[typoon]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201109,00.html

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — After weeks of negotiations, the rival Hamas and Fatah groups on Tuesday reached agreement on a plan that implicitly recognizes Israel, a top Palestinian official said.

"We have an agreement over the document," Ibrahim Abu Najah said.

Salah Zeidan, another negotiator, said a formal signing ceremony would come soon. "All political groups are prepared for a mutual cease-fire with Israel," he added.

President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah has been trying to coax Hamas into backing the document, which was written by senior Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

Abbas has promoted the plan as a way to reopen peace talks with Israel and end economic sanctions that have crippled the Hamas-led Palestinian government.

However, a crisis over the abduction of an Israeli soldier and opposition by the militant group Islamic Jihad overshadowed the deal.

"In today's meeting, we announced we reject some of the articles of this document and we have reservations about other articles," said Khaled al-Batch, spokesman for Islamic Jihad, which has carried out numerous attacks against Israel.

The plan calls for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, in effect recognizing Israel. It also calls on militants to limit attacks to areas captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast War and calls for formation of a coalition Palestinian government.

Hamas and Fatah have been locked in a bloody power struggle since Hamas won legislative elections in January. Hamas controls the parliament and Cabinet. Abbas, a political moderate, was elected separately last year.

Israel has said the document is an internal Palestinian matter, but said it falls short of international demands that Hamas renounce violence and formally recognize the Jewish state.

With Hamas-linked militants holding a captured Israeli soldier, the Palestinian agreement is even less likely to reduce tensions. Israel has massed troops along its border with Gaza, promising a broad offensive into the area.
----------------------------------

This is some pretty amazing news. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Kevin]

This is news?

I though everyone knew this.

[Kerrigan]

Unfortunately Israel is going to have to take down Hamas and invade Gaza, since those bloody Palestinians have kidnapped that Israeli soldier.

Palestinians don't want peace, they just want to cause problems and kill Jews.

[darth-vader000]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Some Palestinians don't want peace, they just want to cause problems and kill Jews.

Fixinated

Not all palestinians want war and its prejudiced thinking to think a given race is one way or another (palestinians, Jews, Americans etc).

[Kerrigan]

Well, it seems a majority of them voted Hamas into power.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by darth-vader000

Fixinated

Not all palestinians want war and its prejudiced thinking to think a given race is one way or another (palestinians, Jews, Americans etc).

Over 80% support terrorism.

We've been over this.

And they DID elect a terrorist organization as their leader.

[davesimondotcom]

Hey, who is that standing over near the sea? I know I've seen that country before... I just can't place it.

Oh, that one? That's Israel.

NO WAY! Has it lost weight? I didn't recognize it! But now that you say so, I completely see it. Totally Israel. I recognize it now.

[aberdeenwriter]

Israeli troops are now entering Southern Gaza.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by darth-vader000

Fixinated

Not all palestinians want war and its prejudiced thinking to think a given race is one way or another (palestinians, Jews, Americans etc).

Palestinian is not a race. Palestinian is not an ethnicity. Palestinian is not even a nationality, although Israel's suicidal stupidity may change that some day. The Palestinian identity is a fraudulent one.

If you doubt my words, ask yourself the following: What is the language of the Palestinian? What is the ethnicity of the Palestinian? When in history was there a sovereign Palestine? Who was its ruler? What were its borders? What distinguishes so-called Palestinians from Jordanians, Syrians or Lebanese? Why was there no attempt to create a Palestine (in the disputed territories stolen by Jordan) at any point between 1948 and 1967, if not earlier?

"There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
-Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, to the Peel Commission, 1937

[jcadam]

The only way to end this is for one side to completely annihilate the other.

My suggestion: Israel announces that from now on, for every Israeli citizen killed in terrorist attacks, 100 Palestinians will be randomly rounded-up, and shot.
Eventually they'll stop, or they'll all be dead. Either way, problem solved.

