i'd say 50/50 right now, he needs a israel peace accord to make up for what looks to be a total clusterf*ck in iraq.
arab sources say they were amazed to see our president knowledgeable of the facts and talking without referring to notes or aides for information.
many think he'll walk away in frustration, many think this is a second term thing to do. i think he knows this is the only thing to save his ass from the fire.
Most modern nations are constructions. You're Australian, right?
The concept of Jews being Israelis is an even more recent fictious construction... thanx to the... ? Brits? UN?
... WHO CARES!?!
The land was stolen in modern times, we have, or should have, other standards than the Romans...
We could all have your double standards. As you say, most modern nations are constructs. So why is the construct of the state of Israel a modern theft, as you say?
The concept of jews being Israeli's is relativly new. The concept of a Palestinian people of Arab decent is even more recent. The concept of Jews in Israel is ancient.
if stuff keeps hitting the fan a drunken monkey would beat him.
the nice thing about "the roadmap" (why do we have to have simplistic names for this stuff, and why do some journalists goose step to the tune and keep referring to it as such?) is that his staff was against it, especially dr. rice.
could he be taking over his own presidency? could we see some firings?
i think he's a decent man, once bewildered, but now maybe seeing the light, if he's going to look like the biggest fool ever elected* to the office of president, maybe it'll be on his own terms.
We could all have your double standards. As you say, most modern nations are constructs. So why is the construct of the state of Israel a modern theft, as you say?
Did I say others wern't? USA, Australia, Norway?
Israel is a a legitim state today. The occupation is not.
The difference is that we now have international law. Theft is no longer tolerated. or shoouldn't be.
Quote:
The concept of jews being Israeli's is relativly new. The concept of a Palestinian people of Arab decent is even more recent.
Both concepts are about equally old. Both are connected to modern 19th century nationalism.
Quote:
The concept of Jews in Israel is ancient.
The concept of Arabs in "Palestine" is not just as ancient. It is also constant since then. (So is that of palestinian jews). (had to edit this one)
"Israel versus Hamas"?????? We only get the topmost layer of the story. It's never quite as simplistic as what they print to try to lead us by the nose:
The Israelis and Palestinian people want to live in peace...but peace means that some people who are doing very nicely off the unrest will lose out in a big way. It's the same ol' same ol' story.
Of course not. It would too clearly show the lies that Tonton is spreading. As he said: Contrary to popular belief, it is the leaders that keep the terrorists in line. Without the presence of established leaders, terrorists organizations are run by anarchy. Attacks go from targeted attacks against military aggressors (look at all the recent attacks by Palestinians - they have all been against soldiers) to random attacks on the public.
Obviously, Hamas still has leaders, yet here they are attacking civilians..imagine that. Yes, it was retaliatory, but it is still an attack with their leaders intact.
As an aside, Tonton tried to limit this part of the discussion to Hamas, as they haven't launched as many civilian attacks recently. But, that is irrelevant, as his initial statement wasn't limited to Hamas, but that all recent palestinian attacks have been against soldiers...so blatant a lie it's almost laughable.
I've checked the facts on the latest events and you're absolutely right. Rantissi is a bad leader and did, in fact appear to target civilians. I was wrong. He should have been arrested.
Most land is stolen. Give it back to the real Canaanites then. Or give it to Italy, after all the Romans did lay claim to the land for a very long time.
And the Greeks . . . or rather that Macedonian fellow Alexander . . and then was it the Ptolemies? or was it teh Peluecid dynasty? but either way, they had it before the Romans
But I gues the Jews laid claim to it before these invasions . . . .
well, the reality is we are all from Africa and are all of us, every human, very close genetically and have been wandering on this dusty scrap of beauty since we were much hairrier and squater . . .
face it any 'God' that claims a land has long since died and lives on only in dogmatic attachment . . .
. . . and Buddha was right: our attachments are the source of suffering . . even the kind of suffering that we don't know that we are undergoing:
"you have all the right to withold from the suffering of the world.
but perhaps that would be the one suffering which you could have avoided" --Kafka
anyway, words of wisdom from a man often ridiculed "can't we just get along?" hey, god is dead we kill him perpetually, therefor lets love one another . . . .
I've checked the facts on the latest events and you're absolutely right. Rantissi is a bad leader and did, in fact appear to target civilians. I was wrong. He should have been arrested. He should be arrested now. Arafat and Abbas have both condemned the bus bombing. They should be implored to consistently arrest those responsible for such attacks as their part of the deal - in return for Israel pulling out of more significant settlements.
Well, I agree with you here totally Tonton. But, for this to have any validity, the PA must really arrest them and not place them in their revolving door jails. Otherwise, it would be like Israel pulling a single structure down over and over and rebuilding it and pulling it down and again...useless, but they could claim continuing settlement dismantling as honestly as the PA can currently claim arresting or cracking down on murderers.
I just hold the strong belief that war begets war and that if not for Sharon's visit to the Temple mount, we would have had peace during the Clinton administration. I've gone through the numbers. Before Sharon, Isreali/Palestinian issue was heading for peace, with a few diplomatc setbacks. Sharon threw a wrench in those works and the harliners loved him for it, because they want nothing less than the elimination of all Palestinian control of all fertile areas in the region.
