[pkatt]

Originally posted by ringo:
<STRONG>

Um, whatever, could someone maybe wait until they're NOT innocent before blowing them away? And where did you get your crystal ball, I want one too.

Example: All those people in the twin towers were innocent, but wait ten years and I'm sure all of them would have continued supporting a government that arms Israel.

Does that sound like a logical statement to you?

Is there a difference?

(Edited for clarity)

[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: ringo ]</STRONG>

Maybe I was too harsh. Everyone sees innocence as something different. When I look at people dancing at a Disco and all of a sudden having their head blown off by a bomb, I see those people as innocent. But when I see Palestinian children shooting and dancing on September 11th, I sure don't see them as innocent. There is proof in the videos as to this. Sure, Israel could wait til they are grown up and are militants, but If they did that, more Israelis would die in the meanwhile. I would never support killing children who are too young to defend themselves on purpose, but I don't think all the stink caused by the few accidental deaths of children is neccessary. After all, no one bit(hes when Israeli children are killed.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>
The Muslim world, meanwhile, wouldn't withdraw its support of the Palestinians, because they believe -probably rightly- that even if the US were to withdraw its support, Israel would still be strong enough to utterly decimate the Palestinians, and wouldn't hesitate to do so if the US pulled out (on the grounds that they'd be left "defenseless". As if). It would be genocide on a scale not seen in hundreds of years.
</STRONG>

Why do you think our governments so-called unilateral support of Israel is preventing them from killing more palestinians? Why also do you think Israel would commit genocide the moment the U.S. pulled support? The U.S. government, for all the ninnies we have up there right now, has been quite moderate on the situation. Still yes, not coming right out and meeting with Arafat, but much less supportive than the usual Republicans in recent years.
Your statement about Israel and genocide I really don't understand. First, I don't think that is the majority feeling over there among the people or the government. Sure, they have the occasional nut, but we do too. Second, how could Israel stand up under international scrutiny if they actually did that? It'd be national suicide. Like I've said before, we have murderers on both sides hampering the majority's desire for peace.

Thanks for reading...

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by pkatt:
<STRONG>
After all, no one bit(hes when Israeli children are killed.</STRONG>

Oh come on! The outrage is evident when ANY child is killed.

Yeesh, don't let a disturbing video you've seen affect your judgement on an issue.


(ed: Alright! 50 posts...I'm a "member.")

[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: UNTiMac ]

[Millennium]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
<STRONG>Why do you think our governments so-called unilateral support of Israel is preventing them from killing more palestinians? Why also do you think Israel would commit genocide the moment the U.S. pulled support? The U.S. government, for all the ninnies we have up there right now, has been quite moderate on the situation. Still yes, not coming right out and meeting with Arafat, but much less supportive than the usual Republicans in recent years.
Your statement about Israel and genocide I really don't understand. First, I don't think that is the majority feeling over there among the people or the government. Sure, they have the occasional nut, but we do too. Second, how could Israel stand up under international scrutiny if they actually did that? It'd be national suicide. Like I've said before, we have murderers on both sides hampering the majority's desire for peace.

Thanks for reading...</STRONG>

Among the hard-line group that's in power now, there's a very real victim mentality. They think everyone, but particularly the Muslim world (and especially the Palestinians) is out to get them. It's the mentality that created Israel in the first place: the idea of a homeland where no one would persecute them, for they believed that everyone else would. The fact that the US is allied with israel gives this overly-paranoid group a sense of safety, like someone's watching their back. Without it, they would see themselves as having no one but themselves, and would lash out "for the sake of self-preservation". If not in the form of organized armies, then in small bands.

And no, that's not the majority mindset among the general Israeli populace. It is, however, the majority mindset among the group that currently holds power in the Israeli government, and that's what really matters.

As for Israel not being able to stand up to international scrutiny: no, they wouldn't be able to. But they wouldn't have to. These guys have one of the best-trained armies in the world (by no means the largest, but large enough for this purpose), not to mention all kinds of nuclear weapons and other technology. By the time the international community would even be able to react, the damage would already be done. They can simply do it that fast.

And that's where the problem comes in. The second they do this, they'll have the entire Muslim world delivering a smackdown, to "avenge the Palestinians". At that point, the US (and most likely the rest of NATO) will be forced to respond, probably on the Israeli side, to prevent yet another genocide. This will draw the Muslim nations' supporters into the conflict as well. And so on, and so forth. The end consequences of this should be apparent by now.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>

And that's where the problem comes in. The second they do this, they'll have the entire Muslim world delivering a smackdown, to "avenge the Palestinians". At that point, the US (and most likely the rest of NATO) will be forced to respond, probably on the Israeli side, to prevent yet another genocide. This will draw the Muslim nations' supporters into the conflict as well. And so on, and so forth. The end consequences of this should be apparent by now.</STRONG>

I've held off posting in this thread- but this is an easy one to answer-

The entire Muslim world is one thing- the surrounding Arab countries which make up much of the Muslim world is a little more specific. The Arab world which surrounds Israel doesn't much care about the plight of Palestinians. None of them wants the Palestinians, to the point of refusing them as refugees, none of them really wants to aid them, or else they would have dived in some obvious dedicated fashion. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan- none of them has attacked in years, outside of a few problems with Syria launching explosives at kibbutzim in the north of the country. (Syria is convinced that Israel wants to expand up to Damascus, because Damascus is the best thing Syria has. In reality, Israel has no interest in Syria, and wishes the Syrians would get over it.) - Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are the countries on the best terms with Israel of that lot, Syria is pretty close, and Lebanon is, understandably vocal and ticked off- which of course stems from Sharon's mission creep in the 80s.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by pkatt:
<STRONG>

Maybe some of the Palestinians are innocent people, but everyone of those children you see dead would, I guarantee it, grow up to be militants. I have a video at home that shows 5,6, and 7 year old Palestinian children being taught in school to hate and kill Americans and Israelis and to use guns. Maybe they are innocent now, but just wait 10 years and they'll be the ones strapping bombs to themselves. This is not a people that want's peace.</STRONG>

And the difference between this and Zionism is...? Please don't say violent intent. That would be a bad thing to say.
BOTH factions have the "ideology" fused into their brains at an early age.

[pkatt]

I know that. Everyone is taught their beliefs as a child. I was and so is everyone else. The difference is that I wasn't taught to kill or hate. I was taught the difference between right and wrong, but at the same time, that you should never go to the extreme to protect what you think is right, at least not to the point of murder. Palestinian children are taught the exact opposite. Instead of being taught peace, they are taught war and violence and hatred. I don't want to imply that it's wrong, but I think that in this society of moderation, teaching your children these things is wrong. People are entitled to their own opinions.

