any treaties will be broken when they serve this goal. But, he is still not held responsible? Let me guess who is to blame.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Tulkas
So Israel comes to the table with an offer brokered by Clinton. The 3 parties spend 3 days hammering it out and Arafat Rejects it. Arafat also publically states that any agreement with Israel will be used only as a step in the primary goal of eliminating Israel and any treaties will be broken when they serve this goal. But, he is still not held responsible? Let me guess who is to blame.

Let me try again: Did you follow the conference? Read any of the contributions?

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Anders
Let me try again: Did you follow the conference? Read any of the contributions?
No. Please post links if available. I will admit before reading the material, that I have serious doubts that the outcome of the conference was in question before the actual conference started.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Tulkas
No. Please post links if available. I will admit before reading the material, that I have serious doubts that the outcome of the conference was in question before the actual conference started.

So you question the intentions of UTA? Who do you trust then?

I have some of the contributions as paper extracts but I´m sure you´ll be able to find a lot of material on the net.

A english languaed link:

http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=2163

The participants (Notice the lack of Palestinian speakers. Its probably because most of the people involved from Israel and US doesn´t have the same stakes in the process anymore and can talk more freely about the event.):

http://www.kas.de/veranstaltungen/788_webseite.html

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
So Israel comes to the table with an offer brokered by Clinton. The 3 parties spend 15 days hammering it out and Arafat Rejects it. Arafat also publically states that any agreement with Israel will be used only as a step in the primary goal of eliminating Israel and any treaties will be broken when they serve this goal. But, he is still not held responsible? Let me guess who is to blame.

So what in your mind 'killed the deal'?

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
So what in your mind 'killed the deal'?
Arafat.

A treaty at that point in time didn't serve the purposes he wanted. I am sure if he could have gotten more consessions, he might have gone with it. But, he wanted to make sure his position after the treay was improved enough that he could take the next step in his well known overall goals.

Just because he admitted that anything he signed with the jews was breakable and was to be used only as a tactic in the overall strategy, doesn't mean that he's going to sign everything.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Arafat.

From everything I've read Arafat was correct to refuse that deal. Israel kept the entire border along Syria, blocking the Palestinians from trade there, and kept control of the aquifers as well. It was a rigged deal from the start, almost an impossibility.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
From everything I've read Arafat was correct to refuse that deal. Israel kept the entire border along Syria, blocking the Palestinians from trade there, and kept control of the aquifers as well. It was a rigged deal from the start, almost an impossibility.
It was meant to be a start. You expect Israel to compromise, even if it means continued bombs on busses, but you find it unreasonable for the Palestinians to have accepted that as a beginning to further negotiations?

And as far as why Arafat refused, from the article Anders linked to, it had little to do with the actual issues, like borders and water. Instead, the Palestinians from the artcile blame it more on Arafat took offence that Barak wouldn't meet with him one-on-one. Don't know if that is true, but he sure seemed inclined to see it die, even before he showed up. "Don't blame me if it fails"

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
You expect Israel to compromise, even if it means continued bombs on busses...

You expect Palestinians to compromise, even if it means continued helicopter attacks, increased settlements, curfews and poverty.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
You expect Palestinians to compromise, even if it means continued helicopter attacks, increased settlements, curfews and poverty.
No, I expect the Paletinians to compromise, if not blowing up bus riders is a compromise, which would in turn lead to discontinued helicopter attacks against terror leaders. The point of the road map is that both sides 'compromise', and violence de-escalates. As it progresses, settlements continue to be removed, as they have started now; Israeli troops are removed from PA areas, as they are now. I would then expect the Palestinian side to reciprocate and actually stop blowing up pedestrians and actually start enforcing their end of the bargain.

