[Taliesin]

I haven't expected such a development.

What I have expected though was that such a cease-fire-agreement would not be easy to be kept thoroughly through all the ranks and militant groups and cells of Palestine.

To confirm that expectation some islamic jihad- and hamas-cells have fired a few rockets into Israel. Hamas' military wing justifies its action by saying that Israel's military has not yet completely withdrawn from Gaza, while Islamic Jihad calls for Israel's withdrawal from the Westbank before they would accept a ceasefire.

Still it's great news, and if Israel keeps its restraint while the palestinians get control of all the groups and subgroups it could lead to a new round of direct or indirect peace-negotiations between Israel and Palestine.

Source: BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel vows ceasefire 'patience'

Taliesin

[marden]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

I haven't expected such a development.

What I have expected though was that such a cease-fire-agreement would not be easy to be kept thoroughly through all the ranks and militant groups and cells of Palestine.

To confirm that expectation some islamic jihad- and hamas-cells have fired a few rockets into Israel. Hamas' military wing justifies its action by saying that Israel's military has not yet completely withdrawn from Gaza, while Islamic Jihad calls for Israel's withdrawal from the Westbank before they would accept a ceasefire.

Still it's great news, and if Israel keeps its restraint while the palestinians get control of all the groups and subgroups it could lead to a new round of direct or indirect peace-negotiations between Israel and Palestine.

Source: BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel vows ceasefire 'patience'

Taliesin

While I and any other peace loving person will hope for the best, it must be said that this is not a novel step in the long history between Israel & the Palestinians, but merely the latest.

We will cross our fingers and watch with interest, mindful of the following concept well established in Islam:

Hudna (هدنة) is an Arabic term meaning "truce" or "armistice" as well as "calm" or "quiet", coming from a verbal root meaning "calm". It is sometimes translated as "cease-fire". In the Lisan al-Arab (Ibn al-Manzur's definitive dictionary of classical Arabic, dating to the 14th century) it is defined as follows:

"hadana: he grew quiet. hadina: he quieted (transitive or intransitive). haadana: he made peace with. The noun from each of these is hudna."

A particularly famous early hudna was the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah between Muhammad and the Quraysh tribe.

According to Umdat as-Salik, a medieval summary of Shafi'i jurisprudence, hudnas with a non-Muslim enemy should be limited to 10 years: "if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud" ('Umdat as-Salik, o9.16).

[...]

Its proponents commonly argued that such a cease-fire would allow hostility to die down and make a full reconciliation possible; its opponents commonly argued that it would be a mere tactical maneuver enabling Palestinian groups to re-group and muster their strength in preparation for further attacks on Israelis, or Israel to continue expanding settlements, blockading Palestinian towns, and arresting members of such groups

Reference.com/Encyclopedia/Hudna

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

I haven't expected such a development.

What I have expected though was that such a cease-fire-agreement would not be easy to be kept thoroughly through all the ranks and militant groups and cells of Palestine.

To confirm that expectation some islamic jihad- and hamas-cells have fired a few rockets into Israel. Hamas' military wing justifies its action by saying that Israel's military has not yet completely withdrawn from Gaza, while Islamic Jihad calls for Israel's withdrawal from the Westbank before they would accept a ceasefire.

So what you're really saying is that Hamas signed an agreement and then violated that agreement by launching a few rockets into Israel.

There is NO separation between Hamas-the-ruling-government, Hamas-the-military-wing, Hamas-the-charitable-wing, or any other wing people wish to come up with a label for.

More than this, they're saying they are justified in violating the ceasefire THEY agreed to because the terms they agreed to aren't the terms they really wanted.

Still it's great news, and if Israel keeps its restraint while the palestinians get control of all the groups and subgroups it could lead to a new round of direct or indirect peace-negotiations between Israel and Palestine.

Nonsense - This isn't a ceasefire, this is a re-arming of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and a PR move to get money flowing from Europe again.

Peace negotiations only work when both parties intend to actually make peace.

Let me know when Hamas says that they:
* publicly renounce the terms of their charter that dictate the violent destruction of the Zionist entity, and
* agree to recognize Israel and live in a state alongside Israel, the reciprocal to what Israel has agreed to since before there was an Israel - (1937, 1947, Oslo, Wye River, Camp David, 2001, 2005.)