On the topic of killing children, I think some of you misunderstood my stance. I highly condone killing kids. They haven't done anything yet. Unfortunately, those things happen in a war, and that's exactly what this is, guerilla warfare. The truth is though, noone makes a big deal about the dead Israeli kids. Are the people dancing at a disco not considered kids. What about the kids that were eating pizza and blown up? We see all these sobbing parents on TV all upset about their dead child, and it's legit, but I rarely, if ever, see all the saddened parents of Israeli children gunned down or blown up.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by pkatt:
<STRONG>On the topic of killing children, I think some of you misunderstood my stance. I highly condone killing kids. </STRONG>

"condemn"

[Face Ache]

I was never here.

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Face Ache ]

[pkatt]

Originally posted by Joshua:
<STRONG>

"condemn"</STRONG>

You know what I mean. I don't support/agree with it.

[zonetuke]

I really don't takes sides in the issue of the PLO vs. Israel. However, the BILLIONS that the U.S. has given Israel sickens me. Israel has historically been the among the top recipients of US foreign aid. Take a look. $2,000,000,000 in military aid? (yes, $2 Billion) Give me a break. American citizens have blood on their hands because of these huge financial grants.

I don't want large amounts of my tax dollars going there. But guess what, the jewish lobby in the US is one of the largest in America. Ask yourself this: How can the US be an unbiased broker in negotiating peace there when we give them that much in military aid? Funny how the media rarely mentions this.

matthew

[ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: zonetuke ]

[vmarks]

Originally posted by pkatt:
SNIP

On the topic of killing children, I think some of you misunderstood my stance. I highly condone killing kids. They haven't done anything yet. Unfortunately, those things happen in a war, and that's exactly what this is, guerilla warfare. The truth is though, noone makes a big deal about the dead Israeli kids. Are the people dancing at a disco not considered kids. What about the kids that were eating pizza and blown up? We see all these sobbing parents on TV all upset about their dead child, and it's legit, but I rarely, if ever, see all the saddened parents of Israeli children gunned down or blown up.

You aren't watching Israeli television. CNN, BBC, and American stations that pick up their feeds, don't make a big deal of it because that's their editorial position in determining what they'll run.

Using a satellite, tune in Israeli television sometime, it will give you a different insight. Watch Jordanian television while you're at it.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by pkatt:
<STRONG>I know that. Everyone is taught their beliefs as a child. I was and so is everyone else. The difference is that I wasn't taught to kill or hate. I was taught the difference between right and wrong, but at the same time, that you should never go to the extreme to protect what you think is right, at least not to the point of murder. Palestinian children are taught the exact opposite. Instead of being taught peace, they are taught war and violence and hatred. I don't want to imply that it's wrong, but I think that in this society of moderation, teaching your children these things is wrong. People are entitled to their own opinions.

</STRONG>

And I still do not see the difference between what you describe and extremists in the other side. Hell, not just extremists. You do not think the same indoctrination applies to the other side? Have you been listening to the same folks being interviewed as I have? Kill 'em all is pretty rampant on both sides at the moment. And that does not seep into Israeli kids? Forget seep. Surge.

[Face Ache]

Shhh. You never saw me.

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Face Ache ]

[vmarks]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>

And I still do not see the difference between what you describe and extremists in the other side. Hell, not just extremists. You do not think the same indoctrination applies to the other side? Have you been listening to the same folks being interviewed as I have? Kill 'em all is pretty rampant on both sides at the moment. And that does not seep into Israeli kids? Forget seep. Surge.</STRONG>

Maxelson- you might have asked me- I taught those kids in school. I was their English teacher, Ayalon School, Givattayim, suburb of Tel-Aviv. (and I say that only because you're in education as well)

What the kids want to know is, who wants to kill them. If they meet someone from another country, 'do you hate us?' is one of the questions they'll eventually ask when they get comfortable enough to ask it. The kids see their friends and neighbors blown up in malls and discotheques, and they hear that France, Austria and other EU countries are condemning their country, so all outsiders must be out to get them.

And I'd try to convince them they have the wrong impression, the rest of the world isn't against them- but if I read them this thread, and the other threads that have been on similar topics in this forum, I'd have a hard time convincing them.

The users posting here are from South Africa, Switzerland, America, and everything in between, and the summary I guarantee the children would take away from it is, "The World is Against Us. They think we are no better than the people that blow up my friends and neighbors, and half of them think we are worse." Their thoughts on the matter usually were: "They don't live here, they don't know what it's like, how can they make that judgement? They must hate us."

Now, if the world is against you, you can either

• stop fighting and get your ass kicked,
  Run a PR campaign to try and get the world on your side,
  Or ignore the world, and do what your best judgement says you need to do to survive.

If the world is against you, and you've decided it's motivated by hate, there's no sense in stopping fighting and getting your ass kicked, and there's no sense in running a PR campaign, because those aren't successful against hatred. Number three is the only option that appears viable.

I hope this sheds a little light on how the kids feel in all this.

Now, I also want to ask you to think about how you feel about the US and Afghanistan. We're over there, ostensibly fighting terrorism, and making lots of casaulties in the process- we'll sort out who is al-qaida and who isn't later- How guilty are we Americans? And, you should note that much of Israel supports us in our new-found support of law enforcement, public safety, and military- it filters down to the kids, even, who for Purim (similar to halloween in modern practice) wore Police and Soldier costumes. For all these other threads that discuss why the world hates America, Israel loves America, and supports Americans.

[maxelson]

vmarks- thanks for the thoughts.
I think that if the judgement is made that "the world is against us" is being percieved, it may be because someone is not reading closely. The general gyst in this thread, with a few exceptions, seems to be that neither side has any high ground. Both parties are to be equally blamed for the mess. Of course, I can see that someone who is involved directly with one side or the other would say, "See? You are taking up their cause as being just". The with us or against us argument is pretty common in this little bloodbath.
All from where you stand.
As teachers, it IS our job to change the camera angle.