Your ?strong belief? is at odds with reality (not that I'm suprised). Prior to Mr. Sharon's ill-timed little stroll on the Temple Mount, the peace talks at Camp David failed, as Mr. Arafat rejected Mr. Barak's proposal, and rather than coming with a counter proposal, decided to reverted to what they call ?armed struggle? hoping it would Israel would yield upon the pressure of violence what it wouldn't through negociations.
Well, at least if one is to believe the then Palestinian minister of communications:
Quote:
Originally declared by Imad al-Faluji
«Whoever thinks that the Intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon's visit to the Al-Aqsa mosque, is wrong, even if this visit was the straw that broke the back of the Palestinian people. This Intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat's return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton.»
Al-Safir, 3-III-2001
All in all, your knowledge of the Mid-Eastern is woefully lacking and full of holes, themselves full with slanderous slogans and fashionable platitudes such as ?Israel's genocide of Palestinians?. While I have not searched thoroughly al you wrote here to assess with precision the scope of your prejudices, they obviously include blaming Israel for whatever is wrong in that matter.
Just so you know, the current Israeli government (which is the opposite to my political leanings) is, to all practical purposes, more disposed toward the establishment of a Palestinian state, than the Israeli government of ten years ago (the one which was headed by Itshaq Rabin z"l), and so is an overwhelming majority of Israeli public opinion, but they'll only agree to it in exchange for a definitive closure of the conflict.
However, there are serious doubts as to the disposition toward accepting the already established existence of the Jewish state, not only from the Palestinian Authoroty but also from several posters in these fora, who are not sides in this conflict.
Why do you continue to pursue this point, when tonton already retracted the statement?
I find that slightly arrogant.
Quote:
Your "strong belief" is at odds with reality (not that I'm suprised). Prior to Mr. Sharon's ill-timed little stroll on the Temple Mount, the peace talks at Camp David failed, as Mr. Arafat rejected Mr. Barak's proposal, and rather than coming with a counter proposal, decided to reverted to what they call "armed struggle" hoping it would Israel would yield upon the pressure of violence what it wouldn't through negociations.
The stroll was not ill-timed, but well-timed. It drove one more nail into the coffin of the Oslo-agreement. of-course other nails were the as well. Put there by both the israelis and palestinians. You seem to blame Arafat only. And are just as at odds with reality (not that I'm suprised).
Quote:
All in all, your knowledge of the Mid-Eastern is woefully lacking and full of holes, themselves full with slanderous slogans and fashionable platitudes such as "Israel's genocide of Palestinians". While I have not searched thoroughly al you wrote here to assess with precision the scope of your prejudices, they obviously include blaming Israel for whatever is wrong in that matter.
You make a better case when you discuss the issues, which you obviously know a lot about, than when you engage in personal attacks.
Quote:
Just so you know, the current Israeli government (which is the opposite to my political leanings) is, to all practical purposes, more disposed toward the establishment of a Palestinian state, than the Israeli government of ten years ago (the one which was headed by Itshaq Rabin z"l), and so is an overwhelming majority of Israeli public opinion, but they'll only agree to it in exchange for a definitive closure of the conflict.
This is nothing but a personal opinion. My opinion is that while Rabin was no dove, his peace-effort was beyond anything seen before or since from any Isreali leader. His murder, by right-wing Israelis, was decisive in stumbling the peace process in the first place.
Quote:
However, there are serious doubts as to the disposition toward accepting the already established existence of the Jewish state, not only from the Palestinian Authoroty but also from several posters in these fora, who are not sides in this conflict.
I think your exaggerating this point. Israelis position is secured. It has been since the 70s. The disposition of current israeli leaders towards a Palestinian state is far more doubtful.
face it any 'God' that claims a land has long since died and lives on only in dogmatic attachment . . .
i think the sooner people realize that gohd isn't there, the sooner that situation will clear up. i'm sure, when/if we are all agnostic/atheist, or atleast not as strongly religious, then we'll have less problems. new problems will probably come up to fill that void, but we can deal with those when we get there. i mean, if all the Jews and Palestinians didn't desparately want the land for religious reasons, they could probably learn to live side-by-side.
Why do you continue to pursue this point, when tonton already retracted the statement?
I find that slightly arrogant.
Oh dear, aren't we touchy today.
I was responding to a particular point in a particular post, to illustrate my own point that a particular forum participant is making grave allegations about things he knows very little about.
Quote:
The stroll was not ill-timed, but well-timed. It drove one more nail into the coffin of the Oslo-agreement. of-course other nails were the as well.
The reason for that stroll was internal squabbles in the Likud, to counter Mr. Netanyahou's ambitions. That did work. Some two years earlier, refection works on the Western Wall triggered wide disturbances and amred clashes as it was alleged that ?Israeli is digging under Al Aqsa?. It lasted for a few days, because the PA didn't use it as a pretext for a planned-in-advance opting out of the process. As said by Mr. Faluji, as as acknowledged by the report of the Mitchell Commission, Sharon's visit was not the cause of the wave of violence.
Quote:
Put there by both the israelis and palestinians. You seem to blame Arafat only. And are just as at odds with reality (not that I'm suprised).
You're mistaken in assuming that I blame solely Arafat and the Palestinians for the process going south in the late nineteen-nintees, I only blame them for initiating a return to ?armed struggle?, as described by Mr. Faluji.
Quote:
You make a better case when you discuss the issues, which you obviously know a lot about, than when you engage in personal attacks.