[greenG4]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I was't alive then), but a few decades ago they said this and agreed to divide land between themselves and Israel, then promtly decided Israel didn't need land afterall.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by jcadam

The only way to end this is for one side to completely annihilate the other.

My suggestion: Israel announces that from now on, for every Israeli citizen killed in terrorist attacks, 100 Palestinians will be randomly rounded-up, and shot.
Eventually they'll stop, or they'll all be dead. Either way, problem solved.

Even the most hawkish Jew would never advocate such a thing, jcadam. The only true path to peace is that the hostile Arabs must go. They must go to any of the 22 Arab countries currently in existence, or to the other 30 Muslim countries. That is the only just end to the conflict.

[darth-vader000]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The Palestinian identity is a fraudulent one.

Guess what, they're saying the same thing about the Jews.

I'm not pro palestinian or anything, and I think its a mistake on Israel's part to trade land for a promise (peace) but I also think its wrong to make blanket statements about a group of people.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Over 80% support terrorism.

We've been over this.

And they DID elect a terrorist organization as their leader.

I have not seen (or looked for) any poll so I cannot validate that but your post just confirms my point. Not all palestinians want war or terrorism and its just clearly wrong to make blanket statements. You can say the majority support it (and include a link to back up the statement.

As for the election your right and I've read all sorts of explanations why they elected the hamas to power and to be honest I have really seen anything that makes sense. I think if a people wants peace and a homeland, electing a terrorist group to power who's sole purpose is to destroy Israel is not the way to do it.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by greenG4

Correct me if I'm wrong (I was't alive then), but a few decades ago they said this and agreed to divide land between themselves and Israel, then promtly decided Israel didn't need land afterall.

Yup, but there's more to the story than that. The Jewish people were originally promised all of the land of the Palestine Mandate for a reconstituted Jewish homeland (by the Balfour Declaration, which was later approved by 52 countries of the League of Nations), but the British reneged and granted more than 2/3s of the Palestine Mandate to an Arab kingdom, creating Trans-Jordan. Jewish settlement was restricted to the 23% of land west of the Jordan River, which amounts to Israel and its disputed territories - Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. the West Bank) and the Gaza Strip. A couple decades later the UN supported a partition plan that would have divided that 23% in half, creating a Jewish state and an Arab one. The founders of the modern state of Israel were going to accept that compromise, but the Arab powers went to war to destroy the country before its birth, so that second partition did not happen. Trans-Jordan did, however, cross over the Jordan River and effectively stole control over the territories (it shortened its name to reflect that fact). In the next decades Jordan and its terrorist surrogates launched a constant stream of attacks on Israel from the territories, which continued unabated until the Six Day War.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This is news?

I though everyone knew this.

I wonder how their Iranian masters feel about this.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by darth-vader000

Guess what, they're saying the same thing about the Jews.

They say similar but not entirely analogous things, yes. They deny the existence of the biblical commonwealths of Israel. Muslims try to claim the great figures of the Hebrew Scriptures were Muslims rather than Jews. They sometimes make the claim that God rejected Israel and so the land He gave them as an eternal possession no longer belongs to them. They deny a tenet of modern political thought that says distinct peoples should be given the right of self-determination (i.e. statehood). Many of them deny the truth of the Holocaust. For good reason, Mein Kampf and the Protocols are best sellers in the Islamic world. But whatever they wish to claim is of little importance, because preposterous claims do not equal truth.

I'm not pro palestinian or anything, and I think its a mistake on Israel's part to trade land for a promise (peace) but I also think its wrong to make blanket statements about a group of people.

I too think it's wrong to make generalizations. I won't say that that entire population hates Israel, because that is false. Unfortunately an overwhelming majority do, as evidenced by the election of a terrorist group that is truthful and unapologetic over its intent to destroy the Jewish state.