I think Sharon is a criminal.
I think Arafat is a criminal.
Single minded thugs, who, unfortunately, canbnot see past their own noses to a solution because NEITHER wants one. Neither population seems to want one, either. Unfortunatley, as is most often the case, the selfishness and barbaric behavior is effecting the rest of the planet.
If both men were in front of me, I should like to do TWO things- first, show them pictures of children who are victims OF THEM. Next, I should DOPE SLAP each like the petulant (and very dangerous) children they are. See how good it is to solve problems this way?
BOTH factions are TEACHING their children to perpetuate it.
Can you tell me differently? Can you TRULY tell me that is not true? Honestly?
I think they are both doing their utmost to destroy their own people. I think they are responsible for the cycle. DIRECTLY responsible. The irresponsibility to their respective peoples here is staggering. Neither is attempting to "protect" anything or any one. They wish to annihalate each other. I am insulted whenever they try to convince me otherwise. Mark my words, this situation will turn into a massive worldwide conflict.
See, now, THIS is what you get with a theocracy.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>vmarks- thanks for the thoughts.
I think that if the judgement is made that "the world is against us" is being percieved, it may be because someone is not reading closely. The general gyst in this thread, with a few exceptions, seems to be that neither side has any high ground. Both parties are to be equally blamed for the mess. Of course, I can see that someone who is involved directly with one side or the other would say, "See? You are taking up their cause as being just". The with us or against us argument is pretty common in this little bloodbath.
All from where you stand.
As teachers, it IS our job to change the camera angle.
</STRONG>

Again, I'd tell you, you'd have to have been there to have proper perspective- if it's all from where you stand, according to most people directly involved in the area, you're standing waaayyy too far away from the heart of the situation to have a decent perspective at all.

<STRONG>
I think Sharon is a criminal.

</STRONG> Sure, for his actions in Lebanon. For his actions today? no, that's murkier.

<STRONG>
I think Arafat is a criminal.[/quote</STRONG>
For his actions in the past? Certainly. For his inability to do anything effective today? no. Again, it's more complex than you put forth- sure, he's a criminal-

<STRONG>
Single minded thugs, who, unfortunately, canbnot see past their own noses to a solution because NEITHER wants one. Neither population seems to want one, either. Unfortunatley, as is most often the case, the selfishness and barbaric behavior is effecting the rest of the planet.

</STRONG>
I'm pretty certain that you're reducing these people to a small nutshell that neither fits in well. People are multi-faceted, even ones you see as evil.

<STRONG>
If both men were in front of me, I should like to do TWO things- first, show them pictures of children who are victims OF THEM. Next, I should DOPE SLAP each like the petulant (and very dangerous) children they are. See how good it is to solve problems this way?
BOTH factions are TEACHING their children to perpetuate it.
Can you tell me differently? Can you TRULY tell me that is not true? Honestly?

</STRONG>

What I can tell you is, the Israeli children I know have no interest in killing. They'd rather not have to. It's no treat going to the army and seeing people you live and work with die- and it's no treat seeing it in civilian life either. No one has shown a viable option to seeing their friends get blown up or mowed down.

There are several places where Arabs and Israelis get along, both in regular communities, and in places like Givat Haviva, a kibbutz. Saying everyone wants to destroy the other party is simply not the whole truth.

<STRONG>I think they are both doing their utmost to destroy their own people.

</STRONG> I think neither would agree that's their aim.

<STRONG>
I think they are responsible for the cycle. DIRECTLY responsible. The irresponsibility to their respective peoples here is staggering. Neither is attempting to "protect" anything or any one. They wish to annihalate each other. I am insulted whenever they try to convince me otherwise. Mark my words, this situation will turn into a massive worldwide conflict.

</STRONG> I remain unconvinced that it will. I have noted that you sincerely believe it will, and will admit you were correct if such event comes to pass.
See, now, THIS is what you get with a theocracy.[/QB]

Theocracy? HOGWASH. You have Jews, Muslim, Druze, Russians who have no particular religion, all in society and all represented within the Knesset. Sure, there's a Jewish bent to it all, and the Orthodox have a great amount of control over things such as religion, and who's entitled to emigrate and claim citizenship with ease, versus the other processes, but even in these areas, they're losing some ground. It's a Jewish State under the notion that there needs to be a safe refuge for Jews- but the Jews love the Druze and Bedouin, Arab-Israelis. If you want to call them a theocracy, you may well have called America a theocracy because we had "blue laws."

I respect you, max, and hope you can respect me- we don't see eye to eye, and I think it's because you're operating on the information you have as an American living in America, watching American and possibly British media. There's more to the story than you're being told, and I'm unsure that you'll ever hear the rest of the story and gain a more complete perspective if you rely on the same sources of information you have up until this point in time.

[macaddled]

Well, all that's fair enough. You have to remember, though, that for many Americans the belwether of the "you have to be there" argument is one Mr. Norman Podhoretz, which is kind of tough to get around.

(For the record, Podhoretz went around for decades saying Americans couldn't criticize anything the Israeli government ever did, because they weren't "in the line of fire", so to speak ... that is until Rabin actually started to make some progress, and then the gloves were off and Podhoretz criticized everything Rabin and his government did.)

[zigzag]

vmarks, your points are well-taken, but I agree with maxelson - the majority of us are not pro-this or anti-that, we just want to see some compromising and peace. Instead, we see the ultra-conservative element in Israel effectively saying "all or nothing" and even trying to expand Israel's territory with new settlements that no one that I know, Jewish or otherwise, feels are justifiable. Not to mention the treatment of Palestinians within Israel's borders. On the other side, we have an equally intractable Palestinian element. No one appears to be willing or able to refute the extremists on either side. The one leader who tried to was assassinated, not by a Palestinian, but by an Israeli.

Thus the throwing up of hands and the frustration with both sides. It may seem like "the world is against us" from there, but considering the circumstances of Israel's creation and the recognition and support that it has gotten, I don't think it can be said that the world is against it. Most of the world supports Israel's right to exist, but Israel cannot expect the rest of the world to give unconditional support for everything it says and does, no more than the U.S. can expect the rest of the world to give unconditional support for everything it says and does. If this is interpreted by Israelis as "against" them, then they are mistaken IMO.

It may be politically incorrect to talk about it, but I know plenty of Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, who privately pose the question "Is it worth it?". I would be very surprised if there weren't Israelis who pose the same question (actually, I have read written accounts by them that do so). It is not an anti-semitic or anti-Israeli sentiment, it is a fundamental, pragmatic question of "What have we gotten ourselves into, is possessing this particular plot of land worth the sacrifice, can we ever overcome the hatred of our neighbors and the particular people who were dispossessed?". The fact that there is a religious conflict overlaying the political conflict doesn't help matters - to much of the world, this seems as pointless as the Catholic-Protestant conflict in Ireland. If Israel doesn't keep its hands clean and make an affirmative effort at compromise and peace, it runs the risk that much of its own population, not to mention the rest of the world, will simply lose interest in its cause. Indeed, the sentiment here at the time of the last election was basically "Let them fight it out - there's nothing more we can do." This isn't "against" Israel, it's simple battle fatigue.

[DBursey]

I believe the only means of moving toward a lasting settlement will be for both sides to compromise and make painful concessions. For Israel, this will mean both territorial concessions and the dismantling of settlements in the occupied territories, which seems at present to be a politically unpalatable proposition for the Israeli leadership.

For the Palestinians, realistic compromise will certainly entail giving up on their insistance of the right of return for political refugees and their decendants, who were forced from their lands during the war of independence which saw the creation of the state of Israel over 50 years ago.