I mostly addressed the issues here, and rather accurately so. As for the rest, lately I have been circumspect in my even discussing these matters, but one should not assume one can write ignorant slander and be complimented for it.
Quote:
This is nothing but a personal opinion. My opinion is that while Rabin was no dove, his peace-effort was beyond anything seen before or since from any Isreali leader. His murder, by right-wing Israelis, was decisive in stumbling the peace process in the first place.
The murder was by one far-right Israeli, I don't buy the various theses of a wider conspiracy.
I tend to agree for the rest, while I never shared the euphoria many of my co-tribals had over the interim agreement, and it might have faltered anyway, the assassination was among the most serious blows dealt to it, the ?Al-Aqsa Intifada? initiative was the final one of those.
Quote:
I think your exaggerating this point. Israelis position is secured.
Only because Israel is a stronger more developed country than the lame-o-cracies surrounding it, however its existence is still widely contested nonetheless, and not only by some inmmediate neighbours.
Quote:
It has been since the 70s. The disposition of current israeli leaders towards a Palestinian state is far more doubtful.
That disposition is practically a given since circa 1999. Most Jewish Israelis don't care for the territories (since only 25 thousands out of five millions actually went to live there) and they wouldn't mind giving them up but only in exchange for a definitive peace treaty.
The real right-wing hardliners consider Sharon a worse traitor than Rabin ever was. and while I was opposed to his politics even before the Lebanon war (but that war kind of consecrated that oppostion), here the Likud follows the public toward a pragmatic two-states solution, rather than leading the public toward it as the now undead Labour party used to.
I was responding to a particular point in a particular post, to illustrate my own point that a particular forum participant is making grave allegations about things he knows very little about.
My impression is that Tonton is more informed than the average person. You can't expect that everyone doctoral knowledge of all things related to middle-eastern issus. (like you have ) Your trying to disqualify his opinion by questioning his knowledge. I say stick to the issue.
Quote:
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
The reason for that stroll was internal squabbles in the Likud, to counter Mr. Netanyahou's ambitions. That did work.
I believe it had more reasons than that. Provoking the palestinians gave him a good image before the elections, not only inside the Likud.
Quote:
Some two years earlier, refection works on the Western Wall triggered wide disturbances and amred clashes as it was alleged that ?Israeli is digging under Al Aqsa?. It lasted for a few days, because the PA didn't use it as a pretext for a planned-in-advance opting out of the process. As said by Mr. Faluji, as as acknowledged by the report of the Mitchell Commission, Sharon's visit was not the cause of the wave of violence.
Yet the same Mitchell report says it did make the situation worse, and criticize Sharon for his move.
Quote:
You're mistaken in assuming that I blame solely Arafat and the Palestinians for the process going south in the late nineteen-nintees, I only blame them for initiating a return to ?armed struggle?, as described by Mr. Faluji.
During the start of the second intifada, the uprising was unarmed. It only turned into "armed uprising" after the very violent respons from the Israelis. Killing 18 non-violent demonstrators during the first few hours of the uprising.
Quote:
The murder was by one far-right Israeli, I don't buy the various theses of a wider conspiracy.
I don't believe in a conspiracy either, But it is a well known fact that the Israeli Right orchestrated a massive smearing campaign against Rabin just before the murder. The famous photo-manipulation of Rabin in a SS-uniform was made by agents in Shabak. The same organisation that was supposed to protect him.
Quote:
That disposition is practically a given since circa 1999. Most Jewish Israelis don't care for the territories (since only 25 thousands out of five millions actually went to live there) and they wouldn't mind giving them up but only in exchange for a definitive peace treaty..
woops, that would be 400.000, not 25.000 (200.000 of them in East Jerusalem and connected settlements). you don't get compliments for ignorance either.
Quote:
The real right-wing hardliners consider Sharon a worse traitor than Rabin ever was. and while I was opposed to his politics even before the Lebanon war (but that war kind of consecrated that oppostion), here the Likud follows the public toward a pragmatic two-states solution, rather than leading the public toward it as the now undead Labour party used to.
True, but then the real right winger accept no law other than the 613 biddings of the Torah, and claim Israel should stretch from the Nile to the Persian Gulf.
I was responding to a particular point in a particular post, to illustrate my own point that a particular forum participant is making grave allegations about things he knows very little about.
My impression is that Tonton is more informed than the average person.
[cc: Tonton]
The average person is not informed, Tonton is badly and wrongly informed, even though he spends much time on this matter about which accurate information is freely and widely available
Quote:
You can't expect that everyone doctoral knowledge of all things related to middle-eastern issus (like you have ).
I can expect that basic data such as ?Hamas targets non-combatants and admits as much? or ?Israel does not and did not commit genocide? to be known by anyone with scant interest on the issue.
Quote:
Your trying to disqualify his opinion by questioning his knowledge. I say stick to the issue.
Being uninformed, such is his opinion. It is legitimate to point it out.
Quote:
Quote:
The reason for that stroll was internal squabbles in the Likud, to counter Mr. Netanyahou's ambitions. That did work.
I believe it had more reasons than that. Provoking the palestinians gave him a good image before the elections, not only inside the Likud.
He earned no political gain by this provocation, it is the camapign of armed violence (initiated by the PA before the civil disorders began) which wiped out Mr. Barak's popularity and turned Mr. Sharon from ?un-votable? to winner by landslide in a mere few months.