[Kerrigan]

Big Mac, as far as I know, Palestine was nothing but a 'derelict province of the Ottoman Empire' until the mid-20th century (according to Bernard Lewis, who knows a thing or two about the middle east)

[Big Mac]

From an Arab point of view, the Palestine Mandate was little more than an ignored portion of the Ottoman Empire until the 20th Century. Jewish groups actually purchased large portions of the land from Ottoman landowners who were more than happy to part with their titles, since the land was largely barren. Only during the initial conquest by Mohammed's followers, the building of Al Aqsa on the Temple Mount and the era of the Crusades did the land hold much meaning for the Arab world. The reason is that the land of Israel is of little importance to Islam. Neither Israel nor Jerusalem are ever referred to by name in the Koran, which is partially due to the fact of the Jews' rejection of Mohammed. Mecca and Medina are Islam's holy cities, not Jerusalem. But for Jews, the preeminence of the land of Israel cannot be denied.

[Kerrigan]

As I understand it, the Zionist movement had been well under way since Victorian days and it didn't raise many eyebrows in the Arab world, until WWII when the Middle East was flooded with anti-semetic propaganda by Italy and Germany.

So like you said, Palestine wasn't so important to Islam until the past few decades.

[vmarks]

This document is a falsehood.

It's a lie being promoted by the press.

What does Hamas have to say about it?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060627/...t_agreement_dc

Hamas insisted it was sticking to its “agenda of resistance” against Israel. “The document included a clear clause referring to the non-recognition of the legitimacy of the Occupation,” Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said, using the Islamist group’s term for Israel. ...

Officials close to the negotiations said Abbas, of Fatah, and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, of Hamas, drafted a platform accepting a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, areas captured by Israel in a 1967 war.

Such a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be in line with Fatah’s recognition of Israel.

But Hamas legislator Salah al-Bardaweel told Reuters: “We said we accept a state (in territory occupied) in 1967 — but we did not say we accept two states.”

There it is. No recognition.

http://www.jmcc.org/documents/prisoners.htm is the document the press keeps touting as the "recognition."

Read it.

NOWHERE in there is there a “two-state solution,” nor the creation of a Palestinian state “alongside Israel.”

The relevant part is:

It makes no mention at all of Israel, and in fact ties the creation of a Palestinian state to several other demands that are completely unacceptable—Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, the “right of return” (a code phrase for the demographic destruction of Israel), and the release of all convicted terrorists from prison. This is a “two-state solution?”

And here’s the section that AFP wants you to believe endorses “an end to attacks in Israel:”

3- the right of the Palestinian people in resistance and clinging to the option of resistance with the various means and focusing the resistance in the occupied territories of 1967 alongside with the political action and negotiations and diplomatic action and continuation of popular and mass resistance against the occupation in its various forms and policies and making sure there is broad participation by all sectors and masses in the popular resistance.

“Focusing the resistance in the occupied territories of 1967” is a helluva long way from “an end to attacks in Israel.” And notice that the rest of this paragraph is nothing but a call to continue the violence—even after the creation of a Palestinian state.

[Taliesin]

It's a first step, but Hamas has still not recognized Israel, far from it. They just agreed with Fatah to concentrate on the establishment of Palestine in Gaza and Westbank with Jerusalem as the capital, and to concentrate their resistance on these territories until a peace-agreement has been achieved with Israel.

This is a good first step but Hamas still clings to the maximal goal of liberating all of Palestine, including the area referred to as Israel, but postpones that fight to later generations of palestinians.

That is the loophole that Hamas can use to become part of the PLO, let Abbas make peace with Israel and save face by hinting at the fact that they still remain faithful to their maximal goal, and do not give up their doctrine.

As to Bigmac, Kevin:

Please keep your thinly veiled hatred for arabs and muslims in check, and try to not be that ignorant.

It should be clear by now that the dispossed and oppressed people are the palestinians, and it really doesn't matter at all if they had any real political representation or nationhood in the area or not.