The difference, I think, in your view and mine, is that I see both sides and being responsibe for upholding their end of the deal. You only require Israel to do so. As you said, if Israel does implement, and continues to have cafes, busses, discos and other civilians and civilian targets blown off the map, they should just suck it up, let it happen and not respond, in order to achieve peace. That doesn't sound like peace to me.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by Tulkas
No, I expect the Paletinians to compromise, if not blowing up bus riders is a compromise, which would in turn lead to discontinued helicopter attacks against terror leaders. The point of the road map is that both sides 'compromise', and violence de-escalates. As it progresses, settlements continue to be removed, as they have started now; Israeli troops are removed from PA areas, as they are now. I would then expect the Palestinian side to reciprocate and actually stop blowing up pedestrians and actually start enforcing their end of the bargain.

The difference, I think, in your view and mine, is that I see both sides and being responsibe for upholding their end of the deal. You only require Israel to do so. As you said, if Israel does implement, and continues to have cafes, busses, discos and other civilians and civilian targets blown off the map, they should just suck it up, let it happen and not respond, in order to achieve peace. That doesn't sound like peace to me.

Very well said Tulkas, I agree with this view.

Fellows

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
The point of the road map is that both sides 'compromise', and violence de-escalates.

And historically this has not happened.

Originally posted by Tulkas
As it progresses, settlements continue to be removed, as they have started now; Israeli troops are removed from PA areas, as they are now.

And historically this has not happened.

Originally posted by Tulkas
I would then expect the Palestinian side to reciprocate and actually stop blowing up pedestrians and actually start enforcing their end of the bargain.

And do you accept that they will reciprocate helicopter attacks that occur during cease-fire negotiations with attacks of their own?

Originally posted by Tulkas
The difference, I think, in your view and mine, is that I see both sides and being responsibe for upholding their end of the deal. You only require Israel to do so.

Wrong.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge




And do you accept that they will reciprocate helicopter attacks that occur during cease-fire negotiations with attacks of their own?


No, though I hoped otherwise, I fully expected some palestinian group to launch attacks against civilians during the ceasefire. By yesterday (monday) there had been 2 attacks against Israel, less than a day after the 3 palestinian groups agreed to a ceasefre. In response, those evil Israeli bastards continued to pull troops out and handed over control of more areas. They removed road blocks too.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tulkas
The difference, I think, in your view and mine, is that I see both sides and being responsibe for upholding their end of the deal. You only require Israel to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by bunge
Wrong.


Well, you own words indicate otherwise.
Originally posted by bunge

Israel needs to work out an agreement regardless. When someone other than the government of the non-state of not-Palestine tried to intercede, it must be ignored.



So, by your own words, so long as it aint't the PA blowing up the busses, they must be ignored, allowing all the little groups and factions free reign to carry on with blowing up cafes and bus stops with no reprisals. Which is essentially, holding only Israel to their end of the bargain. Pretty much exactly what figured. So, I guess we do have that difference I mentioned above..I would see both sides held to the agreement, you only require Israel to be restrained. (Oh, and I guess the PA, but no non-govenment bodies, like oh, hamas, fatah, IJ, PFLP...etc)

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas

Well, you own words indicate otherwise.

Careful. When in negotiations, both sides need to 'turn the other cheek' in order for progress to be made. Even after an eventual solution is found, there will still be attacks from the extremes on both sides. That doesn't mean there should be a war.

[bunge]

Crap (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&u=/ap/20030821/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_303&printer=1).

[Anders]

UPIFAP have won again. And they keep winning.

[bunge]

From here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&ncid=586&e=1&u=/nm/20030901/wl_nm/mideast_dc).

In a long-awaited report that could put more strain on relations between Israel's Jews and minority Arabs, an Israeli state inquiry reprimanded police for killing 13 Israeli Arabs in pro-Palestinian protests three years ago.

But the findings by the Or Commission did not recommend any action against then-prime minister Ehud Barak (news - web sites), clearing any legal barriers to a widely expected attempt at a political comeback by the former Labor Party leader.

Israeli Arab groups denounced the report as a whitewash that failed to punish politicians overseeing police who fired live ammunition at citizens of the Jewish state during stone-throwing demonstrations.

The creation of the commission into the deaths in October 2000, soon after the start of the latest Palestinian uprising for independence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, was widely seen as an attempt to appease Israel's outraged Arab minority.