Quote:
Quote:
Some two years earlier, refection works on the Western Wall triggered wide disturbances and armed clashes as it was alleged that ?Israeli is digging under Al Aqsa?. It lasted for a few days, because the PA didn't use it as a pretext for a planned-in-advance opting out of the process. As said by Mr. Faluji, as as acknowledged by the report of the Mitchell Commission, Sharon's visit was not the cause of the wave of violence.
Yet the same Mitchell report says it did make the situation worse, and criticize Sharon for his move.
I criticised him even more than the Mitchell Commission, Mr. Sharon is a person for whom a have a very healthy distaste, it still doesn't change the fact that he didn't cause the wave of violence, the PA did.
Quote:
Quote:
You're mistaken in assuming that I blame solely Arafat and the Palestinians for the process going south in the late nineteen-ninetees, I only blame them for initiating a return to ?armed struggle?, as described by Mr. Faluji.
During the start of the second intifada, the uprising was unarmed. It only turned into "armed uprising" after the very violent respons from the Israelis. Killing 18 non-violent demonstrators during the first few hours of the uprising.
The ?armed struggle? was initiated by the PA, as said by Mr. Faluji, not as a result of the civil disorders which indeed followed to Mr. Sharon's visit (visit which, lest we forget, was okayed by the Palestinian head of pre-emptive security service, Mr. Jibril Rajub), disturbances which were indeed met with excessive force from Israeli security forces.
However, the initiator of the ?armed struggle? is still the PA. The mass demonstrations and the riots have subsided after a month, and had it not been for the PA's continued campaign of ?low-intensity warfare? as well as (along with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the various Marxist groups such as DFLP and PFLP-GC) of targetting non-combatants (hence ?terrorism?), a cease-fire could have been reached, and a new round of negociations may have been resumed along the lines of the Taba understandings.
Quote:
Quote:
The murder was by one far-right Israeli, I don't buy the various theses of a wider conspiracy.
I don't believe in a conspiracy either, But it is a well known fact that the Israeli Right orchestrated a massive smearing campaign against Rabin just before the murder. The famous photo-manipulation of Rabin in a SS-uniform was made by agents in Shabak. The same organisation that was supposed to protect him.
Now, this is the argument used by the Israeli far-righters who insinuate that a left-dominated Shabak created the incitement campaign, as it had infiltrated agents involved in fanning its flames, to later assassinate Rabin while framing a far-right militant for it, with the smear campaign as background noise. What happend was that the Shabak was reckless in using agents who sincerely shared the sentiments of the movements they infiltrated (such elements should only be allowed as informers), and who had taken personal initiatives to that effect. Not content with failing to reign in its less than reliable agents, the Shabak also neglected its job of protecting the premier, not out of malice, but out of sheer stupidity (all these secret outfits are largely overrated).
Quote:
Quote:
That disposition is practically a given since circa 1999. Most Jewish Israelis don't care for the territories (since only 25 thousands out of five millions actually went to live there) and they wouldn't mind giving them up but only in exchange for a definitive peace treaty.
woops, that would be 400.000, not 25.000 (200.000 of them in East Jerusalem and connected settlements). you don't get compliments for ignorance either.
Correction, make that 250 thousands (I forgot the zero in my precedent post, my bad, still an insignificant number) Israelis currently residing in territories not under Israeli civil jurisdiction (or ?territories? for short); eastern Jerusalem having been annexed, it is under Israeli civil jurisdiction.
Even if it were 500 thousands, still but a tenth of all Israeli Jews. Not a very substantial share of the public.
Quote:
Quote:
The real right-wing hardliners consider Sharon a worse traitor than Rabin ever was. and while I was opposed to his politics even before the Lebanon war (but that war kind of consecrated that oppostion), here the Likud follows the public toward a pragmatic two-states solution, rather than leading the public toward it as the now undead Labour party used to.
True, but then the real right winger accept no law other than the 613 biddings of the Torah,?
You have now, by a few keystrokes, reduced the real right wingers to a meager fringe.
Quote:
?and claim Israel should stretch from the Nile to the Persian Gulf.
Now you further reduced them to a few raving lunatics.
How, few could be discussed. Raving lunatics? No doubt.
The original Biblical expression is of course from the River Prath (often assimilated to the Euphrates, but not unanimously since there are several rivers called ?Prath?) to the River of Egypt (Nahal Mitsraim) which is a seasonal river flowing from eastern Sinai to the Mediterranean (near Al-Arish) and which used to, in ancient times, mark the Egyptian border (Egypt controlled no more than a band of the northern seashore of the peninsula till that river).
Those Israelis claiming Israel should stretch from the River Prath to the the River of Egypt are very few indeed, not even a blip in the political radar.
As for the expression ?Nile to the Persian Gulf?, it was churned out from the Arab League's factoid factory.
Comments
i'd say 50/50 right now, he needs a israel peace accord to make up for what looks to be a total clusterf*ck in iraq.
arab sources say they were amazed to see our president knowledgeable of the facts and talking without referring to notes or aides for information.
many think he'll walk away in frustration, many think this is a second term thing to do. i think he knows this is the only thing to save his ass from the fire.
I'm starting to wonder. I think he's "running out of road" on this one. One thing is for certain, it won't be a dull election.
Originally posted by New
So?
Most modern nations are constructions. You're Australian, right?