The deeply ingrained distrust and animosity on both sides will require the intervention of a third party arbitor (most suitably the United States) to help implement and oversee a lasting cease-fire as a crucial first step. Only following such a cease-fire can both sides sit down and attempt to negotiate an interim settlement. Over the long term, a final agreement must be reached that will see the creation of a Palestinian state with mutually acceptable borders, and an accord on the status of Jerusalem (perhaps a joint administration, or even an administration under UN auspices?). I'm certain Israel would insist on the normalization of diplomatic relations with neighboring Arab countries as a condition to any final settlement.

Given the problematic nature of implementing the first step to date, I'm not expecting things to improve until they first get much worse.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by vmarks:
<STRONG>
Theocracy? HOGWASH. You have Jews, Muslim, Druze, Russians who have no particular religion, all in society and all represented within the Knesset. Sure, there's a Jewish bent to it all, and the Orthodox have a great amount of control over things such as religion, and who's entitled to emigrate and claim citizenship with ease, versus the other processes, but even in these areas, they're losing some ground. It's a Jewish State under the notion that there needs to be a safe refuge for Jews- but the Jews love the Druze and Bedouin, Arab-Israelis. If you want to call them a theocracy, you may well have called America a theocracy because we had "blue laws."

I respect you, max, and hope you can respect me- we don't see eye to eye, and I think it's because you're operating on the information you have as an American living in America, watching American and possibly British media. There's more to the story than you're being told, and I'm unsure that you'll ever hear the rest of the story and gain a more complete perspective if you rely on the same sources of information you have up until this point in time.</STRONG>

I just had a whole long response (the first point was- of course the respect is very mutual. I'd be a dolt to NOT listen and respect your views. I have nothing but respect for your stance, here),
but, in bouncing back and forth and forth and back to view/ review posts, I have screwed my reply and sent it to cyber hell. Sheesh.
Rather than reconstruct the whole thing, I'll have to start with where I was and rebuild the rest of the ruins later.

OK. THe first part WAS (sheesh, I can be a moron) about the theocracy. To whittle it down, I would say that No, Israel is not a theocracy in the same way, say, Iran is- every state decision there is based in Islamic law. Israel, however, is a State who's very existence is based in the idea that it is a homeland/ refuge for folks who share one thing in common- Judism. You cannot remove Judism from Israel and still have it be Israel (believe me, it was much better supported and less crudely hacked out before I lost it).

Next- re Sharon's motives.
"If the Palestinians are not being beaten, there will be no
negotiations. The aim is to increase the number of losses
on the other side. Only after they've been battered, will
we be able to conduct talks."
What should I take from that? One might say it is out of context. I ask, what context will change the meaning of that statement? The intent in this line is pretty clear to me. Is there even a legitimate attempt at a remotely peaceful tone there? HAS he made a legitimate attempt?
I can only imagine what has come out of Arafat's mouth.
I do not see them as evil. I see them as misguided and irresponsible, stubborn and pig headed. Which leads directly to the evil that has rooted in the region.
I do not think that the destruction of the region is their aim. That's not the impression I was trying to give. It is not their aim. It will, however, be the result. I have no doubt of that now.

Remember, I do make a distinction between governments and the governed. I am positive that there are many places in the region where this conflict does not seep in, where the people can live together well. All the more tragic.

You say Israeli children have no interest in killing, and I believe that. I am sure that there are as many Palestinian children who are interested in killing as there are Israelis. The point I want to make is this- there is a point where that changes. There has to be. When is that? Is it when they are teens and beginning to get a grasp of the situation? Is it when their friends are maimed or killed in conflict? Is it when their parents tell them where their hatred should lie? Is it when the young Israeli soldiers are sworn in on Masada or the Palestinian equivalent? Is it when they read their Josephus in school? Is it the story of Isaac and Ishmael? When? When does it happen?
As for my perceptions. Well, of course, standing where I am, it must be different. Of course it must be. Can�t dispute it. I simplify because these leaders force me to simplify. I cannot believe for one second that if either of these factions REALLY wanted peace, they could not take a few risks and get there. To me, the bottom line is neither side is willing to give up anything. Neither side is willing to compromise. Neither wishes to look beyond the immediate.
Is it hard to see why I call these leaders �irresponsible?�

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: maxelson ]

[pkatt]

Originally posted by vmarks:
<STRONG>

You aren't watching Israeli television. CNN, BBC, and American stations that pick up their feeds, don't make a big deal of it because that's their editorial position in determining what they'll run.

Using a satellite, tune in Israeli television sometime, it will give you a different insight. Watch Jordanian television while you're at it.</STRONG>

I have a satellite and watch not just MSNBC (CNN lies) but also Israeli Channels, but they are hard to get. There isn't a problem with me knowing those things, the problem is with the rest of the population. How many people, if they even have a big dish, watch Israeli (or any foreign) channel. Not many. They take what is said on CNN and such as the whole truth, and it is definitely not. All the mass media thinks they have to say what Muslims want to here because there are so many of them, instead of the truth. That gives normal people (Christians, etc) the feeling that Everything is Israel's fault, when in reality, all they do is protect themselves, since the Palestinian's DID ignite this current intifada. I hate to say it, but the entire world, outside of Israelis and a few jews (like myself), are misinformed. I'd invite anyone who wants to hear the whole story to visit a site like jpost.com . Yes, it's a Jewish site, but they are unbiased and say it like it is.

[maxelson]

I'm not sure I see that last statement as being totally true. The US government is VERY pro Israel, for numerous and not always obvious reasons and, for as long as I can remember, I have been beaten with the Irael GOOD, Palestinians BAAAD thing. It was actually pointed out to me by one of my students. Palestinian. Not so much pointed out, but reminded.
It is only very lately, in my view, that the media has been reporting less than favorably about Sharon and the Israeli Government and Military.
Please, allow me this: I can recognize bent reporting. Really, I can. To make the assumption that I am spoon fed my news and dine on American propaganda is, well, it is a little insulting. Give me a little credit, here. My opinions on this topic are based on MANY sources. People, mainly. Media does, of course, play in, but I like to think I am pretty good about seeing past the language to the events. That Sharon comment only reinforced a few opinions I had already begun to form. I am a critical thinker. I can get it done. Really, I can.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>I'm not sure I see that last statement as being totally true. The US government is VERY pro Israel, for numerous and not always obvious reasons and, for as long as I can remember, I have been beaten with the Irael GOOD, Palestinians BAAAD thing. It was actually pointed out to me by one of my students. Palestinian. Not so much pointed out, but reminded.
It is only very lately, in my view, that the media has been reporting less than favorably about Sharon and the Israeli Government and Military.
Please, allow me this: I can recognize bent reporting. Really, I can. To make the assumption that I am spoon fed my news and dine on American propaganda is, well, it is a little insulting. Give me a little credit, here. My opinions on this topic are based on MANY sources. People, mainly. Media does, of course, play in, but I like to think I am pretty good about seeing past the language to the events. That Sharon comment only reinforced a few opinions I had already begun to form. I am a critical thinker. I can get it done. Really, I can.</STRONG>

Hey, I won't accuse you of being spoon fed, or incapable of critical thought- I respect you too much for that. Instead, I suggested that you might want to seek out additional sources, and recommended some primary sources wouldn't hurt. I also suggested that being on location for a period of time would help you better assess the situation. You rejected the notion, and I'm okay with that. Respectfully disagree, but okay.
None of this occurs in a vacuum, and there's a huge background, context, and subtext that you can be exposed to over there, that isn't present here.

