The U.S. has not killed thousands of Afghani civilians.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Check again ... according to <a href="http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html"; target="_blank">these</a> estimates the number ranges from 1000 - 4000 civilans killed in Afghanistan and about 500 in Kosovo.
So its fine for the US and the EU to kill innocents while they do their Wars/Self Defens business, but naughty israel.... nonono ... they should just roll over and let the terrorists do their thing.
[quote]<strong>Whatever is to be done about terrorism, occupation is ineffective and it must end now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again check your facts ... Israel's incursions to the west bank may be bloody and immoral but you just can't argue witht the plain fact that since they started security inside Israel has improved a great deal and that terrorist attacks have diminished by a factor of about 95%.
in the past 3 weeks around 15 Israeli civilians have been killed in two suicide attacks.
In the month before the Israeli operation the number was more like 150 and we had about two attacks a day....
Interesting site you linked to, a progressive page filled with half-truths and blatant lies. Read any of the stuff they say about Israel on there?
And the study from the professor used Taliban estimates, which were found to be inflated by 15 times or made up entirely by UN investigators. This is old stuff.
The U.S. has killed civlians in Afghanistan, but not as many as Israel and we are not occupying Afghani land and enforcing our laws on them. There is a difference between a quick war and occupation and illegal annexation.
--
Steve666:
[quote]Theres no reason that israel shouldn't give back 100% of the land? How about security. Yes, Israelis are entitled to security.<hr></blockquote>
They are entitled to security, but not to occupy land that does not belong to them. Security concerns do not justify imperialism.
[quote]Why should Israel trust a body that is anti-Israeli?<hr></blockquote>
The UN created Israel, how is the UN anti-Israel?
[quote]They will make one up.<hr></blockquote>
Excellent logic. You're working overtime with this one.
Rat, you are clueless. Everytime you post you make it clear to all.
Of course innocent civilians died in Afghanistan, and of course innocent Palestinians died in Israels attacks on terrorists in the West bank. We have no more justification for our actions than Israel did. They are both justified.
Fact of the matter is-if there were no terrorist attacks against Israel then Israel would never have moved back into thee West bank. Israel wanted to talk, Arafat wanted to kill. Theres the difference........................................ .......
Interesting site you linked to, a progressive page filled with half-truths and blatant lies. Read any of the stuff they say about Israel on there?
And the study from the professor used Taliban estimates, which were found to be inflated by 15 times or made up entirely by UN investigators. This is old stuff.
The U.S. has killed civlians in Afghanistan, but not as many as Israel and we are not occupying Afghani land and enforcing our laws on them. There is a difference between a quick war and occupation and illegal annexation.
--
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting to see you didn't reply to my point re the effectivness of the current militay operation in the OT.
Interesting how you choose to ignore the facts when they relate to your great country but when it Israel you will belive any rumor.... says a thing or two about you .....
Funny that when these same news organisations say the same stuff about Israel you will quote them happily but when the same data is put against you you will flatly deny it.....
Read these links ... they talk about the US millitary blocking access to war zones, about the US media failing to report the correct numbers of civilian casualties .... etc... sound familiar ?
I will say this again:
I am not against the US actions in Afghanistan, they are necessary I'm only pointing out the moral duplicity applied here by you and the world media.
I do belive ( as do a masive mjority of Israelis )
that the occupation must end, but it has to end through negotiations and not terrorism and it has to fully provide for Israel's security- that means that a solution will not relay on the UN's 'peace keeping force' as it has been proven on the Israeli Lebanese border the UN is completly inaffective at protecting either side !
Israel has been draged into this war it did not want it .... ask any Israeli and they will tell you they respect the Palestinian's right for self determination. this is not about the occupation its about the plain right of Israel to exist and if you can't see that you are either ignorant of the full facts or simply choose to take the simplistic stand that the stronger side is the wrong side....
BTW when you talk about 'Illegal occupation' what exactly are you talking about ? Israel tried to return the OT to the Arabs afer they lost their Illegal war on it in 67 but they rejected any negotiating with the Evil Zionist entity as they call it....
SO so many things that the arabs have done have been illegal i dont see all you anti Israeli people railing against them.....
And the bottom line is ...All war is evil and people die ( that's the point of having it in the first place) if the Arabs want it to stop they need to do one simple thing- stop their terror ! if they don't Israel has any right to defend it self and nothing any of you can say will change that ! Israelis will not see their people die and sit idle just to apease your twisted moral and historic preconceptions.
Your first link talks about the same bullshit professor from your first bullshit link.
Your second link gives no numbers.
The third link is an anecdote of civilians being killed, which I wholly agree happens.
The fourth link uses the same bullshit professor in New Hampshire as a source that the first two links you posted leads to.
Not matter how many different ways you point at a pile of shit it remains a pile of shit.
--
If the U.S. takes on a policy of settling Afghani land and enforcing U.S. law on Afghani people I will vehemently oppose it.
Civlians die in conflict, I am not against the IDF's actions recently because civilians have been killed, I am opposed the methods they employ.
The end does not justify the means.
I am not someone who believes that my government only acts in the holiest of ways, but the particular source you point to is rubbish. If we can get the U.N. or some other verifiable and trustworthy source (a professor sitting in New Hampshire does not count) I will believe it fully.
[quote]SO so many things that the arabs have done have been illegal i dont see all you anti Israeli people railing against them.....<hr></blockquote>
Just as you have barely spoken against your own nation's actions. This is how debate works. How do you expect people to argue both sides when 95% of your own words are one-sided and 5% talk about your own nation's flawed action?
Everyone is supposed to be 50/50 except you?
--
Occupation causes terror. Terror causes Israeli deaths. If the end of occupation does not curb terror then the groups will have to be dealt with an effective way (i.e. - killing large groups of the ****ers quickly and brutally). Occupation will not and is not helping.
And it is not just about security. How the hell are Israeli settlement camps about security?
They are entitled to security, but not to occupy land that does not belong to them. Security concerns do not justify imperialism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure they do.
[quote]Why should Israel trust a body that is anti-Israeli?
<strong>The UN created Israel, how is the UN anti-Israel?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That was back in ?48. What has the U.N. done for Israel lately? Come on, grover, you know better than this.