The concept of Jews being Israelis is an even more recent fictious construction... thanx to the... ? Brits? UN?
... WHO CARES!?!
The land was stolen in modern times, we have, or should have, other standards than the Romans...
We could all have your double standards. As you say, most modern nations are constructs. So why is the construct of the state of Israel a modern theft, as you say?
The concept of jews being Israeli's is relativly new. The concept of a Palestinian people of Arab decent is even more recent. The concept of Jews in Israel is ancient.
the nice thing about "the roadmap" (why do we have to have simplistic names for this stuff, and why do some journalists goose step to the tune and keep referring to it as such?) is that his staff was against it, especially dr. rice.
could he be taking over his own presidency? could we see some firings?
i think he's a decent man, once bewildered, but now maybe seeing the light, if he's going to look like the biggest fool ever elected* to the office of president, maybe it'll be on his own terms.
*i'm over it.........really
Originally posted by Tulkas
We could all have your double standards. As you say, most modern nations are constructs. So why is the construct of the state of Israel a modern theft, as you say?
Did I say others wern't? USA, Australia, Norway?
Israel is a a legitim state today. The occupation is not.
The difference is that we now have international law. Theft is no longer tolerated. or shoouldn't be.
The concept of jews being Israeli's is relativly new. The concept of a Palestinian people of Arab decent is even more recent.
Both concepts are about equally old. Both are connected to modern 19th century nationalism.
The concept of Jews in Israel is ancient.
The concept of Arabs in "Palestine" is not just as ancient. It is also constant since then. (So is that of palestinian jews). (had to edit this one)
dislaimer:
im 1000% ignorant about israel or palestine
having visited neither ...but i have close friends
on both sides so im not anti anything
so the question is
is israel a modern secular democratic society
or will it forever remain a therocracy with hardliners
on both sides (judaism & islamic)
what if theres 2 states israel & palestine both of whom
have jeruselem (typo?) as their common capital
im talking about a federated union of states here
much like the u.s
is it even thinkable ? sure why not
every other approach has failed & dividing countries
never really lasts long (think germany)
it will take a lot of balls on both sides to even consider
such a radical approach & i dont think sharon/abbas/arafat
are the right people for it
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...2-051845-8272r
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives_hamas.html
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...fromEmail=true
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE204A.html
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...isr_hamas.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0306/S00093.htm
http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_...sm/doc515.html
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/12/1547533.php
The Israelis and Palestinian people want to live in peace...but peace means that some people who are doing very nicely off the unrest will lose out in a big way. It's the same ol' same ol' story.
Tell me, then, when was the last time Hamas laid claim to a suicide attack on civilians?
would today count?
Originally posted by alcimedes
would today count?
Of course not. It would too clearly show the lies that Tonton is spreading. As he said: Contrary to popular belief, it is the leaders that keep the terrorists in line. Without the presence of established leaders, terrorists organizations are run by anarchy. Attacks go from targeted attacks against military aggressors (look at all the recent attacks by Palestinians - they have all been against soldiers) to random attacks on the public.
Obviously, Hamas still has leaders, yet here they are attacking civilians..imagine that. Yes, it was retaliatory, but it is still an attack with their leaders intact.
As an aside, Tonton tried to limit this part of the discussion to Hamas, as they haven't launched as many civilian attacks recently. But, that is irrelevant, as his initial statement wasn't limited to Hamas, but that all recent palestinian attacks have been against soldiers...so blatant a lie it's almost laughable.
I've checked the facts on the latest events and you're absolutely right. Rantissi is a bad leader and did, in fact appear to target civilians. I was wrong. He should have been arrested.
well crap, it's no fun when you agree.
Originally posted by Eugene
Most land is stolen. Give it back to the real Canaanites then. Or give it to Italy, after all the Romans did lay claim to the land for a very long time.
And the Greeks . . . or rather that Macedonian fellow Alexander . . and then was it the Ptolemies? or was it teh Peluecid dynasty? but either way, they had it before the Romans
But I gues the Jews laid claim to it before these invasions . . . .
well, the reality is we are all from Africa and are all of us, every human, very close genetically and have been wandering on this dusty scrap of beauty since we were much hairrier and squater . . .
face it any 'God' that claims a land has long since died and lives on only in dogmatic attachment . . .
. . . and Buddha was right: our attachments are the source of suffering . . even the kind of suffering that we don't know that we are undergoing:
"you have all the right to withold from the suffering of the world.
but perhaps that would be the one suffering which you could have avoided" --Kafka
anyway, words of wisdom from a man often ridiculed "can't we just get along?" hey, god is dead we kill him perpetually, therefor lets love one another . . . .
Originally posted by tonton
I've checked the facts on the latest events and you're absolutely right. Rantissi is a bad leader and did, in fact appear to target civilians. I was wrong. He should have been arrested. He should be arrested now. Arafat and Abbas have both condemned the bus bombing. They should be implored to consistently arrest those responsible for such attacks as their part of the deal - in return for Israel pulling out of more significant settlements.
Well, I agree with you here totally Tonton. But, for this to have any validity, the PA must really arrest them and not place them in their revolving door jails. Otherwise, it would be like Israel pulling a single structure down over and over and rebuilding it and pulling it down and again...useless, but they could claim continuing settlement dismantling as honestly as the PA can currently claim arresting or cracking down on murderers.
Originally posted by tonton
Tell me, then, when was the last time Hamas laid claim to a suicide attack on civilians?