After nearly three years of testimony, the commission found that police commanders committed errors of judgment when their forces shot at the demonstrators in the northern Galilee region.

The three-member Supreme Court panel recommended the dismissal of several top officers and that others no longer be allowed to hold senior security posts.

Israeli Arabs, comprising 18 percent of Israel's population, have long complained of institutionalized discrimination.

Now if Israel blames themselves for this, are any of the Israeli apologists going to change their point of view? I mean, there have been countless arguments here that Israel was justified in killing those protesters, and that the Palestinians are at fault. Israel disagrees.

[bunge]

Now they're attacking religious (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&ncid=586&e=3&u=/nm/20030906/wl_nm/mideast_attack_dc) leaders. Is JP2 next?

[Scott]

Originally posted by bunge
Now they're attacking religious (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&ncid=586&e=3&u=/nm/20030906/wl_nm/mideast_attack_dc) leaders. Is JP2 next?

Terrorist religious leaders.

[Harald]

Originally posted by Tulkas
As it progresses, settlements continue to be removed, as they have started now; Israeli troops are removed from PA areas, as they are now.

Yes, but Tulkas, this simply is not true.

I'll say that again: this is simply wrong.

Israel is putting out tenders for new settlements and confiscating land both in Jerusalem and along the wall.

I don't understand: why (just tell me) why do you say this? What's your evidence? If I show you evidence that what you're saying is false, would that change your point of view wrt Israel?

And the next sadly obvious question:

Why not?

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Harald
Yes, but Tulkas, this simply is not true.

I'll say that again: this is simply wrong.

Israel is putting out tenders for new settlements and confiscating land both in Jerusalem and along the wall.

I don't understand: why (just tell me) why do you say this? What's your evidence? If I show you evidence that what you're saying is false, would that change your point of view wrt Israel?

And the next sadly obvious question:

Why not?
Once again Harald, you are a liar or again confused.

Look at the date on my post that you replied to. At the time Israel was starting to remove settlements and was pulling troops out of some of the villages.

Sorry, but it was simply a fact, not simply wrong.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Look at the date on my post that you replied to. At the time Israel was starting to remove settlements and was pulling troops out of some of the villages.

Actually I think this is not true. They might remove some settlements, but they're increasing their land mass.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
Actually I think this is not true. They might remove some settlements, but they're increasing their land mass.
It's not true that they were removing settlements, because they were removing settlements?

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
It's not true that they were removing settlements, because they were removing settlements?

Yes, you can play word games if you like. If they remove two settlements and add six, you can say they've removed settlements.

[Scott]

I would have thought this anti-Semitic thread would have been closed by now?

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
I would have thought this anti-Semitic thread would have been closed by now?

As is par for the course, you would have thought wrong. In more ways than one.

[Matsu]

It's not anti semitism if you're anti-zionist, dontcha know?

Can't say as I disagree with that, though plenty of anti-semities avail themselves of the semantics so that they can attcak jews under the guise of politics.

As for Isreal being a threat? Hmmm... Needs some consideration. Where are the Arab Muslim theocracies when it comes to distributing water and wealth, or promoting the equality of women, or even religious tolerance? I'd say even with the (at times) heavy handed treatment of Palestinians, Isreal still comes out well ahead of any other nation in the mid east on the last score -- and far, far ahead of them on all the others. Egypt and Jordan, which had made progress in the past, seem to be regressing quickly.

So a nation of people that promote gender equality, industry, and the distribution of wealth amongst its people, is somehow a greater threat than the milieu of regimes that hoard oil money, subjugate women, promote zenophobia and iconoclastism, and seek military might at the expense of mass starvations, this nation, alone, in the mid-east is the major threat to world peace?

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
Yes, you can play word games if you like. If they remove two settlements and add six, you can say they've removed settlements.
You are the only one playing word games. If they remove a stellement, then you can say they removed a settlement, and that's about it. They did so. Period. That was at least a start of an actual step layed out in the roadmap. The roadmap called for them to start dismantling and they did.