Occupation causes terror. Terror causes Israeli deaths. If the end of occupation does not curb terror then the groups will have to be dealt with an effective way (i.e. - killing large groups of the ****ers quickly and brutally). Occupation will not and is not helping.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This latest Intifada began after Israel had withdrawn from most of the West Bank and Gaza and after Israel had made those unprecedented concessions at Wye River. Your "logic" doesn't hold up in light of this chronology.
[quote]This latest Intifada began after Israel had withdrawn from most of the West Bank and Gaza and after Israel had made those unprecedented concessions at Wye River. Your "logic" doesn't hold up in light of this chronology.<hr></blockquote>
The latest intifada started as a result of Ariel Sharon and over 1,000 Israeli troops visiting al-Haram ash-Sharif on April 28, 2000.
The fact that they were unprecedented only tells of how long Israel has gotten away with violating international laws. Since the early 80s the U.S. has blocked any attempts by the UN to mediate in the region. (Read UN Resolution 497 and how its enforcement was blocked by the U.S.)
[quote]That was back in ?48. What has the U.N. done for Israel lately? Come on, grover, you know better than this.<hr></blockquote>
Is this from the Janet Jackson School of International Diplomacy?
The U.N. has been vocal against Israel's aggressive and illegal actions, yes, but that is what they are supposed to do.
Also, the major nation of the world (and U.N.) gives them billions of dollars per year in aide, that's a lot being done for them. I think your diplomatic mentor Janet (Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) would agree. That nation has asked for Israel's withdrawal as well, so who will dictate your new outlook on the region? Jermaine's "Dynamite" or "Don't Take it Personal"?
The latest intifada started as a result of Ariel Sharon and over 1,000 Israeli troops visiting al-Haram ash-Sharif on April 28, 2000.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is what Palestinian Communications Minister Imad Faluji said at a PLO rally in South Lebanon on 2 March 2001:
"It [the uprising] had been planned since [PA] Chairman [Yasser] Arafat's return from Camp David, when he turned the tables on the former US president and rejected the American conditions," Falouji said.
[quote]<strong>Is this from the Janet Jackson School of International Diplomacy?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Why do you ask? Clearly you are her star pupil. I can be as big a pain-in-the-a$$ as anybody but you're not exactly the most diplomatic poster I've ever encountered.
Anyway, the question was, "What has the U.N. done for Israel lately?" You apparently can't think of anything either.
[quote]This is what Palestinian Communications Minister Imad Faluji said at a PLO rally in South Lebanon on 2 March 2001:<hr></blockquote>
When did Arafat get back from Camp David?
Also, whether the cause was Israel's unwillingness to give back land that isn't theirs or an overtly offensive and provocative action by one of Israel's most important political leaders I fail to see a difference.
[quote]I can be as big a pain-in-the-a$$ as anybody but you're not exactly the most diplomatic poster I've ever encountered.<hr></blockquote>
I'm only being a smart-ass for your amusement, roger, you know I love you. Give us a kiss, love.
A lot of people have said that I'm the "either your best friend or worst enemy" type, but I think I'm just misunderstood.
!
[quote]Anyway, the question was, "What has the U.N. done for Israel lately?" You apparently can't think of anything either.<hr></blockquote>
I really don't know what you mean by this. What has the U.N. "done for" anyone else lately?
I wasn't aware that the U.N. meetings had door prizes.
I guess you could say the U.N. has allowed Israel to do whatever the hell it wants without anything more than written reprisals. Surely being given carte blanche by the entity that created you is something.
Also, as I said above, the U.S. has given Israel tens of billions of dollars and is asking them to withdraw as well.
When did Arafat get back from Camp David?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don?t know. Why do you ask? Faluji?s remarks predated Sharon?s visit to the Temple Mount which you said caused this Intifada. Clearly that?s not the case.
[quote]<strong>Also, whether the cause was Israel's unwillingness to give back land that isn't theirs or an overtly offensive and provocative action by one of Israel's most important political leaders I fail to see a difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or the cause might just be the Palestinian desire to destroy Israel. Seems to me that Palestinians could have their land if they were serious about making peace. This isn?t something they?ve ever been willing to put to the test.
[quote]<strong>I'm only being a smart-ass for your amusement, roger, you know I love you. Give us a kiss, love.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Same here but you ain?t getting any kisses from me. I may be easy but I?m not cheap. You haven?t even bought me flowers.
[quote]Anyway, the question was, "What has the U.N. done for Israel lately?" You apparently can't think of anything either.
<strong>I really don't know what you mean by this. What has the U.N. "done for" anyone else lately?
I wasn't aware that the U.N. meetings had door prizes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The original complaint was that the U.N. was anti-Israel. You pointed to an event over a half a century ago in attempt to refute that statement. If you can?t come up with anything more recent than that, then you really haven?t made much of a point.
[quote]<strong>Also, as I said above, the U.S. has given Israel tens of billions of dollars and is asking them to withdraw as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And the Arab world has poured money into the Palestinian cause. So?
[quote]I don?t know. Why do you ask? Faluji?s remarks predated Sharon?s visit to the Temple Mount which you said caused this Intifada. Clearly that?s not the case.<hr></blockquote>
Because I don't know the context of that quote. What does "the uprising" mean?
[quote]Or the cause might just be the Palestinian desire to destroy Israel. Seems to me that Palestinians could have their land if they were serious about making peace. This isn?t something they?ve ever been willing to put to the test.<hr></blockquote>
How are the Palestinians to have their own land if it is not given to them first?
By using the logic that Palestinians simply want to destroy Israel you are asking people to assume that the will of the extremist groups represent the people, all the while the well-documented zionist policies of many extremist Israelis are brushed to the side. Is that reasonable?
What of Ariel Sharon saying "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." at a meeting of the Tsomet party in November of 1998?
This is the prime minister of a powerful military nation. Not some terrorist holed up in a cave or some warlord whose "army" consisted of a few hundred regular joes with Kalishnikovs (sp?).
[quote]You haven?t even bought me flowers.<hr></blockquote>
You are so beautiful, Rog, you should be guarded by monkeys.
[quote]The original complaint was that the U.N. was anti-Israel. You pointed to an event over a half a century ago in attempt to refute that statement. If you can?t come up with anything more recent than that, then you really haven?t made much of a point.<hr></blockquote>
What has the U.N. done to make it seem anti-Israel?
Pro-international law != anti-Israel, by the way.