Sure the european jews lived through a disastrous holocaust, but it remains a mystery why they should have been granted the right to a jewish state just because of the genocide, and why other people had to be dispossessed and driven out to realize a jewish state, two wrongs simply don't make anything right here.

To point at the old testament and to say "See, there millenias ago, God promised and gave the holy land to the jews (the only monotheists at the time that believed in God alone)" is irrelevant in this discussion and actually quite rediculous, if not to say dishonest for several reasons:

1. The old testament is also an inheritance for the muslims, since the Quran clearly states that God's messengers from Adam, Noah, Abraham to Moses and Jesus, their lifes, their fate and their respective messages are an important part of the quranic message and a major witness to God's interaction with humanity.

2. Even if one dishonestly point to the ancient times where the jews as the only monotheists were living in ancient Israel as stated in the old testament, one should not forget that they also were expelled according to divine order numerous times, and only under the leadership of a prophet, who brought God's order and forgivance, were they allowed back. So where's that prophet that would have justified the recreation of Israel according to the old testament.
I'm actually not against the establishment of a jewish state, but if one points to the old testament, one should have at least a prophet at hand to lead Israel in order to remain faithful to the old testament.

3. What is important to understand is that the holy land was holy because it was meant as a refuge for God's servants, the only monotheistic tribe in a world of polytheistic tribes in ancient times. But things changed considerably, with the advent of the messengers Jesus and Muhammad, all people could become God's servants and polytheism had to retreat, which made of course the concept of a refuge for the only monotheistic tribe unneccessary since many more tribes became monotheistic...

4. So given all that it is a crime against humanity to drive out an agricultural, commerce-practicing, monotheistic society from the land they and their forefathers lived on, in order to relive a sort of modern phantasy-version of ancient Israel.

But it has happened, and now it would be also a crime against humanity to drive out the jews living in Israel, and where two wrongs were not right, three wrongs would still not be right. The solution I would like to see in the far future would be a reunified Israel-Palestine, where jews and muslims live in peace and harmony as modern secular citizens of the same state, but since that is not possible in the current climate where zionism and islamism are driving the emotions, it would have to be a compromise-peace where Israel retreats to the 67-borders+West-Jerusalem, and where Palestine gets founded in Gaza, Westbank and East-Jerusalem. That seperation and the peace-pact will over the time of decades and centuries hopefully, if God will, cool down the people on both sides..

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

This document is a falsehood.

It's a lie being promoted by the press.

Now I gotta ask myself. Why did they do that?

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Over 80% support terrorism.

I wonder how many Israelis support military action against palestine?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

I wonder how many Israelis support military action against palestine?

I would hope you would support military action against someone that is attacking your country.

I wouldn't equate you being a terrorist supporter for doing so. That would be dishonest.

Simple facts.

If the Palestinians stopped attacking now. Israel would stop retaliating.

If Israel stopped retaliating, the Palestinians would run over them.

There's the difference.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I would hope you would support military action against someone that is attacking your country.

I wouldn't equate you being a terrorist supporter for doing so. That would be dishonest.

Simple facts.

If the Palestinians stopped attacking now. Israel would stop retaliating.

If Israel stopped retaliating, the Palestinians would run over them.

There's the difference.

Let's get some things straight here. You're saying palestine are the occupants!?

[Kevin]

Go back and re-read what I just said.

In NO PART of my post did that word or context take place.

Ditch the straw-man.

The Israelis are occupants in their own land which is Israel. THEY OWN IT.

There is no occupation.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Go back and re-read what I just said.

In NO PART of my post did that word or context take place.

Ditch the straw-man.

The Israelis are occupants in their own land which is Israel. THEY OWN IT.

There is no occupation.

And that's exactly what they disagree about. If some Native Americans knocked on your door with an ancient piece of paper in their hand saying your property is theirs, would you give it up just like that? (I suppose you might, but it isn't as easy for the palestinians as they can't take their homes on the road)

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Simple facts.