The Palestinian side did not even begin a single step of the road map...but Israel is still the threat, right bunge?

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
Now they're attacking religious (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&ncid=586&e=3&u=/nm/20030906/wl_nm/mideast_attack_dc) leaders. Is JP2 next?
A religious leader calling for the removal of the "Israeli Entity" and spritual head of a gang of murdering thugs... How is he less of a target than other leaders of Hamas?

Besides, according to Sedgy, these terrorist groups really aren't religious in nature, they just use religion as a cover...so I guess he really was just another military leader, fit for targeting.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
You are the only one playing word games. If they remove a stellement, then you can say they removed a settlement, and that's about it.

But you're unwilling to admit that they're increasing the overall number and size of the settlements. That's about it. That's not on the roadmap. Sorry.

Originally posted by Tulkas
A religious leader calling for the removal of the "Israeli Entity" and spritual head of a gang of murdering thugs... How is he less of a target than other leaders of Hamas?

Did this guy say those things? Link?

The world may be better off with him dead. But the world would be better off with Israel not assassinating people in the fashion that they do.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Matsu
Egypt and Jordan, which had made progress in the past, seem to be regressing quickly.

Regression is the key. A lot of the mid-east is regressing, and creating Palestine could have been (hopefully still could be) a turning point towards a return to peace. As long as Israel continues to thwart a Palestinian state, the rest of the mid-east is going to regress.

The Western World offers them absolutely nothing but death and trouble, at least in their eyes. They have no evidence that 'progress', or progression towards western society, can do them any bit of good.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
But you're unwilling to admit that they're increasing the overall number and size of the settlements. That's about it. That's not on the roadmap. Sorry.

The road map did call for the removal and freezing of settlements. The Israeli's had started to remove setllements. That was on the roadmap. Did Israel fully implement the roadmap? No. Did the make real steps in beginning the roadmap? Yes. Did the Palestinians take even a single step on the road map? No.


Originally posted by bunge

Did this guy say those things? Link?

From your own article: "Our people will not raise the white flag. The (Israeli) entity will be removed." -Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Spiritual leader of Hamas.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
Regression is the key. A lot of the mid-east is regressing, and creating Palestine could have been (hopefully still could be) a turning point towards a return to peace. As long as Israel continues to thwart a Palestinian state, the rest of the mid-east is going to regress.
The creation of a Palestinian state would act as a catylyst to spark further anti-western feelings in the mid-east. The Palestinian issue has simply been used as an excuse for the feelings so far. Once Palestine actually exists, it will show the region that the West can be defeated, and that Arafat and his kind have suceeded in accomplishing the first step in their attempt to remove the state of Israel. It is no secret that the fight for the creation of a Palestinian state has been a tactic in the overall battle to remove Israel and score a symbolic point against the West.

Having said that, I support the creation of a Palestinian state, if only to show that attacks against israel and other western targets will not stop, or even slacken. All the empty arguements that Israel has been the instigator will be made void once the Palestinian state exists.
Originally posted by bunge

The Western World offers them absolutely nothing but death and trouble, at least in their eyes. They have no evidence that 'progress', or progression towards western society, can do them any bit of good.
Compare to what their own brethern offer them, the west offeres them everything. The US provides more money to them for humantirian assistance than ALL other Arab and muslim countries combined. The other ARab states ignore them or treat them as pariahs, except when they can use them and their cause as pawns. The other Arab states allow them to starve in refugee camps.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
The road map did call for the removal and freezing of settlements. The Israeli's had started to remove setllements. That was on the roadmap. Did Israel fully implement the roadmap? No. Did the make real steps in beginning the roadmap? Yes. Did the Palestinians take even a single step on the road map? No.

See, you're just being silly. If they are increasing their total number and/or square mileage of settlements, the fact that Sharon can get on TV and say 'we've dismantled a settlement' doesn't mean squat. It's just disingenuous to pretend that Israel isn't increasing their settlements.