[quote]And the Arab world has poured money into the Palestinian cause. So?<hr></blockquote>
It's not even comparable.
The lowest level Palestinian combatant throws stones and the lowest level Israeli combatant throws automatic weapon fire and grenades. The cream of the Palestinian soldier crop has an AK-47 and maybe some rocket-powered grenades. The cream of the Israeli soldier crop has armored helicopters, tanks and heavy artillery.
Also, you completely evaded the actual point I made.
You seem to think that someone must bribe Israel to get them to obey international law by pulling out of Palestinian territory. The U.S. gives them billions of dollars every year and has asked them to withdraw immediately. Yet they do not. What more can be given to Israel to get them to follow the rules? Trillions?
Occupation causes terror. Terror causes Israeli deaths.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mmm Interesting so how would you explain the long string of terror and wars brought on Israel by the Arabs that happened before 1967 when the OT were not occupied ?
BTW. I'm not saying the occupation isn't bad and that its not a part of the problem - as an Israeli I fully take responsibility for Israel's part in the mess, but saying that the occupation is the only source of the problem is sticking yer head in the sand !
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
If the end of occupation does not curb terror then the groups will have to be dealt with an effective way (i.e. - killing large groups of the ****ers quickly and brutally). Occupation will not and is not helping.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL, isn't this exactly what Israel is doing right now in the current operation in the OT ?
We tried to negotiate and to end the occupation, we were as restrained as any country can be for over 18 months while the Palestinians turned their backs on the talks. and only after more then 450 Israeli deaths Israel went in and stopped this celebration on Israeli blood.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
The latest intifada started as a result of Ariel Sharon and over 1,000 Israeli troops visiting al-Haram ash-Sharif on April 28, 2000.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is such a stupid bunch of lies .....
At the time ( sep 2000) Ariel Sharon was the head of the main opposition party he went on a visit to Judaism's holiest site in Israel's capital city. Now how the hell does this justify the uprising ( intefada ) and the subsequent blood-shed is beyond me.
Jews or Christians did not start rioting when Arafat visited the church of the holly sepulchre or the Jewish wailing wall ... Israel is a free country, the head of the opposition can go wherever he pleases and the sheer fact the the Palestinians used this as an excuse to start the violence is witness to their brutality and disrespect for democratic values.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
Also, as I said above, the U.S. has given Israel tens of billions of dollars and is asking them to withdraw as well.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is simply not true re OT: The consistent view of consecutive US administrations is that this is a problem to be resolved on the negotiating table and not as a result of a single sided concession on Israel's part .. in this respect the views of the US and Israel are completely in line with each other.
Also Israel has been a very valuable friend to the US as well, it has consistently been the US's most dependable ally in the middle east and in helping the broader US strategic aim of moderating and maintaining peace in the middle east. Consecutive administrations and the US Congress are not dumb they know that the US's strong support of Israel is in line with American interests as much as its an Israeli interest.
I don?t know. Why do you ask? Faluji?s remarks predated Sharon?s visit to the Temple Mount which you said caused this Intifada. Clearly that?s not the case.
Because I don't know the context of that quote. What does "the uprising" mean?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL are just pretending or are you trying your best to act stupid. this statement is a clear indication that the Palestinian leadership realized after the Camp David talks that its time to start using force to try and get what they didn't get on the table ... everyone knows this, will you stop ignoring it...
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
What of Ariel Sharon saying "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." at a meeting of the Tsomet party in November of 1998?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who do you think put this man power in israel ?
it was Arafat ! previosly to Sharon being elected we had the most dovish man as PM - Ehod Barak was willing to band over backwards to please Arafat who replied to him only with rejection and violence, as a result Israelis got fed up of trying to chase the PA and Arafat around for peace and elected hawkish Sharon. if it wasn't for Arafat's uprising we would have had a Palestinian state in the OT and Barak still as PM today !
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
What has the U.N. done to make it seem anti-Israel?
Pro-international law != anti-Israel, by the way.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The UN has proven it cannot deal with the issue of Israel, during the 70's it released a racist resolution equating Zionism with racism. it has consistently released one sided anti Israeli resolutions in the past 30 years and In its most important role in the area in the last few years: securing peace on the Israeli Lebanese border it has failed dismally. Providing cover and sometimes even helping Hizbullah fighters attack Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers and on the other hand tying Israel's hands when it comes to defending its LEGAL borders and its citizens !
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
You seem to think that someone must bribe Israel to get them to obey international law by pulling out of Palestinian territory. The U.S. gives them billions of dollars every year and has asked them to withdraw immediately. Yet they do not. What more can be given to Israel to get them to follow the rules? Trillions?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Israel is not in the territories against international law according to UN resolution 242, Israel is in fact doing its most to follow security council resolutions . this resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israel to agreed borders and to agreements to be signed as a result of peaceful negotiations ... which is exactly what Israel's been trying to do !
And as I have said before- The US has never asked Israel to withdraw immediately like you say ... the only thing this administration asked Israel to do is to end the current operation a.s.a.p... which Israel is doing !
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
The U.S. has killed civlians in Afghanistan, but not as many as Israel and we are not occupying Afghani land and enforcing our laws on them. There is a difference between a quick war and occupation and illegal annexation.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
--
Israel has never annexed the OT nor is it forcing its foreign laws on the population ... since the Oslo peace accords have been sighed in 1993 95% of Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza have been living under their own PA government lead by Arafat under their own (corrupt) administration and with their own laws.
fact is, Europe (France and UK) are to blame for the hate against the Israelis. The English permitted and encouraged for the creation of an Israeli/Jewish area (seeing many Europeans at the time didnt want Jews in their back yard, hell, fine! lets give em a piece of desert land and send em away!)
Arabs of the area found themselves pushed and forced out of their own towns, villages, and homes (and massacred if they refused) for a people who were an incredibly small minority. This was the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries...
Bottom line? The Arab population has a RIGHT to their lands that were TAKEN AWAY. In my view, however, this should NOT bring to a destruction of the Israeli state.
It may seem a bit of a weird analogy, but I do not understand why a similar setup as is done here in Belgium cannot be attempted in Israel/Palestine. There are three official languages here and two very distinct cultures that, through ups and downs, still all live in one country.
BTW, groverat, great arguements and defence. But I DO see a slight similarity to what we did to American Indians and their right to their lands. But anyway, thats a different story... at least they arent blowing themselves up.