[ebuddy]

Meanwhile, more rockets are being lobbed into Israel. You cannot have a cease-fire when the firing has not been ceased. Instead of lobbing rockets into Israel, they should be killing the Hamas leadership who agreed to a cease-fire under conditions the militant factions are unable to agree to.

Some say; "The Israeli should pull out of Gaza". Unfortunately, they already had begun to prior to the agreement, including a unit that monitored and countered enemy rocket-launching activity. We see where that withdrawal got them.

[Pendergast]

I agree that such cease-fires, in the last few years, have proven to be "buffer-zones" where the parties would somehow reorganize to better attack each other.

So I am not expecting any Peace in that region for the next 100 years or so.

[Spliffdaddy]

When did war become something that must be undertaken in a politically-correct manner?

Disputes like this one used to be ended in a matter of days or hours. One side lost and one side won. The winner wasn't always right and the loser wasn't always wrong.

Today it is wrong to win a war - regardless of its merit.

"Innocent civilians" are not to be touched - as if a country's army wasn't made up of civilians. Well where did the army come from if not from the "innocent" population? Who made the weapons? Who fed the army? Where does a nation's army get its support?

I'm telling you right now that when America's military goes to war they do not leave behind a nation full of innocent civilians. They leave behind a nation of citizens that are also fighting alongside their military. The only thing that makes me "innocent" is the fact that I don't wear a uniform.

Our current generation will never know victory at war. Because world opinion won't allow a decisive victory. It won't allow an entire army to be destroyed - just the ones wearing uniforms.

Remember that, folks, when you come to defeat the United States. You're only allowed to kill the 3 million Americans that wear uniforms. The other 297 million soldiers cannot be harmed. They are innocent.

[Spliffdaddy]

That's a long-winded way of saying "there are no civilians in Palestine".


If you desire to have a nation that cannot be defeated militarily, all you need to do is have an army of of one individual.

When that lone soldier is killed, world opinion dictates that the war is over. There are nothing but civilians left.

Of course, the conflict remains unresolved. But world opinion has been satisfied.


This is going to be a hard notion to accept, but it's the cold hard facts when it comes to war...

When a mortar round explodes in Gaza it never kills innocent civilians. When a rocket lands in an Israeli produce market it never kills innocent civilians.

Your nation is *you*. All it's faults, misguided ideology, and all the good things, as well. If you can't fathom giving your life for your nation, then you have 2 choices - kill yourself or move.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

That's a long-winded way of saying "there are no civilians in Palestine".

Oh there is I am sure. They are just few and far between. Considering the majority of them support or take part in terrorism.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

That's a long-winded way of saying "there are no civilians in Palestine".

You already answered this in your previous post, but it's worth repeating: Are there any civilians in America?

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

If you desire to have a nation that cannot be defeated militarily, all you need to do is have an army of of one individual.

When that lone soldier is killed, world opinion dictates that the war is over. There are nothing but civilians left.

Of course, the conflict remains unresolved. But world opinion has been satisfied.

And, what is the down-side to this plan?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You already answered this in your previous post, but it's worth repeating: Are there any civilians in America?

nope

And, what is the down-side to this plan?

What 'plan'? I'm just telling you the facts of life.

Wars are not won by merely defeating uniformed soldiers. Wars are won when the losing nation's population agrees they have been defeated. (see also; Iraq)

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

When did war become something that must be undertaken in a politically-correct manner?

Disputes like this one used to be ended in a matter of days or hours. One side lost and one side won. The winner wasn't always right and the loser wasn't always wrong.

Today it is wrong to win a war - regardless of its merit.

"Innocent civilians" are not to be touched - as if a country's army wasn't made up of civilians. Well where did the army come from if not from the "innocent" population? Who made the weapons? Who fed the army? Where does a nation's army get its support?

I'm telling you right now that when America's military goes to war they do not leave behind a nation full of innocent civilians. They leave behind a nation of citizens that are also fighting alongside their military. The only thing that makes me "innocent" is the fact that I don't wear a uniform.

Our current generation will never know victory at war. Because world opinion won't allow a decisive victory. It won't allow an entire army to be destroyed - just the ones wearing uniforms.

Remember that, folks, when you come to defeat the United States. You're only allowed to kill the 3 million Americans that wear uniforms. The other 297 million soldiers cannot be harmed. They are innocent.