You want to play a semantic game and it's not worthwhile. No matter what language you use, Israel is increasing the number of settlements.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
See, you're just being silly. If they are increasing their total number and/or square mileage of settlements, the fact that Sharon can get on TV and say 'we've dismantled a settlement' doesn't mean squat. It's just disingenuous to pretend that Israel isn't increasing their settlements.

You want to play a semantic game and it's not worthwhile. No matter what language you use, Israel is increasing the number of settlements.
Were they removing settlements? Yes or no. Did the road map call for this? Yes.

Did they fully 100% implement the roadmap yet and stop all settlers and settlements? No, but at least they took a step. You seem to expect Israel would stop all settlements entirely as per the road map, without some recipriocating action by the palestinian side. You expect them to just blindly surrender. They've done that before.

They fact that Sharon can go on TV and say they removed a setlement is because the removed a stellement. It's that simple. Twist it anyway other way you need in order to continue blaming the Israeli side.

[Anders]

Tulkas: How far do you come if you take one step forwards and two backwards?

[LiquidR]

I'm with Matsu on this.

As for the my opinion on the Arab world I just don't know. I keep trying to think of what is the cultural key that the rest of the world had that led to a greater stability. Is the contrary nature so ingrained into Arab/Islamic mindset that stability in that region will be near impossible? Even the bloody coups and revolutions of South America and South East Asia seem like a play ground brawl compared to the mess in the Middle East.

(edit)
But then again, despite my feeling of comraderie to the Brits, I feel a lot of this mess was due to their Imperialistic history.

[musicaltone]

I am amazed that in this day and age you can seriously suggest the extermination of a political opponent (as Sharon has done with Arafat) and nobody blinks an eyelid. You do not achive peace by killng the people you have a quarrel with, but by negotiating with them. If at first you dont succeed, then you try and try again. In the UK we now have relative peace in Northern Ireland not because we managed to kill all the IRA but because we negotiated with them.

[LiquidR]

originally posted by musicaltone
In the UK we now have relative peace in Northern Ireland not because we managed to kill all the IRA but because we negotiated with them.


After how many hundreds of years? Part of the problem is that those striving to make the Israelis and Palestinians play nice don't realize it make take a couple hundred years. Time enough for both sides to forget what they are fighting about, or at least have the signigicance of the cause to die a little.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Were they removing settlements? Yes or no. Did the road map call for this? Yes.

Did they fully 100% implement the roadmap yet and stop all settlers and settlements? No, but at least they took a step. You seem to expect Israel would stop all settlements entirely as per the road map, without some recipriocating action by the palestinian side. You expect them to just blindly surrender. They've done that before.

They fact that Sharon can go on TV and say they removed a setlement is because the removed a stellement. It's that simple. Twist it anyway other way you need in order to continue blaming the Israeli side.

You obviously don't understand. I'm not saying Israel should dismantle all settlements. I'm saying they shouldn't add new ones. That's what they're doing. You can't seem to admit that.

[LiquidR]

Here's my question, Why the Hell aren't the Palestinians and the Arab world railing against Jordan? From my readings Jordan makes up a greater portion of what was historically Palestine than Israel does. Anyone care to explain?

[bunge]

Originally posted by LiquidR
Here's my question, Why the Hell aren't the Palestinians and the Arab world railing against Jordan? From my readings Jordan makes up a greater portion of what was historically Palestine than Israel does. Anyone care to explain?

Jordan did some nasty things. What is Jordan doing now? What is Israel doing now? Not really comparable.

[LiquidR]

originally posted by bunge

Jordan did some nasty things. What is Jordan doing now? What is Israel doing now? Not really comparable.


I'm not talking about what Jordan is doing right now. I'm talking about what the Palestinians are not doing right now. Why is Israel's sole resposibility to give back lands? Why not Jordan also? Why aren't the Palestinians crying out against the Jordanians?

[musicaltone]

Originally posted by LiquidR
After how many hundreds of years? Part of the problem is that those striving to make the Israelis and Palestinians play nice don't realize it make take a couple hundred years. Time enough for both sides to forget what they are fighting about, or at least have the signigicance of the cause to die a little.

Well, the "troubles" in Northern Ireland date b