Sorry to butt in, but I was getting a bit lonely over in the other thread.
Just a few things Pokemon:
[quote] Israel is not in the territories against international law according to UN resolution 242, Israel is in fact doing its most to follow security council resolutions . this resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israel to agreed borders and to agreements to be signed as a result of peaceful negotiations ... which is exactly what Israel's been trying to do ! <hr></blockquote> Trying for 35 years? Do they need a compass? The resolution states that a withdrawal is a key to establishing "just and lasting peace in the Middle East"... And; What other UN resolutions have israel followed? The 338? the 1397? the 1402 and the 1403?
[quote]And as I have said before- The US has never asked Israel to withdraw immediately like you say ... the only thing this administration asked Israel to do is to end the current operation a.s.a.p... which Israel is doing ! <hr></blockquote>
Bush said: Isreal must withdraw today, not tomorrow...
[quote]Israel has never annexed the OT nor is it forcing its foreign laws on the population.<hr></blockquote>
What about Jerusalem? It was annexed, after 1967.
And on what started the 2nd intifada? The <a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/mitchell.htm"; target="_blank">Mitchell Committee</a> has written in lengths on the issue. There is no concret evidence of either claim. "Amid rising anger, fear, and mistrust, each side assumed the worst about the other and acted accordingly." the Mitchell Committee writes. Take the time, its a good and ballanced read.
quote:And as I have said before- The US has never asked Israel to withdraw immediately like you say ... the only thing this administration asked Israel to do is to end the current operation a.s.a.p... which Israel is doing !
_______________________________________________
Bush said: Isreal must withdraw today, not tomorrow...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thats such rubish and you know it
you seem to know the facts and history very well so I would have expected a little more from you New....
Bush was refering to the current millitary operation in the OT not to Israel having to just butt out and leave 100% of the OT he was saying Isarel needs to finish the operation a.s.a.p which it did !
He also called Sharon: 'a man of peace the other day'..
[quote]Mmm Interesting so how would you explain the long string of terror and wars brought on Israel by the Arabs that happened before 1967 when the OT were not occupied ?<hr></blockquote>
That was 35+ years ago. And you should strike the word "terror" from that. Up until 1967 it was outright war against Israel by Arab nations.
[quote]BTW. I'm not saying the occupation isn't bad and that its not a part of the problem - as an Israeli I fully take responsibility for Israel's part in the mess, but saying that the occupation is the only source of the problem is sticking yer head in the sand !<hr></blockquote>
It's the only part of the problem that can be dealt with by simple actions. If you pull out of the territory you lessen the credibility of the Palestinian terrorists. Give them no reason to be angry and they will be as racist freaks that just want all Israelis dead. If you pull out and the terror stops then everyone has won.
[quote]LOL, isn't this exactly what Israel is doing right now in the current operation in the OT ?<hr></blockquote>
Occupying a territory for decades is not quick. The continuing suicide bombings are evidence that it isn't effective, either.
When one method of keeping peace fails, try another.
[quote]We tried to negotiate and to end the occupation, we were as restrained as any country can be for over 18 months while the Palestinians turned their backs on the talks. and only after more then 450 Israeli deaths Israel went in and stopped this celebration on Israeli blood.<hr></blockquote>
Until your government gives back 100% of the Palestinian's territory negotiations are pointless because they will not accept that, and rightfully so. Israel would not accept ~90% of its territory, Israelis would want 100%.
There needn't be negotiations. Give their land back. It's very simple.
[quote]Now how the hell does this justify the uprising ( intefada ) and the subsequent blood-shed is beyond me.<hr></blockquote>
Read the link I posted. Don't feign ignorance.
[quote]The consistent view of consecutive US administrations is that this is a problem to be resolved on the negotiating table and not as a result of a single sided concession on Israel's part .. in this respect the views of the US and Israel are completely in line with each other.<hr></blockquote>
Israel is slowly pulling back at the request of our president. Sharon has backed down and will continue to back down.
Corporate interests generally rule the U.S. government, so using our support as a moral justification is spurious.
[quote]this statement is a clear indication that the Palestinian leadership realized after the Camp David talks that its time to start using force to try and get what they didn't get on the table ... everyone knows this, will you stop ignoring it... <hr></blockquote>
When you don't get your land back you fight for it, that's logical, that's the way the world works.
And yes, I'm not 100% informed on this particular sequence, so I'm trying to learn the facts as I go along so I can get a clearer picture. If Arafat was bent on going after Israel forcefully because Israel wouldn't give 100% of the land back then that makes sense.
[quote]Who do you think put this man power in israel ? it was Arafat !<hr></blockquote>
No, it was the Israeli people. The same people who have had your Prime Ministers killed for being reasonable about the situation.
[quote]The UN has proven it cannot deal with the issue of Israel, during the 70's it released a racist resolution equating Zionism with racism.<hr></blockquote>
Zionism is racism. The belief that the Jews are entitled to the entire region for their nation is racist. Manifest Destiny was racist and so are Arabs who think that the entire region should be theirs.
Perhaps you have a different definition of "Zionism", but that's what it means to most people. The desire for the entire region to be Israel.
[quote]it has consistently released one sided anti Israeli resolutions in the past 30 years and In its most important role in the area in the last few years: securing peace on the Israeli Lebanese border it has failed dismally. Providing cover and sometimes even helping Hizbullah fighters attack Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers and on the other hand tying Israel's hands when it comes to defending its LEGAL borders and its citizens !<hr></blockquote>
Examples?
[quote]Israel is not in the territories against international law according to UN resolution 242, Israel is in fact doing its most to follow security council resolutions . this resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israel to agreed borders and to agreements to be signed as a result of peaceful negotiations ... which is exactly what Israel's been trying to do ! <hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00p40"; target="_blank">U.N. Security Council Resolution 242</a> was released on November 22, 1967. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
The UN security called for Israel's immediate withdrawal in 1981 with Resolution 497. Christ, you guys must move reeeeeaaallly slow.
Trying very hard to play nice, I know you are.