While your sentiments on the difficulty of winning a war today are probably correct, you have a rather poor/incorrect historical perspective on warfare, I'm afraid.

greg

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

When did war become something that must be undertaken in a politically-correct manner?

The moment someone decided that total annihilation of their enemy wasn't the goal.

I keep on hearing that we could have won Vietnam in three days by bombing the hell out of the North.

Sheee-yit. A couple'a tac-nukes would have shut them "gooks" down in about 20 minutes.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by subego 

The moment someone decided that total annihilation of their enemy wasn't the goal.

I keep on hearing that we could have won Vietnam in three days by bombing the hell out of the North.

Sheee-yit. A couple'a tac-nukes would have shut them "gooks" down in about 20 minutes.

You did bomb the hell out of the North. For years.

And total annihilation of the enemy has rarely been the goal of warfare, except in the past hundred years.

Know much?

greg

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You did bomb the hell out of the North. For years.

Hence the questionable nature of the three day comment. A statement made more vacuous if one is allowed to retroactively determine victory conditions (total annihilation).

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

And total annihilation of the enemy has rarely been the goal of warfare, except in the past hundred years.

Hence my statement could be read as "a long time ago" but having some confidence in the reader I didn't think I needed to spell that out.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Know much?

I know that when I disagree with something I should take a step back and make sure I'm not misunderstanding things before I whip out the ad hominem.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

When did war become something that must be undertaken in a politically-correct manner?

Disputes like this one used to be ended in a matter of days or hours. One side lost and one side won. The winner wasn't always right and the loser wasn't always wrong.

Today it is wrong to win a war - regardless of its merit.

"Innocent civilians" are not to be touched - as if a country's army wasn't made up of civilians. Well where did the army come from if not from the "innocent" population? Who made the weapons? Who fed the army? Where does a nation's army get its support?

I'm telling you right now that when America's military goes to war they do not leave behind a nation full of innocent civilians. They leave behind a nation of citizens that are also fighting alongside their military. The only thing that makes me "innocent" is the fact that I don't wear a uniform.

Our current generation will never know victory at war. Because world opinion won't allow a decisive victory. It won't allow an entire army to be destroyed - just the ones wearing uniforms.

Remember that, folks, when you come to defeat the United States. You're only allowed to kill the 3 million Americans that wear uniforms. The other 297 million soldiers cannot be harmed. They are innocent.

So using your reasoning, Al Qaeda treated anyone in the Twin towers as foot soldiers?

[ironknee]

damn. it means jesus ain't coming back sooner

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Pendergast 

So using your reasoning, Al Qaeda treated anyone in the Twin towers as foot soldiers?

Apparently so.

They seem to subscribe to the same beliefs that I tried to convey in my earlier posts.

We're fighting the war with a different set of beliefs - which could explain the difficulty we're experiencing (see also; Israel).

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Hence the questionable nature of the three day comment. A statement made more vacuous if one is allowed to retroactively determine victory conditions (total annihilation).

I know that when I disagree with something I should take a step back and make sure I'm not misunderstanding things before I whip out the ad hominem.

Well hell, ya gotta start using those sarcasm tags on me, then. Hey, come on, cut me some slack..."some" people on here really do think the Vietnam War could've been won in three more days (I'm looking at you, "That's a fact" Kevin).



greg

[Kevin]

Short I have been told that many times from different people. I claimed that it has been said.

Do you do anything but make juvenile ad hominems?

Originally Posted by subego 

I know that when I disagree with something I should take a step back and make sure I'm not misunderstanding things before I whip out the ad hominem.

Indeed.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well hell, ya gotta start using those sarcasm tags on me, then. Hey, come on, cut me some slack..."some" people on here really do think the Vietnam War could've been won in three more days (I'm looking at you, "That's a fact" Kevin).



greg

If what we were doing then is what we are trying to do now in Iraq ( give them the ASSISTANCE they need to stand up to the enemy so we might stand down) then, yes, we lost the war because we abandoned the South Vietnamese when they were counting on us and needed us most.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Pendergast 

So using your reasoning, Al Qaeda treated anyone in the Twin towers as foot soldiers?