EDIT: CNN really is the most inaccurate reporter on the topic...

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: vmarks ]

[maxelson]

No, man, are you kidding? I'd really like to have the priv of being able to take an entirely different viewpoint based on experience. I think I may have miscommunicated. I do not reject your notion about perception. I have a perception which is not benefitted by direct personal "I live here" experience. As for the additional sources, hell, I'm all over them. I will always be happy to run into other sources/ viewpoints. I was referring directly to the post above mine- pkatts. I do not think that you are accusing me of being spoon fed.

One thing I'll appreciate- this is a VERY firey topic. Very. Incendiary just does not cover it. I appreciate the fact that we have some very civil discussion going on despite the fire.
Wish the situation could be resolved in this way.

Well, my friends, I got a long commute. See y'all monday. I'll be zeroing a ton of big ole hard drives, so I'll be... BORED (but still working!).
Peace.

[pkatt]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>I'm not sure I see that last statement as being totally true. The US government is VERY pro Israel, for numerous and not always obvious reasons and, for as long as I can remember, I have been beaten with the Irael GOOD, Palestinians BAAAD thing. It was actually pointed out to me by one of my students. Palestinian. Not so much pointed out, but reminded.
It is only very lately, in my view, that the media has been reporting less than favorably about Sharon and the Israeli Government and Military.
Please, allow me this: I can recognize bent reporting. Really, I can. To make the assumption that I am spoon fed my news and dine on American propaganda is, well, it is a little insulting. Give me a little credit, here. My opinions on this topic are based on MANY sources. People, mainly. Media does, of course, play in, but I like to think I am pretty good about seeing past the language to the events. That Sharon comment only reinforced a few opinions I had already begun to form. I am a critical thinker. I can get it done. Really, I can.</STRONG>

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, and thank you for sharing it. I'd just like to add something else. I was just (20 minutes ago) watching the news (NBC) and noticed some bent reporting. They said 2 things that really got me upset. The first is what they said about the white house condemning the killing of innocent Palestinians. I have, of course, heard them say the samething to Arafat, but they didn't say that every inncent Palestinian killed wasn't deliberate and only in retaliation to the purposeful killings of Israelis. I'm also upset that they only for a second mentioned the 5 teenagers shot to death and burned recently, but yet had a 1 minute blurb about the funerals for the kille Palestinian children.

I also agree with Vmarks about actually having first hand experience. I don't live in Israel, so I can't comment about the situation today, but I know the fear people were facing a year ago when I went. I can only guess that that fear is severly multiplied. I know that the 3 Israelis I talked to at a Bar Mitzvah last weekend were scared to go to the airport in Tel Aviv to get to Indiana. I wish Zini the best in his negotiations, but, none the less, as long as Israel exists, there won't be peace.

[Face Ache]

&lt;YOUR GOVERNMENT NEEDS YOU! ENLIST NOW!&gt;

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Face Ache ]

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
<STRONG>I'm sorry but standing at Ground Zero doesn't make you less biased. In fact, being under fire can distort your judgement totally IMHO.

</STRONG>

Well, it's obvious you didn't read what I wrote.

I suggested that standing on location allows you to be more informed rather than less. Standing a comfortable three to six thousand miles away, it's easy to criticize based on less than complete information. Complete information is attained by gathering from multiple sources. To deny primary sources (being there) would be a little silly.

<STRONG>
I think most of the sensible people here source their news carefully (apart from the radicals). So you are asking us to read Israeli news for the truth? Then you are asking us to swallow Israeli propaganda. It seems to me that if Israeli reporting were informing the people of both sides fairly, then there would be peace already.

</STRONG>

Once again, you didn't read what I wrote- I included Jordanian television, and recommended other sources, as well as Israeli media, in lieu of being there, since I don't expect anyone to drop everything and buy plane tickets. If you're going to try and seek the next best thing to gathering your own information by being there, take it from multiple sources.

<STRONG>
Saying the Palestinians started this intifada (and not Sharon) just shows how biased you are. Sharon was warned he would start trouble but he went ahead anyway. Why was that? For political gain. He is an evil, evil man. He is responsible for all of this death.

</STRONG>
Now I KNOW you aren't talking about my words! I never claimed such a thing. Although, you'd deny Sharon the right to visit the most Holy Jewish site in the land? That's backwards. He went to the wall, same as millions of Jews and others do, every year. Muslims were at the Dome of the Rock on top of the wall, and didn't like it much. Violence ensues.
If someone visits their Holy site, and violence follows, you had to have been looking for an excuse to fight. And the truth is, that happens to be the event that made it into the media as setting off a powderkeg, but there were events that led up to that moment that you aren't mentioning, possibly because your selective choice of information sources was more selective than need be. Please note, I am not claiming the Arabs at the Dome of the Rock started it all, I'm saying that there's more going on than you're bringing up, and simplification isn't clarifying anything in this case.

<STRONG>
And yes, Arafat hasn't tried to stop it and that makes him evil too. But he didn't start it. He is weak and has become weaker because of it. These are political games where you try to make the enemy do something they don't want to do (like OB Laden destroying America's Freedom&#8482 . Chess with real live people.

It's quite Evil™.

</STRONG> If he didn't start it, the people he claims to represent may have. Or not. To draw such a conclusion requires more information that hasn't been presented here.

<STRONG>
Some people here are coming across as quite anti-Palestinian. Who is more fair here? "Oooh. The Palestinians got more airtime than us tonight. Biased media!" Who are you kidding? I demand that we count up all the words and make sure this thread is fairly balanced by the end, okay? Otherwise MacNN might get condemned as being biased.

I don't think we have any Palestinians on MacNN do we?

BTW: I love watching Americans skirt around this issue. "Sure I admire your view, but I was just offering the suggestion of the possibility that maybe..." How many Americans are afraid to post in this thread do you think? "Too hard. Don't want to get involved..." blah blah blah.