[quote]Israel has never annexed the OT nor is it forcing its foreign laws on the population ... since the Oslo peace accords have been sighed in 1993 95% of Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza have been living under their own PA government lead by Arafat under their own (corrupt) administration and with their own laws.<hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>
The U.S. has not killed thousands of Afghani civilians.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Check again ... according to <a href="http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html"; target="_blank">these</a> estimates the number ranges from 1000 - 4000 civilans killed in Afghanistan and about 500 in Kosovo.
So its fine for the US and the EU to kill innocents while they do their Wars/Self Defens business, but naughty israel.... nonono ... they should just roll over and let the terrorists do their thing.
[quote]<strong>Whatever is to be done about terrorism, occupation is ineffective and it must end now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again check your facts ... Israel's incursions to the west bank may be bloody and immoral but you just can't argue witht the plain fact that since they started security inside Israel has improved a great deal and that terrorist attacks have diminished by a factor of about 95%.
in the past 3 weeks around 15 Israeli civilians have been killed in two suicide attacks.
In the month before the Israeli operation the number was more like 150 and we had about two attacks a day....
Get it ?
[ 04-20-2002: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
Interesting site you linked to, a progressive page filled with half-truths and blatant lies. Read any of the stuff they say about Israel on there?
And the study from the professor used Taliban estimates, which were found to be inflated by 15 times or made up entirely by UN investigators. This is old stuff.
The U.S. has killed civlians in Afghanistan, but not as many as Israel and we are not occupying Afghani land and enforcing our laws on them. There is a difference between a quick war and occupation and illegal annexation.
--
Steve666:
[quote]Theres no reason that israel shouldn't give back 100% of the land? How about security. Yes, Israelis are entitled to security.<hr></blockquote>
They are entitled to security, but not to occupy land that does not belong to them. Security concerns do not justify imperialism.
[quote]Why should Israel trust a body that is anti-Israeli?<hr></blockquote>
The UN created Israel, how is the UN anti-Israel?
[quote]They will make one up.<hr></blockquote>
Excellent logic. You're working overtime with this one.
Of course innocent civilians died in Afghanistan, and of course innocent Palestinians died in Israels attacks on terrorists in the West bank. We have no more justification for our actions than Israel did. They are both justified.
Fact of the matter is-if there were no terrorist attacks against Israel then Israel would never have moved back into thee West bank. Israel wanted to talk, Arafat wanted to kill. Theres the difference........................................ .......
<strong>rashamon:
Interesting site you linked to, a progressive page filled with half-truths and blatant lies. Read any of the stuff they say about Israel on there?
And the study from the professor used Taliban estimates, which were found to be inflated by 15 times or made up entirely by UN investigators. This is old stuff.
The U.S. has killed civlians in Afghanistan, but not as many as Israel and we are not occupying Afghani land and enforcing our laws on them. There is a difference between a quick war and occupation and illegal annexation.
--
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting to see you didn't reply to my point re the effectivness of the current militay operation in the OT.
Interesting how you choose to ignore the facts when they relate to your great country but when it Israel you will belive any rumor.... says a thing or two about you .....
Just to back my point up with some more links:
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1740000/1740538.stm"; target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1740000/1740538.stm</a>;
<a href="http://www.amnesty-usa.org/news/2001/afghanistan10262001.html"; target="_blank">http://www.amnesty-usa.org/news/2001/afghanistan10262001.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=107010"; target="_blank">http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=107010</a>;
<a href="http://www.fair.org/activism/afghanistan-casualties.html"; target="_blank">http://www.fair.org/activism/afghanistan-casualties.html</a>;
Funny that when these same news organisations say the same stuff about Israel you will quote them happily but when the same data is put against you you will flatly deny it.....
Read these links ... they talk about the US millitary blocking access to war zones, about the US media failing to report the correct numbers of civilian casualties .... etc... sound familiar ?
I will say this again:
I am not against the US actions in Afghanistan, they are necessary I'm only pointing out the moral duplicity applied here by you and the world media.
I do belive ( as do a masive mjority of Israelis )
that the occupation must end, but it has to end through negotiations and not terrorism and it has to fully provide for Israel's security- that means that a solution will not relay on the UN's 'peace keeping force' as it has been proven on the Israeli Lebanese border the UN is completly inaffective at protecting either side !
Israel has been draged into this war it did not want it .... ask any Israeli and they will tell you they respect the Palestinian's right for self determination. this is not about the occupation its about the plain right of Israel to exist and if you can't see that you are either ignorant of the full facts or simply choose to take the simplistic stand that the stronger side is the wrong side....
BTW when you talk about 'Illegal occupation' what exactly are you talking about ? Israel tried to return the OT to the Arabs afer they lost their Illegal war on it in 67 but they rejected any negotiating with the Evil Zionist entity as they call it....
SO so many things that the arabs have done have been illegal i dont see all you anti Israeli people railing against them.....
And the bottom line is ...All war is evil and people die ( that's the point of having it in the first place) if the Arabs want it to stop they need to do one simple thing- stop their terror ! if they don't Israel has any right to defend it self and nothing any of you can say will change that ! Israelis will not see their people die and sit idle just to apease your twisted moral and historic preconceptions.
[ 04-21-2002: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
Your second link gives no numbers.
The third link is an anecdote of civilians being killed, which I wholly agree happens.
The fourth link uses the same bullshit professor in New Hampshire as a source that the first two links you posted leads to.
Not matter how many different ways you point at a pile of shit it remains a pile of shit.
--
If the U.S. takes on a policy of settling Afghani land and enforcing U.S. law on Afghani people I will vehemently oppose it.
Civlians die in conflict, I am not against the IDF's actions recently because civilians have been killed, I am opposed the methods they employ.
The end does not justify the means.
I am not someone who believes that my government only acts in the holiest of ways, but the particular source you point to is rubbish. If we can get the U.N. or some other verifiable and trustworthy source (a professor sitting in New Hampshire does not count) I will believe it fully.
[quote]SO so many things that the arabs have done have been illegal i dont see all you anti Israeli people railing against them.....<hr></blockquote>
Just as you have barely spoken against your own nation's actions. This is how debate works. How do you expect people to argue both sides when 95% of your own words are one-sided and 5% talk about your own nation's flawed action?
Everyone is supposed to be 50/50 except you?
--
Occupation causes terror. Terror causes Israeli deaths. If the end of occupation does not curb terror then the groups will have to be dealt with an effective way (i.e. - killing large groups of the ****ers quickly and brutally). Occupation will not and is not helping.