According to many of Al Qaeda's statements and advertisements, that is exactly what they did. They rationalize the killing of innocents with the claim that there are no innocents. Hamas operates under a similar rationale.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

That's a long-winded way of saying "there are no civilians in Palestine".

Then by your logic there are no innocent civilians in Israel. And anyone in the twin towers was not innocent either.

Way to throw out the baby with the bath water Spliff.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by marden 

If what we were doing then is what we are trying to do now in Iraq ( give them the ASSISTANCE they need to stand up to the enemy so we might stand down) then, yes, we lost the war because we abandoned the South Vietnamese when they were counting on us and needed us most.

That is not what the United States was doing in Vietnam, as you well know. And there was no mention of the US losing the war before this post; I mentioned a theory that the US could've won the war if they had "lasted three more days," according to Kevin. Don't create straw-man arguments to make your tired old irrelevant points here.

Please see this thread for a humorous look at the debate we're talking about. And look, it talks about a possible new option for Iraq. Surprising you didn't post. [/sarcasm]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Do you do anything but make juvenile ad hominems?

And do you do anything but keep changing your position when you are blatantly wrong, while refusing to admit your error? For example:

Short I have been told that many times from different people. I claimed that it has been said.

While from the other thread, you say:

Shortcut again, had we lasted out 3 more days the NAM war would have been over, and we would have won.
...
This isn't up for debate.
...
Just stating the facts.
...
No matter what I pasted or linked you'd poo poo it. Lets be honest with ourselves.

Give it up, Kevin.

greg

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Then by your logic there are no innocent civilians in Israel. And anyone in the twin towers was not innocent either.

Way to throw out the baby with the bath water Spliff.

yes, I said exactly that.

Seems a lot of folks want to make a distinction between civilian and soldier. As if there's some huge discernable difference. In reality, there is no difference. The so-called 'civilians' are wholly responsible for the existence of the military. You can go from civilian to soldier without even trying - simply by checking your mail and opening the draft notice.

"But, Spliff, the soldiers are paid to do their job."

Yeah, and your civilian ass is paying the salary. And buying or building the weapons they use and the food they eat.

Just like civilians, not all soldiers fight on the battlefield. Some repair aircraft - just as civilians do. Some provide logistical support - just as civilians do. The list is infinite.

Soldiers exist because of civilians, not in spite of them.

So why doesn't the USA just eliminate their military altogether? That way we can *never* be defeated in a war.

You can have the opinion that there are civilians. But you can't base that opinion on any reasonable facts.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And international commerce provides much of that money. So I guess your average Japanese citizen is just as much a U.S. soldier as a Marine getting shot right now in Iraq, right? Because absolutely any vague connection to the military makes a person a soldier these days, apparently.

We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims.

Osama bin Laden

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ho/miller.html

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

Osama bin Laden

frontline: hunting bin laden: who is bin laden?: greetings, america. my name is osama bin laden | PBS

Would you say Osama bin Laden is somebody you generally look up to and seek guidance from?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

So what you're really saying is that Hamas signed an agreement and then violated that agreement by launching a few rockets into Israel.

There is NO separation between Hamas-the-ruling-government, Hamas-the-military-wing, Hamas-the-charitable-wing, or any other wing people wish to come up with a label for.

More than this, they're saying they are justified in violating the ceasefire THEY agreed to because the terms they agreed to aren't the terms they really wanted.


Nonsense - This isn't a ceasefire, this is a re-arming of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and a PR move to get money flowing from Europe again.

Peace negotiations only work when both parties intend to actually make peace.

Let me know when Hamas says that they:
* publicly renounce the terms of their charter that dictate the violent destruction of the Zionist entity, and
* agree to recognize Israel and live in a state alongside Israel, the reciprocal to what Israel has agreed to since before there was an Israel - (1937, 1947, Oslo, Wye River, Camp David, 2001, 2005.)

Like I already said, it wouldn't be so easy to stop all militant and terror-groups and cells operating in Gaza. It takes time, and as far as I know only three rockets flew into Israel, doing no harm, and now it seems to have stopped completely.

Regarding your other argument, that Hamas and IJ might use the cease-fire to better rearm (They rearm already, ceasefire or not). That's possible and even likely, but still it's the only practical solution toward trust-building and peace-negotiations, as well as to the prisoner-kidnapping-deal.