</STRONG>

You object to politeness, courtesy, and respect in discourse? And you're arguing for peace? How is that hopeful, or helpful?

[qb]
SNIP

Remember the word "chivalry"? When was the last time you heard that? Where are the good men in all this? Afraid of getting their asses shot off probably.

/qb]

Actually, good men are getting their asses shot off as they serve their country, or their notion of a cause. Either way, loyalty is a quality you find in good men.

Although, your mention of chivalry brings up my remembrance of Shakespeare's Henry IV, spoken by Falstaff-

'Tis not due yet. I would be loath to pay him before his day.
What need I be so forward with him that calls not on me? Well,
'tis no matter; honour pricks me on. Yea, but how if honour prick
me off when I come on? How then? Can honor set to a leg? No. Or
an arm? No. Or take away the grief of a wound? No. Honour hath no
skill in surgery then? No. What is honour? A word. What is that
word honour? Air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it? He that died a
Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No. Doth be bear it? No. 'Tis
insensible then? Yea, to the dead. But will it not live with the
living? No. Why? Detraction will not suffer it. Therefore I'll
none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon- and so ends my catechism.

Or, for those who don't dig the bard, what good is honor to the living? Honor doesn't heal or take away grief. Honor is only a word. Words are only air, here and gone. The only people who have honor are those dead and buried. The living cannot have honor, because it it too easily taken from them. Honor is a shield, to hide behind, and (Falstaff) will have nothing to do with it.

[pkatt]

I'm not asking you to do anything. Israel sucks at propoganda. Even if they were good, I'd never try to persuade anyone to swallow it. I'm just saying that by watching the news in America, you really are only seeing the conflict from one side. In order to form accurate opinions, you have to be totally unbiased and take in every bit of information possible. You have to study both sides before you come to any conclusions. I have done that. I watch the news (a lot), I went to the Palestinian spokesperson's speech at Valpo University, I went to see Moshe Ram in Indianapolis. I studied every possible point of view before I came to the conclusion that the Israelis are the good guys, even though they at times are very very bad. By doing that, I have made sure that I'm comfortable with my position and can back it up. If you need to read the Jerusalem Post to be able to make your decision, then that's what you need to do, and I'd SUGGEST you to do.

[Face Ache]

There she was just-a walkin' down the street,
Singin' Do-wa-diddy-diddy-dum-diddy-do.

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Face Ache ]

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
<STRONG>Honour is pride. Chivalry is doing the right thing (despite personal cost).

[edit: spleling]

Here's a good link: http://www.smh.com.au/news/0203/09/world/world7.html

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Face Ache ]</STRONG>

Not really;

Honor is dignity, a sense of what is right, just, and true; dignified respect for character, springing from probity, principle, and moral rectitude; scorn of meanness.

Chivalry refers to the qualifications of a Knight, as valor, nobility, fairness, courtesy, respect for women, and protection of the poor.

-- source, Webster's Unabridged dictionary.

As you can see, Honor is every bit the correct word, and chivalry borders on being incorrect in the context you intended.

[Face Ache]

Removed.

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Face Ache ]

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
<STRONG>&lt;sigh&gt;

Well I think honour is subjective. I'm sure Sharon thinks he's honourable. I think a chivalrous act would be regarded as "noble" universally. That's without a dictionary.

</STRONG>
So, you reject the dictionary meaning, and use your own dictionary. Nobility refers to being titled in the British hierarchy, and you know it. You just use words as you please without regard for their meaning.

And you presume too much:

<STRONG>
I'm sure you would probably regard chivalry as stupid. That's sad.

</STRONG>
What's sad here is your assumption with no basis in reality.
The best anyone can do to be chivalrous is respectful towards women (because you can't just go pretending to have a title of nobility in the British hierarchy unless you were born to it.) I assure you I value these traits highly, and don't know where you get off making such assumptions about my character.

I never accused you of any such flaws, how dare you do so to me?

<STRONG>
I think all this tit-for-tat stuff if stupid.

If you abstract yourself right out of reality you can explain anything away. The reality is dead kids, war and hatred.

</STRONG>
I never extracted myself from it, I lived in the middle of it. The reality is far more than you know, or are expressing you know in this space.

No one likes any part of it, I assure you. A silly picture doesn't help, it just looks silly in the midst of a decent discussion.

I don't need to reply back to this thread again, it's really easy for you to take personal potshots and create new meanings for words that don't mean what you think they mean, rather than stay on topic and defend your position, and when you do get around to defending your position, it's with a silly picture.

Thanks anyway.

[Face Ache]

&lt;remove really good argument&gt;

Chant: "Not worth it... not worth it.... not worth it..."

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Face Ache ]

[Face Ache]

I have only been seriously ticked off twice in my time spent at MacNN and both times it has been you.

[Face Ache]

Actually, you made a snide remark about someone's education a few weeks ago. They don't post here any more either.

Thats three times.

You're out.

Or was that "I'm out".

Dickhead.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
<STRONG>Actually, you made a snide remark about someone's education a few weeks ago. They don't post here any more either.

Thats three times.

You're out.

Or was that "I'm out".

</STRONG>

Actually, I never made a comment about anyone's education, yours or anothers. All I ever asked you was to not make the debate personal, and you did, making the bad assumption that I would think chivalry stupid, and then calling me a name in your last post.

I also established the definitions of words (and hey, I looked them up just to make sure I got it right!) and really, if we can't agree on what words mean, how can we use them in discussion. You'll write something, meaning one thing, and I'll understand something completely different from what you meant- and how will that help?

If people choose not to post, over a silly argument in the Lounge, about a topic that neither of us can directly effect change in, is it worth leaving over? I'm sorry, I don't see why this is worth leaving over.

The opinions I express here are my own, and are not those of MacNN, or anyone but myself.

I see I touched a nerve. I'm sorry for that.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Moderator:
<STRONG>Even if Israel gives up the land acquired in '67, there will still be a significant Palestinian contingent claiming rights to what remains. The PLO represent Palestinian refugees as much..or perhaps more so..than those living in the occupied land..so even if Israel gives up the West Bank & Gaza..that's no guarantee for peace.

With regards to making one nation with equal rights for both the Palestinians and Israelies..I don't see that happening...If the Jews allow the Palestinians to run for office etc...they lose their guarantee of a Jewish State.

As far as Israels right to exist..it has a right to exist because it exists. It didn't necessarily have a right in 1947..but now that its established..its right to exists is established...and the longer they hold on to the West Bank and Gaza..the stronger their right to those lands becomes...which is why I believe Arafat has made a big mistake by not urgently puruing a compromise for the last 30 years.