If the Palestinians stopped attacking now. Israel would stop retaliating.

If Israel stopped retaliating, the Palestinians would run over them.

There's the difference.

Hyperbole.

Dishonest.

Ignorant.

I could leave it at that, but since I hate oneliners, I will elaborate a bit: Israel's violence is mutlifaceted, it includes military, secret-service, settller-activities... which form the obvious violence, but also political and economical violence and even media-violence.

It sounds strange but all these facets are violence since in effect they enfringe on the palestinian rights of selfdetermination. For example Israel took Jerusalem, west and east, and declared it to be for eternity part of Israel, there you have continuing violence, eventhough the actual military exchange of violence is long over and it takes now the forms of administrative, judicial, economic, medial and political expression which in effect aim at negating the palestinians their rights on East-Jerusalem.

Then you have Gaza, where Israel retreated from unilaterally, but was it done for peaceful purposes? No, it was done because it was financially not rewarding to keep hold of Gaza and because it opens up the possibility for unilateral border-definition in the westbank in the interest of Israel, which means to keep hold of the most arable land and espescially the waterressources, which means of course the negation of these to the palestinians...

That's violence which doesn't need a single shot to be fired, since it takes opportunity of the actual military violence done decades ago and simply defending the status-quo is all that is necessary.

You also can't forget the stranglehold that Israel has over the economies in Gaza and Westbank that are not only hampered by the checkpoints in the Westbank, but that can be put down easily through shutting up the territories or by withholding taxes that the palestinians themselves pay but that are collected and controlled by Israel.

Then you have the detention-policy that Israel likes to use against palestinians, detenting people, women and children for months without a charge or a judge, as they see fit...

Then you have the wall that should protect Israel from suicide-bombers, which is of course not true, for suicide-bombers can easily enter Israel through dug tunnels or using simple taxis if they wish so...but which they use to further dispossess palestinians since they naturally build the wall on palestinian territories.

That is all violence although it doesn't look so on first glance, and it's a violence which is a thousand times bigger and harder than the violence used by palestinian terrorists.

I would wish the palestinian militants would stop terrorism against civilians, not only because they are crimes against humanity and religious sins but also in order to expose the violence of Israel and to put pressure on them instead.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

And that's exactly what they disagree about. If some Native Americans knocked on your door with a piece of paper in their hand saying your property is theirs, would you give it up just like that? (I suppose you might, but it isn't as easy for the palestinians as they can't take their homes on the road)

Well that is a different situation all together isn't it?

This is more like a housing owner kicking people living in his houses for free out, in place of people he wants to live there.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Hyperbole.

Dishonest.

Ignorant.

Yes your post was.

Simple fact Tali, Israel only took land AFTER they were attacked for theirs.

In other words, they were attacked, and since the attackers didn't win, they think Israel should give back the land they took during said wars.

Do you think if the Palistinians won, they would have given back Israel? No.

You don't go up to someone, punch them in the face, and then complain when they punch back harder, they have bigger fists.

Another simple fact. Israel wants left alone to prosper. That is what they are fighting for.

The Palistinians are fighting to push them into the sea.

[Kerrigan]

Palestinians, and people who support their cause, just live in a culture of victimization. They enjoy feeling sorry for themselves, and they enjoy all the attention lavished on them by the rest of the Muslim world, especially from the Ahmadinejad types.

Those 80% of the people who voted for Hamas might as well just come out and say: "Look at us, we're like little spoiled babies, we lack the civic responsibility to work towards a peaceful state of affairs so we'd rather just terrorize Israel until we get our way".

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes your post was.

Simple fact Tali, Israel only took land AFTER they were attacked for theirs.

In other words, they were attacked, and since the attackers didn't win, they think Israel should give back the land they took during said wars.

Do you think if the Palistinians won, they would have given back Israel? No.

You don't go up to someone, punch them in the face, and then complain when they punch back harder, they have bigger fists.