And it is not just about security. How the hell are Israeli settlement camps about security?
<strong>
They are entitled to security, but not to occupy land that does not belong to them. Security concerns do not justify imperialism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure they do.
[quote]Why should Israel trust a body that is anti-Israeli?
<strong>The UN created Israel, how is the UN anti-Israel?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That was back in ?48. What has the U.N. done for Israel lately? Come on, grover, you know better than this.
<strong>
Occupation causes terror. Terror causes Israeli deaths. If the end of occupation does not curb terror then the groups will have to be dealt with an effective way (i.e. - killing large groups of the ****ers quickly and brutally). Occupation will not and is not helping.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This latest Intifada began after Israel had withdrawn from most of the West Bank and Gaza and after Israel had made those unprecedented concessions at Wye River. Your "logic" doesn't hold up in light of this chronology.
The latest intifada started as a result of Ariel Sharon and over 1,000 Israeli troops visiting al-Haram ash-Sharif on April 28, 2000.
And that IS the cause. <a href="http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/16ec5d0cfab45921852569ae00502c5e!OpenDocument"; target="_blank">But, of course, the U.N. is just an anti-Israel busybody bent on seing the destruction of the Semites.</a>
The fact that they were unprecedented only tells of how long Israel has gotten away with violating international laws. Since the early 80s the U.S. has blocked any attempts by the UN to mediate in the region. (Read UN Resolution 497 and how its enforcement was blocked by the U.S.)
[quote]That was back in ?48. What has the U.N. done for Israel lately? Come on, grover, you know better than this.<hr></blockquote>
Is this from the Janet Jackson School of International Diplomacy?
The U.N. has been vocal against Israel's aggressive and illegal actions, yes, but that is what they are supposed to do.
Also, the major nation of the world (and U.N.) gives them billions of dollars per year in aide, that's a lot being done for them. I think your diplomatic mentor Janet (Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) would agree. That nation has asked for Israel's withdrawal as well, so who will dictate your new outlook on the region? Jermaine's "Dynamite" or "Don't Take it Personal"?
[ 04-21-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>
The latest intifada started as a result of Ariel Sharon and over 1,000 Israeli troops visiting al-Haram ash-Sharif on April 28, 2000.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is what Palestinian Communications Minister Imad Faluji said at a PLO rally in South Lebanon on 2 March 2001:
"It [the uprising] had been planned since [PA] Chairman [Yasser] Arafat's return from Camp David, when he turned the tables on the former US president and rejected the American conditions," Falouji said.
[quote]<strong>Is this from the Janet Jackson School of International Diplomacy?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Why do you ask? Clearly you are her star pupil. I can be as big a pain-in-the-a$$ as anybody but you're not exactly the most diplomatic poster I've ever encountered.
Anyway, the question was, "What has the U.N. done for Israel lately?" You apparently can't think of anything either.
When did Arafat get back from Camp David?
Also, whether the cause was Israel's unwillingness to give back land that isn't theirs or an overtly offensive and provocative action by one of Israel's most important political leaders I fail to see a difference.
[quote]I can be as big a pain-in-the-a$$ as anybody but you're not exactly the most diplomatic poster I've ever encountered.<hr></blockquote>
I'm only being a smart-ass for your amusement, roger, you know I love you. Give us a kiss, love.
A lot of people have said that I'm the "either your best friend or worst enemy" type, but I think I'm just misunderstood.
[quote]Anyway, the question was, "What has the U.N. done for Israel lately?" You apparently can't think of anything either.<hr></blockquote>
I really don't know what you mean by this. What has the U.N. "done for" anyone else lately?
I wasn't aware that the U.N. meetings had door prizes.
I guess you could say the U.N. has allowed Israel to do whatever the hell it wants without anything more than written reprisals. Surely being given carte blanche by the entity that created you is something.
Also, as I said above, the U.S. has given Israel tens of billions of dollars and is asking them to withdraw as well.
<strong>
When did Arafat get back from Camp David?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don?t know. Why do you ask? Faluji?s remarks predated Sharon?s visit to the Temple Mount which you said caused this Intifada. Clearly that?s not the case.
[quote]<strong>Also, whether the cause was Israel's unwillingness to give back land that isn't theirs or an overtly offensive and provocative action by one of Israel's most important political leaders I fail to see a difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or the cause might just be the Palestinian desire to destroy Israel. Seems to me that Palestinians could have their land if they were serious about making peace. This isn?t something they?ve ever been willing to put to the test.
[quote]<strong>I'm only being a smart-ass for your amusement, roger, you know I love you. Give us a kiss, love.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Same here but you ain?t getting any kisses from me. I may be easy but I?m not cheap. You haven?t even bought me flowers.
[quote]Anyway, the question was, "What has the U.N. done for Israel lately?" You apparently can't think of anything either.
<strong>I really don't know what you mean by this. What has the U.N. "done for" anyone else lately?
I wasn't aware that the U.N. meetings had door prizes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The original complaint was that the U.N. was anti-Israel. You pointed to an event over a half a century ago in attempt to refute that statement. If you can?t come up with anything more recent than that, then you really haven?t made much of a point.
[quote]<strong>Also, as I said above, the U.S. has given Israel tens of billions of dollars and is asking them to withdraw as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And the Arab world has poured money into the Palestinian cause. So?
Because I don't know the context of that quote. What does "the uprising" mean?
[quote]Or the cause might just be the Palestinian desire to destroy Israel. Seems to me that Palestinians could have their land if they were serious about making peace. This isn?t something they?ve ever been willing to put to the test.<hr></blockquote>
How are the Palestinians to have their own land if it is not given to them first?
By using the logic that Palestinians simply want to destroy Israel you are asking people to assume that the will of the extremist groups represent the people, all the while the well-documented zionist policies of many extremist Israelis are brushed to the side. Is that reasonable?
What of Ariel Sharon saying "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." at a meeting of the Tsomet party in November of 1998?
This is the prime minister of a powerful military nation. Not some terrorist holed up in a cave or some warlord whose "army" consisted of a few hundred regular joes with Kalishnikovs (sp?).
[quote]You haven?t even bought me flowers.<hr></blockquote>
You are so beautiful, Rog, you should be guarded by monkeys.