Unfortunately though, Israel seems to view the ceasefire as only limited to Gaza, in the Westbank Israel's army killed armed palestinians.

It would be way better if the ceasefire-agreement would be quickly extended to the Westbank, too.

Europe, by the way, won't financially aid the Hamas-government until there is a new government in place ready to recognize Israel, to renounce the use of violence against civilians and to accept past signed agreements.

I don't think that Hamas will renounce its maximalistic doctrine and charter so quickly. They still dream of the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an islamic state where jews, christians and muslims live side by side under the dominance of Islam.

The question though, when will you, vmarks, renounce the dream of establishing "Greater Israel" and committing ethnic cleansing of palestinians or worse?

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Meanwhile, more rockets are being lobbed into Israel. You cannot have a cease-fire when the firing has not been ceased. Instead of lobbing rockets into Israel, they should be killing the Hamas leadership who agreed to a cease-fire under conditions the militant factions are unable to agree to.

Some say; "The Israeli should pull out of Gaza". Unfortunately, they already had begun to prior to the agreement, including a unit that monitored and countered enemy rocket-launching activity. We see where that withdrawal got them.

Apparently the withdrawal from Gaza and the stop of Israel's military operations in Gaza, got them very far.

Apart from the three rockets that flew into Israel at the beginning of the ceasefire, it has worked.

Unfortunately though, Israel limits the ceasefire to Gaza, and killed armed palestinians in the Westbank. It would be way better if the ceasefire got extended to the Westbank, too, as quickly as possible.

Taliesin

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Would you say Osama bin Laden is somebody you generally look up to and seek guidance from?

Why bring only a knife to a gunfight?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

* agree to recognize Israel and live in a state alongside Israel, the reciprocal to what Israel has agreed to since before there was an Israel - (1937, 1947, Oslo, Wye River, Camp David, 2001, 2005.)

1. Has Israel recognized Palestine?
2. Has Israel declared what borders Hamas would be recognizing?
3. Did Western Germany recognize Eastern Germany and did Eastern Germany recognize Western Germany?
3. Does China recognize Taiwan?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Hey, come on, cut me some slack...

S'no worries.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

1. Has Israel recognized Palestine?
2. Has Israel declared what borders Hamas would be recognizing?
3. Did Western Germany recognize Eastern Germany and did Eastern Germany recognize Western Germany?
3. Does China recognize Taiwan?

Come on, that was a spin. Israel has put it's hand out to recognize Palestine. Palestine just wants Israel gone.

When one side wants the other completely gone, like the Palestinians want the Jews, then how can there be peace?

Israel just wants left a lone.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Like I already said, it wouldn't be so easy to stop all militant and terror-groups and cells operating in Gaza. It takes time, and as far as I know only three rockets flew into Israel, doing no harm, and now it seems to have stopped completely.

Regarding your other argument, that Hamas and IJ might use the cease-fire to better rearm (They rearm already, ceasefire or not). That's possible and even likely, but still it's the only practical solution toward trust-building and peace-negotiations, as well as to the prisoner-kidnapping-deal.

Unfortunately though, Israel seems to view the ceasefire as only limited to Gaza, in the Westbank Israel's army killed armed palestinians.

It would be way better if the ceasefire-agreement would be quickly extended to the Westbank, too.

Those aren't the terms that Hamas agreed to. If Hamas wants to make an agreement on the so-called West Bank, it has to include that in the terms, not just wish it were so.

Furthermore, Israel has said that this cease-fire will not prevent them from defending themselves against threats. What are armed militants?

Europe, by the way, won't financially aid the Hamas-government until there is a new government in place ready to recognize Israel, to renounce the use of violence against civilians and to accept past signed agreements.

Don't be so sure. Europe will take any sign of hope as a reason to ignore its past position.

I don't think that Hamas will renounce its maximalistic doctrine and charter so quickly. They still dream of the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an islamic state where jews, christians and muslims live side by side under the dominance of Islam.

The question though, when will you, vmarks, renounce the dream of establishing "Greater Israel" and committing ethnic cleansing of palestinians or worse?

Taliesin

I have never dreamed of a "Greater Israel." I have repeatedly shown that you do not understand what the term "Greater Israel" means.