Another simple fact. Israel wants left alone to prosper. That is what they are fighting for.

The Palistinians are fighting to push them into the sea.

Again you are distorting facts, it was actually Israel that attacked the arabic countries, eventhough when judging their activities and proclamations before the war, they probably would have started the war, but Israel did it before they did it...

But that is all beside the point, it was a war between Israel and the neighbouring arabic countries, and not between Israel and the palestinians.

Besides, it is internationally illegal to conquer territories through warfare, doesn't matter who planned to attack who and who started. When war is over and peace signed the territories have to be to go to their owners, and in the case of Gaza, Westbank and East-Jerusalem that are the palestinians.

But let's just entertain your idea of Israel conquering territories and keeping them even when war is over, then tell me why didn't Israel annex Gaza and Westbank, instead of just occupying it and oppressing the palestinians. Why didn't Israel give out israeli citizenship to the palestinians and called everything conquered Israel?

Or do you want to suggest ethnic cleansing or even genocide?

What Israel wants is the westbank without the palestinians, and Jerusalem without the palestinians and if possible even the palestinians with israeli citizenship in Israel gone. Everything it did in the last few decades, the settler-movement, the occupation, the oppression served only to make life as bad as possible for the palestinians so that they voluntarily give up their rights and leave. It didn't work and demographics run in the opposite direction, that was why Sharon decided a new policy, namely a unilaterally border-definition with the best parts (arable land with waterressources) of Westbank and of course all of Jerusalem and surroundings in israeli hand, while the palestinians should live in the dysfunctional rest.

There are no easy solutions, and as long as zionistic and islamistic thinking is dominating the scene as it currently is, a negotiated peace would prove difficult.
What palestinians want is to live in peace in a fully souvereign and functional palestinian state with its own souvereign airspace, ports and airports, with enough waterressources and arable land and East-Jerusalem as its capital, what Israel wants is the destruction of that Palestine before it can materialise.

Taliesin

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

It's a first step, but Hamas has still not recognized Israel, far from it. They just agreed with Fatah to concentrate on the establishment of Palestine in Gaza and Westbank with Jerusalem as the capital, and to concentrate their resistance on these territories until a peace-agreement has been achieved with Israel.

So, you’re contending that it’s appropriate for a group to continue its “resistance” (acts of warfare and terrorism) while simultaneously asking for a peace treaty? By the same line of thought, the government of Iraq should agree to a peace treaty with Al Qaeda amidst the bombings and beheadings. That’s a particularly peculiar concept of peace, Taliesin.

This is a good first step but Hamas still clings to the maximal goal of liberating all of Palestine, including the area referred to as Israel, but postpones that fight to later generations of palestinians.

I’m glad you recognize Hamas’ goal of destroying Israel. But I’m wondering, since you speak of Hamas’ as wanting “all of Palestine, including the area referred to as Israel” are you saying Hamas wants to eliminate Jordan? Because, if you define Palestine as the British Palestine Mandate, then liberating all of that land means the destruction of Jordan as well as Israel. More importantly, though, are you saying you recognize the fact that a lasting peace cannot be made with Hamas, because any so-called peace will be merely a hudna? If you’re able to comprehend that fact, then you should also recognize that the PLO has never renounced its charter calling for the destruction of Israel and that Arafat spoke of the very same hudna with Israel that you’re saying Hamas is looking to be a part of.

That is the loophole that Hamas can use to become part of the PLO, let Abbas make peace with Israel and save face by hinting at the fact that they still remain faithful to their maximal goal, and do not give up their doctrine.

Okay, so tell me what the logical consequence of Hamas’ perpetual refusal to recognize Israel would be. It means Israel will always be at war, as long as a substantial Arab population with the aspiration of destroying the Jewish state remains in the land of Israel. And it’s not just Hamas. The only thing that separates Hamas from the PLO is that the PLO is no longer as honest with the West as it once was.