[quote]The original complaint was that the U.N. was anti-Israel. You pointed to an event over a half a century ago in attempt to refute that statement. If you can?t come up with anything more recent than that, then you really haven?t made much of a point.<hr></blockquote>
What has the U.N. done to make it seem anti-Israel?
Pro-international law != anti-Israel, by the way.
[quote]And the Arab world has poured money into the Palestinian cause. So?<hr></blockquote>
It's not even comparable.
The lowest level Palestinian combatant throws stones and the lowest level Israeli combatant throws automatic weapon fire and grenades. The cream of the Palestinian soldier crop has an AK-47 and maybe some rocket-powered grenades. The cream of the Israeli soldier crop has armored helicopters, tanks and heavy artillery.
Also, you completely evaded the actual point I made.
You seem to think that someone must bribe Israel to get them to obey international law by pulling out of Palestinian territory. The U.S. gives them billions of dollars every year and has asked them to withdraw immediately. Yet they do not. What more can be given to Israel to get them to follow the rules? Trillions?
Yet they do not. What more can be given to Israel to get them to follow the rules? Trillions?
How about not getting blown up while going to the disco and during dinner? I don't think thats asking too much.....................................
<strong>
Occupation causes terror. Terror causes Israeli deaths.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mmm Interesting so how would you explain the long string of terror and wars brought on Israel by the Arabs that happened before 1967 when the OT were not occupied ?
BTW. I'm not saying the occupation isn't bad and that its not a part of the problem - as an Israeli I fully take responsibility for Israel's part in the mess, but saying that the occupation is the only source of the problem is sticking yer head in the sand !
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
If the end of occupation does not curb terror then the groups will have to be dealt with an effective way (i.e. - killing large groups of the ****ers quickly and brutally). Occupation will not and is not helping.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL, isn't this exactly what Israel is doing right now in the current operation in the OT ?
We tried to negotiate and to end the occupation, we were as restrained as any country can be for over 18 months while the Palestinians turned their backs on the talks. and only after more then 450 Israeli deaths Israel went in and stopped this celebration on Israeli blood.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
The latest intifada started as a result of Ariel Sharon and over 1,000 Israeli troops visiting al-Haram ash-Sharif on April 28, 2000.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is such a stupid bunch of lies .....
At the time ( sep 2000) Ariel Sharon was the head of the main opposition party he went on a visit to Judaism's holiest site in Israel's capital city. Now how the hell does this justify the uprising ( intefada ) and the subsequent blood-shed is beyond me.
Jews or Christians did not start rioting when Arafat visited the church of the holly sepulchre or the Jewish wailing wall ... Israel is a free country, the head of the opposition can go wherever he pleases and the sheer fact the the Palestinians used this as an excuse to start the violence is witness to their brutality and disrespect for democratic values.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
Also, as I said above, the U.S. has given Israel tens of billions of dollars and is asking them to withdraw as well.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is simply not true re OT: The consistent view of consecutive US administrations is that this is a problem to be resolved on the negotiating table and not as a result of a single sided concession on Israel's part .. in this respect the views of the US and Israel are completely in line with each other.
Also Israel has been a very valuable friend to the US as well, it has consistently been the US's most dependable ally in the middle east and in helping the broader US strategic aim of moderating and maintaining peace in the middle east. Consecutive administrations and the US Congress are not dumb they know that the US's strong support of Israel is in line with American interests as much as its an Israeli interest.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don?t know. Why do you ask? Faluji?s remarks predated Sharon?s visit to the Temple Mount which you said caused this Intifada. Clearly that?s not the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I don't know the context of that quote. What does "the uprising" mean?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL are just pretending or are you trying your best to act stupid. this statement is a clear indication that the Palestinian leadership realized after the Camp David talks that its time to start using force to try and get what they didn't get on the table ... everyone knows this, will you stop ignoring it...
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
What of Ariel Sharon saying "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." at a meeting of the Tsomet party in November of 1998?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who do you think put this man power in israel ?
it was Arafat ! previosly to Sharon being elected we had the most dovish man as PM - Ehod Barak was willing to band over backwards to please Arafat who replied to him only with rejection and violence, as a result Israelis got fed up of trying to chase the PA and Arafat around for peace and elected hawkish Sharon. if it wasn't for Arafat's uprising we would have had a Palestinian state in the OT and Barak still as PM today !
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
What has the U.N. done to make it seem anti-Israel?
Pro-international law != anti-Israel, by the way.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The UN has proven it cannot deal with the issue of Israel, during the 70's it released a racist resolution equating Zionism with racism. it has consistently released one sided anti Israeli resolutions in the past 30 years and In its most important role in the area in the last few years: securing peace on the Israeli Lebanese border it has failed dismally. Providing cover and sometimes even helping Hizbullah fighters attack Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers and on the other hand tying Israel's hands when it comes to defending its LEGAL borders and its citizens !
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
You seem to think that someone must bribe Israel to get them to obey international law by pulling out of Palestinian territory. The U.S. gives them billions of dollars every year and has asked them to withdraw immediately. Yet they do not. What more can be given to Israel to get them to follow the rules? Trillions?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Israel is not in the territories against international law according to UN resolution 242, Israel is in fact doing its most to follow security council resolutions . this resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israel to agreed borders and to agreements to be signed as a result of peaceful negotiations ... which is exactly what Israel's been trying to do !
And as I have said before- The US has never asked Israel to withdraw immediately like you say ... the only thing this administration asked Israel to do is to end the current operation a.s.a.p... which Israel is doing !
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
The U.S. has killed civlians in Afghanistan, but not as many as Israel and we are not occupying Afghani land and enforcing our laws on them. There is a difference between a quick war and occupation and illegal annexation.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
--
Israel has never annexed the OT nor is it forcing its foreign laws on the population ... since the Oslo peace accords have been sighed in 1993 95% of Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza have been living under their own PA government lead by Arafat under their own (corrupt) administration and with their own laws.
[ 04-22-2002: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
Arabs of the area found themselves pushed and forced out of their own towns, villages, and homes (and massacred if they refused) for a people who were an incredibly small minority. This was the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries...
Bottom line? The Arab population has a RIGHT to their lands that were TAKEN AWAY. In my view, however, this should NOT bring to a destruction of the Israeli state.
It may seem a bit of a weird analogy, but I do not understand why a similar setup as is done here in Belgium cannot be attempted in Israel/Palestine. There are three official languages here and two very distinct cultures that, through ups and downs, still all live in one country.