Similarly, I have never supported ethnic cleansing or worse. Jabotinsky himself (originator of the "Greater Israel" concept) opposed deportation of Arabs, and so do I. You really are mistaking me with someone else, or you've dreamt up these things about me on your own - I have never supported deportation or genocide.

I do support winning this 50+ year war once and for all, so that peace can come. Until the time that Hamas is so minimized as to be irrelevent, or they reject their charter, no peace can come - not because Israel isn't ready (it is) but because the Palestinian Arabs aren't ready.

Negotiations before both parties are ready is premature and prolongs the violence and death. I would rather see a winning of the war, because the loss of Hamas' hope of success will lead to Palestinians finally being ready for peace, and negotiations will only then be meaningful and lasting.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Let me know when Hamas says that they agree to recognize Israel ...

Of course, the intervening step would be for Israel to define its own borders. As things stand, no one really knows where Israel starts and ends. Its borders are ill-defined and constantly shifting.

[vmarks]

When they refuse to accept the right for anything named Israel to exist, quibbling over precisely where doesn't mean much.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

When they refuse to accept the right for anything named Israel to exist, quibbling over precisely where doesn't mean much.

What good would it do for Hamas to agree in principle to a state of Israel without knowing what that state looks like? An hour after Hamas' agreement, they'd be fighting about what Israel is. There have been decades of negotiations over this point and it is patently impossible to delink the two issues. Hamas is not stupid enough to agree to Israel's right to exist without putting limitations on that right.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Troll 

What good would it do for Hamas to agree in principle to a state of Israel without knowing what that state looks like?

That's what agreeing in principle is — it means that you believe the general idea of something could be all right, but there are specifics that need to be fleshed out before you're satisfied.

Originally Posted by Troll 

An hour after Hamas' agreement, they'd be fighting about what Israel is. There have been decades of negotiations over this point and it is patently impossible to delink the two issues. Hamas is not stupid enough to agree to Israel's right to exist without putting limitations on that right.

They won't even agree to Israel's right to exist with limitations on that right.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

3. Did Western Germany recognize Eastern Germany and did Eastern Germany recognize Western Germany?

Yes but of course. And what it so special about that?

PB.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Of course, the intervening step would be for Israel to define its own borders. As things stand, no one really knows where Israel starts and ends. Its borders are ill-defined and constantly shifting.

The following reader comment and bio stems from this book and author:

Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle by Mark A. Gabriel, Ph.D.

79 of 100 people found the following review helpful:

Why Muslims Hate Israel & Why There Can Never Be Peace., September 11, 2003
Reviewer: M. D Roberts (Gwent, United Kingdom) - See all my reviews

This excellent and revealing book is by Mark Gabriel, a former professor of Islamic History at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. The first section of the contents of this book is devoted to his autobiography, where he is described as a former devout Muslim, who was able to recite the entire contents of the Quran by the age of twelve years. The book reveals the depth of his personal knowledge of Islam and his own participation in fanning the flames of racial hatred towards the Jews.

The autobiographical section at the beginning of this book imparts how the subject finally broke free of his anti-Semitic roots, his hatred of the Jews and tells of his conversion to Christianity. The power of the Gospel is clearly evident in this message.

The book reveals quite clearly the depth of the Islamic hatred of the Jewish people and proceeds to examine it's origins. We are treated to an in-depth analysis of this hatred with much reference to the prophet Muhammad, the Islamic holy books the Quran and the Hadith. Quotations from the latter books being frequently used to corroborate each and every issue discussed in this work. It is revealed that prior to Islam, Arabs and Jews actually "got along". Something which is studied in some detail here.

The book pulls no punches in showing that Western politicians and our media have been utterly and completely duped by the Islamic world into thinking that Islam is in any way a "peaceful" religion.

The historic basis and practice of Islam is discussed together with how Jews and Christians have been historically treated by Islam. The book describes that according to Islamic law, Jews and Christians had the following options; "convert to Islam, pay the tax to the Muslim authority and remain in the faith, or be killed." In other words, "accept Islam or be killed". A sizeable section is devoted to this particular issue, some of which readers might fight disturbing.

Examples are cited where Jews are forced to wear "yellow" clothing and Christians "blue" to identify them as non-Muslims etc., disturbing echoes of what was to come in the twentieth century.