Yesterday:
MSNBC/Reuters, June 11th 2003: Hamas claims Jerusalem suicide bus bombing
I just hold the strong belief that war begets war and that if not for Sharon's visit to the Temple mount, we would have had peace during the Clinton administration. I've gone through the numbers. Before Sharon, Isreali/Palestinian issue was heading for peace, with a few diplomatc setbacks. Sharon threw a wrench in those works and the harliners loved him for it, because they want nothing less than the elimination of all Palestinian control of all fertile areas in the region.
Your ?strong belief? is at odds with reality (not that I'm suprised). Prior to Mr. Sharon's ill-timed little stroll on the Temple Mount, the peace talks at Camp David failed, as Mr. Arafat rejected Mr. Barak's proposal, and rather than coming with a counter proposal, decided to reverted to what they call ?armed struggle? hoping it would Israel would yield upon the pressure of violence what it wouldn't through negociations.
Well, at least if one is to believe the then Palestinian minister of communications:
Originally declared by Imad al-Faluji
«Whoever thinks that the Intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon's visit to the Al-Aqsa mosque, is wrong, even if this visit was the straw that broke the back of the Palestinian people. This Intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat's return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton.»
Al-Safir, 3-III-2001
All in all, your knowledge of the Mid-Eastern is woefully lacking and full of holes, themselves full with slanderous slogans and fashionable platitudes such as ?Israel's genocide of Palestinians?. While I have not searched thoroughly al you wrote here to assess with precision the scope of your prejudices, they obviously include blaming Israel for whatever is wrong in that matter.
Just so you know, the current Israeli government (which is the opposite to my political leanings) is, to all practical purposes, more disposed toward the establishment of a Palestinian state, than the Israeli government of ten years ago (the one which was headed by Itshaq Rabin z"l), and so is an overwhelming majority of Israeli public opinion, but they'll only agree to it in exchange for a definitive closure of the conflict.
However, there are serious doubts as to the disposition toward accepting the already established existence of the Jewish state, not only from the Palestinian Authoroty but also from several posters in these fora, who are not sides in this conflict.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Yesterday:
MSNBC/Reuters, June 11th 2003: Hamas claims Jerusalem suicide bus bombing
Why do you continue to pursue this point, when tonton already retracted the statement?
I find that slightly arrogant.
Your "strong belief" is at odds with reality (not that I'm suprised). Prior to Mr. Sharon's ill-timed little stroll on the Temple Mount, the peace talks at Camp David failed, as Mr. Arafat rejected Mr. Barak's proposal, and rather than coming with a counter proposal, decided to reverted to what they call "armed struggle" hoping it would Israel would yield upon the pressure of violence what it wouldn't through negociations.
The stroll was not ill-timed, but well-timed. It drove one more nail into the coffin of the Oslo-agreement. of-course other nails were the as well. Put there by both the israelis and palestinians. You seem to blame Arafat only. And are just as at odds with reality (not that I'm suprised).
All in all, your knowledge of the Mid-Eastern is woefully lacking and full of holes, themselves full with slanderous slogans and fashionable platitudes such as "Israel's genocide of Palestinians". While I have not searched thoroughly al you wrote here to assess with precision the scope of your prejudices, they obviously include blaming Israel for whatever is wrong in that matter.
You make a better case when you discuss the issues, which you obviously know a lot about, than when you engage in personal attacks.
Just so you know, the current Israeli government (which is the opposite to my political leanings) is, to all practical purposes, more disposed toward the establishment of a Palestinian state, than the Israeli government of ten years ago (the one which was headed by Itshaq Rabin z"l), and so is an overwhelming majority of Israeli public opinion, but they'll only agree to it in exchange for a definitive closure of the conflict.
This is nothing but a personal opinion. My opinion is that while Rabin was no dove, his peace-effort was beyond anything seen before or since from any Isreali leader. His murder, by right-wing Israelis, was decisive in stumbling the peace process in the first place.
However, there are serious doubts as to the disposition toward accepting the already established existence of the Jewish state, not only from the Palestinian Authoroty but also from several posters in these fora, who are not sides in this conflict.
I think your exaggerating this point. Israelis position is secured. It has been since the 70s. The disposition of current israeli leaders towards a Palestinian state is far more doubtful.
Originally posted by pfflam
face it any 'God' that claims a land has long since died and lives on only in dogmatic attachment . . .
i think the sooner people realize that gohd isn't there, the sooner that situation will clear up. i'm sure, when/if we are all agnostic/atheist, or atleast not as strongly religious, then we'll have less problems. new problems will probably come up to fill that void, but we can deal with those when we get there. i mean, if all the Jews and Palestinians didn't desparately want the land for religious reasons, they could probably learn to live side-by-side.
Originally posted by New
Why do you continue to pursue this point, when tonton already retracted the statement?
I find that slightly arrogant.
Oh dear, aren't we touchy today.
I was responding to a particular point in a particular post, to illustrate my own point that a particular forum participant is making grave allegations about things he knows very little about.
The stroll was not ill-timed, but well-timed. It drove one more nail into the coffin of the Oslo-agreement. of-course other nails were the as well.