He thinks the Palestinian rights to those lands will last forever..but they don't...just like the Jews lost their rights to Jerusalem after the Romans gave them the boot 2000 years ago...so will the Palestinians unless they get off their arses and agree to compromise.</STRONG>

Wait... Lemme guess. Your real name is Ariel, right? Or Adolf... Jewish state = Lebensraum

[voodoo]

Originally posted by pkatt:
<STRONG> The Israelis only kill the people responsible for planning these deadly attacks. </STRONG>

Did you eat paint as a kid?

<STRONG>
The Palestinians always "want" to have talks, but whenever the Israelis be push overs and give them everything they want, all of a sudden they want more. The Palestians "argue" that Israelis are destroying their homes and stuff but the only homes they are destroying are vacant. Palestians bus people into these empty houses to give the illusion on video that people are being forced to relocate. </STRONG>

I think this sentance sums up your ignorance and gullibility.

<STRONG>
The world hasn't seen this good of propoganda since Hitler and Goebbles. There isn't a peaceful solution in the mideast. Israel has just as much legitimacy in going after Arafat and his followers as the US does in getting Bin Laden, but no one is complaining about what we are doing?
</STRONG>

Er, YES! There is a GREAT resentment among people in and especially outside the US. "The Axis of Evil is in fact the USA and Israel" - quote from the Reykjavik Daily Puffin.

<STRONG>
All out war is the only possible solution.
</STRONG>

I think you'd have to be working for the forces of evil (or it's axis ) to reach that conclusion. Dang, don't you feel foolish right now?

<STRONG>
Couple of other things.
Whenever there has been a cease fire, the Israelis have obeyed it and the terrorists have taken advantage of their vulnerability and killed again.
</STRONG>

Jawohl, Herr G�bbels!

PS. This subject must be a real troll magnet.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by pkatt:
<STRONG>

Wrong. The Arabs have as many powerful weapons as Israel. They have tons of countries (Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) on their side that give them a lot of weapons. I remember reading something a few weeks ago about a ship full of guns and missiles that was confiscated on the way to Arafat. There was a segment on the evening news the other day about how the conflict has changed from them strapping bombs on themselves to launching missiles.

Joshua has a good point. All the Israelis killed are innocent people. The majority of the Palestinians are terrorists and suicide bombers. You can hardly count them as deaths. You really need to compare the number of citizen deaths and that'd show you that no side is winning or loosing.</STRONG>

Who is this guy? And do the Israeli rooters want him opening his piehole? I know I'd shuddimup if he pretended to be on MY side!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by pkatt:
<STRONG> I highly condone killing kids. </STRONG>

con�done vt
to regard something that is considered immoral or wrong in a tolerant way, without criticizing it or feeling strongly about it

You are clearly an illiterate, ill educated troll. Just go away.

Well, he could have used the edit function to correct himself. Like I am doing now .

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: voodoo ]

[vmarks]

Originally posted by voodoo:
<STRONG>

con�done vt
to regard something that is considered immoral or wrong in a tolerant way, without criticizing it or feeling strongly about it

You are clearly an illiterate, ill educated troll. Just go away.</STRONG>

Pointing out the correct definition is good- for myself, I'm not sure the personal dig was entirely necessary, but that's solely my opinion.

Thanks for taking us back on topic!

[theolein]

Actually, I have a new theory today based on Bush-boy's "release" of the "secret" nuke report. The leak has been done on purpose to scare the Iraqi's and other Arab nations into playing nice. I think they tacked the bit on using battlefield nuclear weapons in support of israel in case Syria or Saudi Arabia decides that the current atrocities being commited on both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might side-track the Israelis long enough for them to them to attack it. I wouldn't put it past Saddam to use an attack on israel as an opportunity to gather support in the Arab world.

I just sort of pray that someone will decide that there's been enough killing and decide to stop it. But I think they've sort of gone past the point of no return really.

[Big Mac]

As a veteran player of far too many Israeli-Arab conflict debates on MacNN, I resisted responding to this thread. I knew that the usual players such as Stomach Cramp, as well as whole host of other inveterate idiots would come on to post worthless, illogical, hateful diatribes against Jews and the state of Israel. Politically correct, leftist propaganda has blinded so very many of you, to the point where you fail to see the truth even as it hits you squarely in the nose. I could once again spend my precious time addressing you moronic cretins point for point, but I have little desire to do that right now. Instead, I'll post for your edification a poignant and truly timeless essay on the subject. (Be careful, some of you may actually learn something, and you wouldn't want that!)

<STRONG> Dear World

by Rabbi Meir Kahane

The following essay was written in 1988, only a couple of years before the murder of Rabbi Kahane by an Arab terrorist, Egyptian-born El Sayyid Nosair, who not only was convicted of the murder but also of conspiracy in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Dear World,

It appears that you are hard to please. I understand that you are upset over us, here in Israel. Indeed, it appears that you are quite upset, even angry and outraged? Indeed, every few years you seem to become upset over us. Today, it is the brutal repression of the "Palestinians;" yesterday, it was Lebanon; before that it was the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Baghdad and the Yom Kippur War campaign. It appears that Jews who triumph and who, therefore, live, upset you most extraordinarily. Of course, dear world, long before there was an Israel, we, the Jewish people - upset you. We upset a German people who elected a Hitler and we upset an Austrian people who cheered his entry into Vienna and we upset a whole slew of Slavic nations - Poles, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Hungarians, Romanians. And we go back a long, long way in the history of world upset. We upset the Cossacks of Chmielnicki who massacred tens of thousands of us in 1648-49; we upset the Crusaders who, on their way to liberate the Holy Land, were so upset at Jews that they slaughtered untold numbers of us. We upset, for centuries, a Roman Catholic Church that did its best to define our relationship through Inquisitions. And we upset the arch-enemy of the Church, Martin Luther, who, in his call to burn the synagogues and the Jews within them, showed an admirable Christian ecumenical spirit.

It is because we became so upset over upsetting you, dear world, that we decided to leave you - in a manner of speaking - and establish a Jewish State. The reasoning was that living in close contact with you, as resident-strangers in the various countries that comprise you, we upset you, irritate you, disturb you. What better notion, then, than to leave you and thus love you - and have you love us? And so we decided to come home - to the same homeland from which we were driven out 1,900 years earlier by a Roman world that, apparently, we also upset.

Alas, dear world, it appears that you are hard to please. Having left you and your Pogroms and Inquisitions and Crusades and Holocausts, having taken our leave of the general world to live alone in our own little state - we continue to upset you.

You are upset that we repress the poor "Palestinians." You are deeply angered over the fact that we do not give up the lands of 1967, which are clearly the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Moscow is upset and Washington is upset. The Arabs are upset and the gentle Egyptian moderates are upset. Well, dear world, consider the reaction of a normal Jew from Israel. In 1920, 1921 and 1929, there were no territories of 1967 to impede peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, there was no Jewish State to upset anybody. Nevertheless, the same oppressed and repressed "Palestinians" slaughtered hundreds of Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Safed and Hebron. Indeed, 67 Jews were slaughtered one day in Hebron - in 1929.