BTW, groverat, great arguements and defence. But I DO see a slight similarity to what we did to American Indians and their right to their lands. But anyway, thats a different story... at least they arent blowing themselves up.
Just a few things Pokemon:
[quote] Israel is not in the territories against international law according to UN resolution 242, Israel is in fact doing its most to follow security council resolutions . this resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israel to agreed borders and to agreements to be signed as a result of peaceful negotiations ... which is exactly what Israel's been trying to do ! <hr></blockquote> Trying for 35 years? Do they need a compass? The resolution states that a withdrawal is a key to establishing "just and lasting peace in the Middle East"... And; What other UN resolutions have israel followed? The 338? the 1397? the 1402 and the 1403?
[quote]And as I have said before- The US has never asked Israel to withdraw immediately like you say ... the only thing this administration asked Israel to do is to end the current operation a.s.a.p... which Israel is doing ! <hr></blockquote>
Bush said: Isreal must withdraw today, not tomorrow...
[quote]Israel has never annexed the OT nor is it forcing its foreign laws on the population.<hr></blockquote>
What about Jerusalem? It was annexed, after 1967.
And on what started the 2nd intifada? The <a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/mitchell.htm"; target="_blank">Mitchell Committee</a> has written in lengths on the issue. There is no concret evidence of either claim. "Amid rising anger, fear, and mistrust, each side assumed the worst about the other and acted accordingly." the Mitchell Committee writes. Take the time, its a good and ballanced read.
<strong>
_____________________________________________
quote:And as I have said before- The US has never asked Israel to withdraw immediately like you say ... the only thing this administration asked Israel to do is to end the current operation a.s.a.p... which Israel is doing !
_______________________________________________
Bush said: Isreal must withdraw today, not tomorrow...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thats such rubish and you know it
you seem to know the facts and history very well so I would have expected a little more from you New....
Bush was refering to the current millitary operation in the OT not to Israel having to just butt out and leave 100% of the OT he was saying Isarel needs to finish the operation a.s.a.p which it did !
He also called Sharon: 'a man of peace the other day'..
That was 35+ years ago. And you should strike the word "terror" from that. Up until 1967 it was outright war against Israel by Arab nations.
[quote]BTW. I'm not saying the occupation isn't bad and that its not a part of the problem - as an Israeli I fully take responsibility for Israel's part in the mess, but saying that the occupation is the only source of the problem is sticking yer head in the sand !<hr></blockquote>
It's the only part of the problem that can be dealt with by simple actions. If you pull out of the territory you lessen the credibility of the Palestinian terrorists. Give them no reason to be angry and they will be as racist freaks that just want all Israelis dead. If you pull out and the terror stops then everyone has won.
[quote]LOL, isn't this exactly what Israel is doing right now in the current operation in the OT ?<hr></blockquote>
Occupying a territory for decades is not quick. The continuing suicide bombings are evidence that it isn't effective, either.
When one method of keeping peace fails, try another.
[quote]We tried to negotiate and to end the occupation, we were as restrained as any country can be for over 18 months while the Palestinians turned their backs on the talks. and only after more then 450 Israeli deaths Israel went in and stopped this celebration on Israeli blood.<hr></blockquote>
Until your government gives back 100% of the Palestinian's territory negotiations are pointless because they will not accept that, and rightfully so. Israel would not accept ~90% of its territory, Israelis would want 100%.
There needn't be negotiations. Give their land back. It's very simple.
[quote]Now how the hell does this justify the uprising ( intefada ) and the subsequent blood-shed is beyond me.<hr></blockquote>
Read the link I posted. Don't feign ignorance.
[quote]The consistent view of consecutive US administrations is that this is a problem to be resolved on the negotiating table and not as a result of a single sided concession on Israel's part .. in this respect the views of the US and Israel are completely in line with each other.<hr></blockquote>
Israel is slowly pulling back at the request of our president. Sharon has backed down and will continue to back down.
Corporate interests generally rule the U.S. government, so using our support as a moral justification is spurious.
[quote]this statement is a clear indication that the Palestinian leadership realized after the Camp David talks that its time to start using force to try and get what they didn't get on the table ... everyone knows this, will you stop ignoring it... <hr></blockquote>
When you don't get your land back you fight for it, that's logical, that's the way the world works.
And yes, I'm not 100% informed on this particular sequence, so I'm trying to learn the facts as I go along so I can get a clearer picture. If Arafat was bent on going after Israel forcefully because Israel wouldn't give 100% of the land back then that makes sense.
[quote]Who do you think put this man power in israel ? it was Arafat !<hr></blockquote>
No, it was the Israeli people. The same people who have had your Prime Ministers killed for being reasonable about the situation.
[quote]The UN has proven it cannot deal with the issue of Israel, during the 70's it released a racist resolution equating Zionism with racism.<hr></blockquote>
Zionism is racism. The belief that the Jews are entitled to the entire region for their nation is racist. Manifest Destiny was racist and so are Arabs who think that the entire region should be theirs.
Perhaps you have a different definition of "Zionism", but that's what it means to most people. The desire for the entire region to be Israel.
[quote]it has consistently released one sided anti Israeli resolutions in the past 30 years and In its most important role in the area in the last few years: securing peace on the Israeli Lebanese border it has failed dismally. Providing cover and sometimes even helping Hizbullah fighters attack Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers and on the other hand tying Israel's hands when it comes to defending its LEGAL borders and its citizens !<hr></blockquote>
Examples?
[quote]Israel is not in the territories against international law according to UN resolution 242, Israel is in fact doing its most to follow security council resolutions . this resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israel to agreed borders and to agreements to be signed as a result of peaceful negotiations ... which is exactly what Israel's been trying to do ! <hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00p40"; target="_blank">U.N. Security Council Resolution 242</a> was released on November 22, 1967. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
The UN security called for Israel's immediate withdrawal in 1981 with Resolution 497. Christ, you guys must move reeeeeaaallly slow.
Trying very hard to play nice, I know you are.
[quote]Israel has never annexed the OT nor is it forcing its foreign laws on the population ... since the Oslo peace accords have been sighed in 1993 95% of Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza have been living under their own PA government lead by Arafat under their own (corrupt) administration and with their own laws.<hr></blockquote>
95% under PA authority... what of the other 5%?