Even the whole basis of the Palestinian-Israeli issue is shown to be based on "religion" and having nothing to do with land. This is illustrated with numerous examples that further expose the disturbing premise that the Palestinian/Arab/Islamic world will never agree to any permanent peace treaty with the Jews, or EVER accept the existence of a Jewish state within their midst. When one hears such words from such an eminent and learned source, so conversant and experienced with the Islamic agenda, it would be foolish to ignore such a warning.

The book does not approach the Palestinian-Israeli issue from a historical or Biblical perspective, but from a Muslim point of view in order that the reader and the World can see the seriousness of the battle that Israel faces and the real issues underlying the conflict. The book reveals the only acceptable solution to Islam as being the destruction of Israel. Muslims believing that the land concerned belongs to Islam and not to any people group....period. No peace negotiation with Israel is acceptable...period. Any agreement by the Palestinians or the Arab world to cede any land to Israel, or even accept an Israeli state, is not acceptable. According to Muslims the land belongs to Islam and cannot be given away. A plethora of quotations are provided to substantiate these statements.

The reader is left with a clear understanding as to why/how all the "peace negotiations" have failed at this time, despite all the offers & concessions made by Israel. The title of this work includes the phrase "the unfinished battle". Indeed it is clear that in the eyes of Islam, the battle to eradicate Israel is far from over. I highly recommend this book and wish that it could be widely read by politicians, diplomats and those behind our media entities.

A chapter of this book is devoted to the Middle Eastern Church and approaches the misconceptions of the latter about Israel and the Jews which are often sadly on a par with elements of Islam itself. Many elements of the Middle Eastern Church not recognising that the Jews have a divine right to present day Israel as outlined in the Bible.

There is absolutely no hatred in this book towards Muslims. In fact readers are encouraged to love Muslims in word and deed, yet to be truly aware of the teachings of Islam in relation to the Jews, Christians and the West itself. Something which the book describes as even lacking amongst many professing Muslims who allegedly just base their feelings upon what they are told and a historic hatred, without any personal experience whatsoever. The book describes that many, if not most, have been indoctrinated in such beliefs and opinions since childhood.

Might I respectfully suggest another book that could be led in parallel with this excellent work. "Islam Revealed. A Christian Arab's View Of Islam" by Anis Shorrosh. This is a book written by another author very well qualified and with much experience in this subject who is a Palestinian Christian. Thank you for your time.

http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Jews-Mar.../dp/0884199568

Editorial Reviews
Book Description
What Fuels the Conflict?
To make sense of the headlines today, you need a clear understanding of the teachings of Islam.

¡§I didn¡¦t just do research about Islam; I lived it for thirty-four years!¡¨

Learn the truth! Author Mark Gabriel presents facts, not opinions, about what is going on in the Middle East, especially between Muslims and Jews. Dr. Gabriel describes:

ľ Why Palestinian Muslims reject peace offers
ľ Why Muslims commit suicide to kill Jews in obedience to Allah
ľ The real reasons radical Islamic groups want to destroy the state of Israel
ƒæ Why the Quran calls Jews ¡§the children of monkeys and pigs¡¨
ľ The truth about the Arabian holocaust led by Muhammad against the Jews

Dr. Gabriel¡¦s purpose is to expose the teachings of Islam, not to hurt Muslims. He says, ¡§Muslims are my people, my family. I love Muslims. The problem is with the teachings of Islam, not with the people. Muslims are suffering from Islam more than anyone else in the world.¡¨

Special chapters include:
ľ Stories from former members of the PLO and the radical Islamic group, Hizbollah
ľ A comparison of Islamic holy war and the Crusades
ľ An explanation of the role of Abraham and Ishmael in Islam

This book will show you what started the unfinished battle between Islam and the Jews and what it will take to bring the battle to an end.

Mark Gabriel, Ph.D was born into a Muslim family in Egypt and was able to quote the entire Quran by the age of twelve. His childhood education was spent in Muslim schools, and he earned a doctorate degree in Islamic history and culture from Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious Islamic university in the world. As a product of his education and culture, he was a classic anti-Semite, but now his heart has completely changed. This book tells his story and explains the source of Muslim attitudes toward Jews.