Dear World, why did the Arabs - the "Palestinians" - massacre 67 Jews in one day in 1929? Could it have been their anger over Israeli aggression in 1967? And why were 510 Jewish men, women and children slaughtered in Arab riots in 1936-39? Was it because of Arab upset over 1967? And when you, World, proposed a U.N. Partition Plan in 1947 that would have created a Palestinian State alongside a tiny Israel and the Arabs cried and went to war and killed 6,000 Jews - was that upset stomach caused by the aggression of 1967? And, by the way, dear world, why did we not hear your cry of upset then?

The poor "Palestinians" who today kill Jews with explosives and firebombs and stones are part of the same people who - when they had all the territories they now demand be given them for their state - attempted to drive the Jewish State into the sea. The same twisted faces, the same hate, the same cry of "idbah-al-yahud" - "Slaughter the Jews!" that we hear and see today, were seen and heard then. The same people, the same dream - destroy Israel. What they failed to do yesterday, they dream of today - but we should not "repress" them.

Dear World, you stood by the Holocaust and you stood by in 1948 as seven states launched a war that the Arab League proudly compared to the Mongol massacres. You stood by in 1967 as Nasser, wildly cheered by wild mobs in every Arab capital in the world, vowed to drive the Jews into the sea. And you would stand by tomorrow if Israel were facing extinction. And since we know that the Arabs-"Palestinians" daily dream of that extinction, we will do everything possible to remain alive in our own land. If that bothers you, dear world, well - think of how many times in the past you bothered us. In any event, dear world, if you are bothered by us, here is one Jew in Israel who could not care less. </STRONG>

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]

[vmarks]

Originally posted by theolein:
<STRONG>SNIP

I just sort of pray that someone will decide that there's been enough killing and decide to stop it. But I think they've sort of gone past the point of no return really.</STRONG>

Well, you and I are praying for the same thing. I don't know how it will happen, I don't know if it's gone too far to turn back or not, but somehow it has to change, or our children will be aruging about it in a forum somewhere while others are dying.

This is solely my opinion and doesn't represent MacNN.com or anyone else.

[UNTeMac]

I know this is off-topic, but I was wondering as I kept track of this thread throughout the week when it would descend into personal attacks and troll-bait. I was surprised to find intelligent discussion for a few days. maxelson, Millenium, vmarks, zigzag: you all are a credit to calm debate on a tough issue like this. Maybe we can all keep it that way? Please?

As for the discussion at hand, there have been a few solutions proposed...and I know this isn't a new idea but, in terms of compromise...What do you all think about a "Vatican-City-style" designation for Jerusalem? Make the city its own nation with a secular government, then divide the surrounding territory among the two sides. Thoughts?

[pkatt]

Originally posted by voodoo:
<STRONG>

con�done vt
to regard something that is considered immoral or wrong in a tolerant way, without criticizing it or feeling strongly about it

You are clearly an illiterate, ill educated troll. Just go away.

Well, he could have used the edit function to correct himself. Like I am doing now .

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: voodoo ]</STRONG>

That's right. I'm an illiterate, illeducated troll. That explains why I got a 1500 on the SAT and have an IQ of 136. That probably also explains why I subscribe to 7 newspapers from all over the country and get all the news channels. For all I know, it might also be the reason I was 3rd from the top of my highschool class.

I also thank you for correcting my mistake, as someone already did, but, in the contrary, think that your immature response to a simple mistake proves how much of an illiterate and illeducated troll YOU are. Maybe you should go away and come back when you're 6 feet under?

I also don't appreciate your previous post. I'm sorry I'm upset that dozens of innocent people like me are being blown to bits by a bunch of savage jackasses. I'm sorry that my rage has and will continue to have me saying things that I don't neccessarily meen. I'm sorry you are an alien and don't understand human emotions. I'm not an alien, and when people start killing people based on that people's response during the crusades, I kind of get upset, like I am now.

You also should do your research. To the best of my knowledge (which you think is minimal) I see no "edit" function when posting a message. Of course, I could've edited it after I was notified of my mistake, from someone other than you that mentioned it nicely, I thought this was an important enough topis that if everyone read all the posts like they should, they would see my apologies.

With all of that said, I have one big thank you to you. Now, not only do I dislike people from France (nothing personal), I now dislike people from Iceland as well, at least if they are all of the same stupidity as you.


Having just read an older post by this thing, I have more rebutal. I did not eat paint as a kid. Israel only MEANS to kill the people responsible. I admit that there are unfortunately some innocent deaths, but they are all accidental.

Do you have a better suggestion for peace than war? They already have tried to talk. That didn't work. Bush is sending Zini for a third time. Didn't the last two failures tell him anything? Barak tried to have a peaceful settlement, but Arafat, by rejecting, implied that the only solution is war. Clinton spent his 8 years in office trying to create peace, and how far did he get? I'd be extatic if there could be e peaceful solution, but I doubt there is.

Where do you get off attacking me when I say that the Palestinians have sophisicated weaponry? If I am indead wrong, you need to take it up with CNN and NBC and JPOST and ABC and CBS and TIME and NEWSWEEK and all the other media outlets. THEY are the ones who published pieces about the barge for Arafat that was loaded with weapons. THEY were the ones who said that the Palestinians are siring the Kasam 2 missile, which they said they developed. THEY are the ones who said last night that 3 bomb making plants were found. I encourage you to talk to Dan Rather of Tom Brokaw or Larry King if you have a problem with the facts.

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: pkatt ]

[voodoo]

Look buddy, don't TRY to dis me. I have seen dozens of trolls like yourself and they don't impress me. If you think this is some kind of a pissing contest you are barking up the wrong tree, mister. Just read your last reply to my post and feel ashamed of yourself.

You are a lame troll.

Foolish, unconvincing and not that articulate.

[UNTeMac]

voodoo...stay on topic or please don't post. This was decent discussion for a little while. Thanks.

[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: UNTiMac ]

[voodoo]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
<STRONG>voodoo...stay on topic or please don't post. This was decent discussion for a little while. Thanks.

[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: UNTiMac ]</STRONG>

Look. I find find war, promotion of war and glorification of war (the kind that get's people killed) offending. Using words as a tool to describe my sentiments on that subject is completely acceptable to me.

I find all wars offensive. To me and to my race. We, the most 'intelligent' of species are the most despicable.

pkatt actually said: "Do you have a better suggestion for peace than war?". That is offensive.

I will support any ideas to make peace in Israel/Palestine any day. That is surely on topic.