The reason for that stroll was internal squabbles in the Likud, to counter Mr. Netanyahou's ambitions. That did work. Some two years earlier, refection works on the Western Wall triggered wide disturbances and amred clashes as it was alleged that ?Israeli is digging under Al Aqsa?. It lasted for a few days, because the PA didn't use it as a pretext for a planned-in-advance opting out of the process. As said by Mr. Faluji, as as acknowledged by the report of the Mitchell Commission, Sharon's visit was not the cause of the wave of violence.
Put there by both the israelis and palestinians. You seem to blame Arafat only. And are just as at odds with reality (not that I'm suprised).
You're mistaken in assuming that I blame solely Arafat and the Palestinians for the process going south in the late nineteen-nintees, I only blame them for initiating a return to ?armed struggle?, as described by Mr. Faluji.
You make a better case when you discuss the issues, which you obviously know a lot about, than when you engage in personal attacks.
I mostly addressed the issues here, and rather accurately so. As for the rest, lately I have been circumspect in my even discussing these matters, but one should not assume one can write ignorant slander and be complimented for it.
This is nothing but a personal opinion. My opinion is that while Rabin was no dove, his peace-effort was beyond anything seen before or since from any Isreali leader. His murder, by right-wing Israelis, was decisive in stumbling the peace process in the first place.
The murder was by one far-right Israeli, I don't buy the various theses of a wider conspiracy.
I tend to agree for the rest, while I never shared the euphoria many of my co-tribals had over the interim agreement, and it might have faltered anyway, the assassination was among the most serious blows dealt to it, the ?Al-Aqsa Intifada? initiative was the final one of those.
I think your exaggerating this point. Israelis position is secured.
Only because Israel is a stronger more developed country than the lame-o-cracies surrounding it, however its existence is still widely contested nonetheless, and not only by some inmmediate neighbours.
It has been since the 70s. The disposition of current israeli leaders towards a Palestinian state is far more doubtful.
That disposition is practically a given since circa 1999. Most Jewish Israelis don't care for the territories (since only 25 thousands out of five millions actually went to live there) and they wouldn't mind giving them up but only in exchange for a definitive peace treaty.
The real right-wing hardliners consider Sharon a worse traitor than Rabin ever was. and while I was opposed to his politics even before the Lebanon war (but that war kind of consecrated that oppostion), here the Likud follows the public toward a pragmatic two-states solution, rather than leading the public toward it as the now undead Labour party used to.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Oh dear, aren't we touchy today.
I was responding to a particular point in a particular post, to illustrate my own point that a particular forum participant is making grave allegations about things he knows very little about.
My impression is that Tonton is more informed than the average person. You can't expect that everyone doctoral knowledge of all things related to middle-eastern issus. (like you have
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
The reason for that stroll was internal squabbles in the Likud, to counter Mr. Netanyahou's ambitions. That did work.
I believe it had more reasons than that. Provoking the palestinians gave him a good image before the elections, not only inside the Likud.
Some two years earlier, refection works on the Western Wall triggered wide disturbances and amred clashes as it was alleged that ?Israeli is digging under Al Aqsa?. It lasted for a few days, because the PA didn't use it as a pretext for a planned-in-advance opting out of the process. As said by Mr. Faluji, as as acknowledged by the report of the Mitchell Commission, Sharon's visit was not the cause of the wave of violence.
Yet the same Mitchell report says it did make the situation worse, and criticize Sharon for his move.
You're mistaken in assuming that I blame solely Arafat and the Palestinians for the process going south in the late nineteen-nintees, I only blame them for initiating a return to ?armed struggle?, as described by Mr. Faluji.
During the start of the second intifada, the uprising was unarmed. It only turned into "armed uprising" after the very violent respons from the Israelis. Killing 18 non-violent demonstrators during the first few hours of the uprising.
The murder was by one far-right Israeli, I don't buy the various theses of a wider conspiracy.
I don't believe in a conspiracy either, But it is a well known fact that the Israeli Right orchestrated a massive smearing campaign against Rabin just before the murder. The famous photo-manipulation of Rabin in a SS-uniform was made by agents in Shabak. The same organisation that was supposed to protect him.
That disposition is practically a given since circa 1999. Most Jewish Israelis don't care for the territories (since only 25 thousands out of five millions actually went to live there) and they wouldn't mind giving them up but only in exchange for a definitive peace treaty..
woops, that would be 400.000, not 25.000 (200.000 of them in East Jerusalem and connected settlements). you don't get compliments for ignorance either.
The real right-wing hardliners consider Sharon a worse traitor than Rabin ever was. and while I was opposed to his politics even before the Lebanon war (but that war kind of consecrated that oppostion), here the Likud follows the public toward a pragmatic two-states solution, rather than leading the public toward it as the now undead Labour party used to.
True, but then the real right winger accept no law other than the 613 biddings of the Torah, and claim Israel should stretch from the Nile to the Persian Gulf.
Originally posted by New:
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
Oh dear, aren't we touchy today.
I was responding to a particular point in a particular post, to illustrate my own point that a particular forum participant is making grave allegations about things he knows very little about.
My impression is that Tonton is more informed than the average person.
[cc: Tonton]
The average person is not informed, Tonton is badly and wrongly informed, even though he spends much time on this matter about which accurate information is freely and widely available
You can't expect that everyone doctoral knowledge of all things related to middle-eastern issus (like you have ).
I can expect that basic data such as ?Hamas targets non-combatants and admits as much? or ?Israel does not and did not commit genocide? to be known by anyone with scant interest on the issue.