About the Author
Dr. Mark Gabriel memorized the Quran completely by age twelve and grew up totally immersed in Islamic culture in Cairo, Egypt. A former Islamic teacher and scholar, he graduated from the world-renowned Al-Azhar University in Egypt with both a master¡¦s and doctorate degree in Islamic study. Upon questioning his faith in Islam, Gabriel endured torture as well as personal and professional ostracism. He left Egypt and sought exile in South Africa where he was discipled in Christianity. Currently Dr. Gabriel lives in the United States under religious asylum.

[typoon]

No cease fire will last too long as long as Hamas is still hanging around. No way, No how, Never gonna happen.

[Atheist]

I truly hope that none of you are innocent enough to believe that this will change anything? There will NEVER be any type of lasting peace in the Middle East. Sad fact.. but true. Total annihilation of the entire region is the only way to ensure peace. Hmmm... the irony of it all...

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's what agreeing in principle is — it means that you believe the general idea of something could be all right, but there are specifics that need to be fleshed out before you're satisfied.

Those are not specifics that need to be fleshed out. These are issues that have been around for decades. Israel's elastic borders are one of the principles that needs to be agreed. In return for Hamas recognising Israel, Israel would have to recognise limits to its land claims and limits to its rights to acquire land through force. The two go hand in hand.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Those are not specifics that need to be fleshed out. These are issues that have been around for decades.

You don't think the issue of whether Israel might be allowed to exist at all is a more general question than whether Israel should be allowed to have a specific piece of land?

Originally Posted by Troll 

Israel's elastic borders are one of the principles that needs to be agreed. In return for Hamas recognising Israel, Israel would have to recognise limits to its land claims and limits to its rights to acquire land through force. The two go hand in hand.

So what you're saying is this: Israel needs to recognize that it has limits to its land claims, but Hamas doesn't need to recognize that Israel has any right to exist at all, in any form. With this kind of thinking, I can see why negotiations aren't going well.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

Yes but of course. And what it so special about that?

PB.

Never heard of the Hallstein Doctrine?

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Never heard of the Hallstein Doctrine?

Hallstein doctrine failed and was no longer followed from the 60s. And as one result (among others) the Willy Brandt administration de-facto recognised the DDR... So...?

PB.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

Hallstein doctrine failed and was no longer followed from the 60s. And as one result (among others) the Willy Brandt administration de-facto recognised the DDR... So...?

PB.

So between 1955 and up until 1969 Western Germany didn't recognize Eastern Germany.

My point stands.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

When they refuse to accept the right for anything named Israel to exist, quibbling over precisely where doesn't mean much.

Exactly. No amount of comparing or justifying can justify the fact they simply want the Jews gone.

One side wants to be left alone in piece, and the other side wants all the land to themselves and wants the Jews gone.

How ANYONE can say that side is in any way in the right.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

So between 1955 and up until 1969 Western Germany didn't recognize Eastern Germany.

My point stands.

What point was that? That Western Germany and Eastern Germany were in the wrong?

They were you know.

But the big difference here is Sayf. One side wasn't trying to murder and get rid of the other. And please don't do the dishonest spin you always do and attempt to spin that side to be Israel. Because we all know that simply isn't the case.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

What point was that? That Western Germany and Eastern Germany were in the wrong?

They were you know.

But the big difference here is Sayf. One side wasn't trying to murder and get rid of the other. And please don't do the dishonest spin you always do and attempt to spin that side to be Israel. Because we all know that simply isn't the case.

Didn't take long for you to revert to type........

Let me remind you of our pm exchange:

11-18-2006, 08:47 PM
Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah
Hi there.

I know we disagree on most things but I was wondering if it would be possible for both of us to stop the baiting. To stop calling each other dishonest and ignorant and all the things we've been calling each other.

I'm just offering a truce. Let's discuss the topic at hand and not turn everything into a personal fight.

Deal?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Sure thing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Didn't take long for you to revert to type........

Let me remind you of our pm exchange:

Um I wasn't attacking you Sayf. This isn't a personal fight.

I never agreed to stop disagreeing with you.

If you were wanting me to just shut up and not say anything to you when you make such statements, then I am afraid that IS NOT what I agreed to.

There was no personal attacks in my post.

The post you just made that I am replying to however, IS a personal jab.

If you wanted me to stop arguing with anything you say, you should have worded it differently.

Of course I would never agree to such a thing.

I mean do you really expect to make deals with people that basically means they wont dispute anything you say?

I surely hope not.