Your trying to disqualify his opinion by questioning his knowledge. I say stick to the issue.
Being uninformed, such is his opinion. It is legitimate to point it out.
The reason for that stroll was internal squabbles in the Likud, to counter Mr. Netanyahou's ambitions. That did work.
I believe it had more reasons than that. Provoking the palestinians gave him a good image before the elections, not only inside the Likud.
He earned no political gain by this provocation, it is the camapign of armed violence (initiated by the PA before the civil disorders began) which wiped out Mr. Barak's popularity and turned Mr. Sharon from ?un-votable? to winner by landslide in a mere few months.
Some two years earlier, refection works on the Western Wall triggered wide disturbances and armed clashes as it was alleged that ?Israeli is digging under Al Aqsa?. It lasted for a few days, because the PA didn't use it as a pretext for a planned-in-advance opting out of the process. As said by Mr. Faluji, as as acknowledged by the report of the Mitchell Commission, Sharon's visit was not the cause of the wave of violence.
Yet the same Mitchell report says it did make the situation worse, and criticize Sharon for his move.
I criticised him even more than the Mitchell Commission, Mr. Sharon is a person for whom a have a very healthy distaste, it still doesn't change the fact that he didn't cause the wave of violence, the PA did.
You're mistaken in assuming that I blame solely Arafat and the Palestinians for the process going south in the late nineteen-ninetees, I only blame them for initiating a return to ?armed struggle?, as described by Mr. Faluji.
During the start of the second intifada, the uprising was unarmed. It only turned into "armed uprising" after the very violent respons from the Israelis. Killing 18 non-violent demonstrators during the first few hours of the uprising.
The ?armed struggle? was initiated by the PA, as said by Mr. Faluji, not as a result of the civil disorders which indeed followed to Mr. Sharon's visit (visit which, lest we forget, was okayed by the Palestinian head of pre-emptive security service, Mr. Jibril Rajub), disturbances which were indeed met with excessive force from Israeli security forces.
However, the initiator of the ?armed struggle? is still the PA. The mass demonstrations and the riots have subsided after a month, and had it not been for the PA's continued campaign of ?low-intensity warfare? as well as (along with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the various Marxist groups such as DFLP and PFLP-GC) of targetting non-combatants (hence ?terrorism?), a cease-fire could have been reached, and a new round of negociations may have been resumed along the lines of the Taba understandings.
The murder was by one far-right Israeli, I don't buy the various theses of a wider conspiracy.
I don't believe in a conspiracy either, But it is a well known fact that the Israeli Right orchestrated a massive smearing campaign against Rabin just before the murder. The famous photo-manipulation of Rabin in a SS-uniform was made by agents in Shabak. The same organisation that was supposed to protect him.
Now, this is the argument used by the Israeli far-righters who insinuate that a left-dominated Shabak created the incitement campaign, as it had infiltrated agents involved in fanning its flames, to later assassinate Rabin while framing a far-right militant for it, with the smear campaign as background noise. What happend was that the Shabak was reckless in using agents who sincerely shared the sentiments of the movements they infiltrated (such elements should only be allowed as informers), and who had taken personal initiatives to that effect. Not content with failing to reign in its less than reliable agents, the Shabak also neglected its job of protecting the premier, not out of malice, but out of sheer stupidity (all these secret outfits are largely overrated).
That disposition is practically a given since circa 1999. Most Jewish Israelis don't care for the territories (since only 25 thousands out of five millions actually went to live there) and they wouldn't mind giving them up but only in exchange for a definitive peace treaty.
woops, that would be 400.000, not 25.000 (200.000 of them in East Jerusalem and connected settlements). you don't get compliments for ignorance either.
Correction, make that 250 thousands (I forgot the zero in my precedent post, my bad, still an insignificant number) Israelis currently residing in territories not under Israeli civil jurisdiction (or ?territories? for short); eastern Jerusalem having been annexed, it is under Israeli civil jurisdiction.
Even if it were 500 thousands, still but a tenth of all Israeli Jews. Not a very substantial share of the public.
The real right-wing hardliners consider Sharon a worse traitor than Rabin ever was. and while I was opposed to his politics even before the Lebanon war (but that war kind of consecrated that oppostion), here the Likud follows the public toward a pragmatic two-states solution, rather than leading the public toward it as the now undead Labour party used to.
True, but then the real right winger accept no law other than the 613 biddings of the Torah,?
You have now, by a few keystrokes, reduced the real right wingers to a meager fringe.
?and claim Israel should stretch from the Nile to the Persian Gulf.
Now you further reduced them to a few raving lunatics.
... Now you further reduced them to a few raving lunatics.
How, few could be discussed. Raving lunatics? No doubt.
Originally posted by New
How, few could be discussed. Raving lunatics? No doubt.
The original Biblical expression is of course from the River Prath (often assimilated to the Euphrates, but not unanimously since there are several rivers called ?Prath?) to the River of Egypt (Nahal Mitsraim) which is a seasonal river flowing from eastern Sinai to the Mediterranean (near Al-Arish) and which used to, in ancient times, mark the Egyptian border (Egypt controlled no more than a band of the northern seashore of the peninsula till that river).
Those Israelis claiming Israel should stretch from the River Prath to the the River of Egypt are very few indeed, not even a blip in the political radar.
As for the expression ?Nile to the Persian Gulf?, it was churned out from the Arab League's factoid factory.