As to Bigmac, Kevin: Please keep your thinly veiled hatred for arabs and muslims in check, and try to not be that ignorant.

You’ll notice I haven’t called you names, Taliesin. I have respect for you. I don’t hate Arabs or Muslims. Only if you wish to mislabel the truth as hatred would your claim make any sense. But I’m sorry if the truth hurts too much for you to keep things at all civil. As you’re intimidated by the truth of my words, I’m not surprised you’d resort to name calling. I’m confident others will judge the discourse on the merits.

It should be clear by now that the dispossed and oppressed people are the palestinians

How much has Israel paid for the relatively small population that was displaced as a result of Israel’s rebirth? Israel has exceedingly paid for the Arabs it displaced. It has paid in monetary terms - constructing modern civil infrastructure, schools, hospitals and universities for its Arab population. The Arabs of Israel enjoy a higher standard of living than most of their brethren. Israel has paid in political terms, granting Arabs the right to constantly denigrate and undermine Jewish sovereignty to the point that many Israelis identify with their sworn nemesis and question the right of their existence. And they have paid in blood. Lots and lots of Jewish blood - due to Arab wars of annihilation, a few other lesser wars of Arab aggression and a continual stream of irregular attacks and terrorist acts. If you want me to go through the whole litany, let me know; otherwise I’ll move on.

Sure the european jews lived through a disastrous holocaust, but it remains a mystery why they should have been granted the right to a jewish state just because of the genocide, and why other people had to be dispossessed and driven out to realize a jewish state. . .

Why should they have been granted the right to a Jewish state? How many reasons do you want? I’ll give you some good ones to start with: 1) Because a Jewish state on Jewish land was already agreed upon by the sovereign authority of the region, Britain, as well as the League of Nations, yet they failed to deliver. If there had been a Jewish state as was promised, perhaps the Holocaust would not have extinguished quite so many lives; 2) Because the world, for a short period of time, was aghast over what it had done to the nation of Israel, and because of what it failed to do for it; 3) Because the world recognized the truth that in a dire situation only a Jewish state would be inclined to protect Jewish rights; 4) Because the only legitimate place for a Jewish homeland is Jewish land, the land of Israel; 5) Because the Jewish people had suffered enough under the dominion of the nations 6) Because the time for the state of Israel’s rebirth had come and could not be denied by any earthly power; 7) Because the land is eternally Jewish and not subject to revocation, unless you believe God breaks His promises and causes the words of His anointed ones to be false.

Two wrongs simply don't make anything right here.

The rebirth of Israel was a right to correct a terrible but necessary wrong, the Roman exile. The fact that a relatively small number of Arabs were displaced, most of whom had only come to the land only decades before, is a hard but unavoidable fact of reality. In certain circumstances some must invariably lose for others with greater claims to win. Life cannot be fair for all at all times, at least from humanity’s limited perspective. And Israel already paid many times over, as I said before.

To point at the old testament and to say "See, there millenias ago, God promised and gave the holy land to the jews. . .

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to address your theological claims, since the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a religious conflict.

1. The old testament is also an inheritance for the muslims, since the Quran clearly states that God's messengers from Adam, Noah, Abraham to Moses and Jesus, their lifes, their fate and their respective messages are an important part of the quranic message and a major witness to God's interaction with humanity.

If you as a Muslim wish to believe the Hebrew Scriptures is an inheritance for you, that is the prerogative of you and your co-religionists. I am not a Muslim, and consequently I reject your religion’s holy text and its associated beliefs. Furthermore, your religion is a derivative of mine (not a slight, just the truth), so while you may feel obliged to believe certain things as a result of that connection, the same does not apply in reverse. Your religion is thoroughly supersessionist in nature (again, not a slight, just the truth), insofar as it purports to take elements of my earlier faith and claim it as its own. As I said before, many Muslims attempt to take the personages of the Bible (both the Hebrew and Christian parts) and make of them Muslims instead of what they were, Jews and Christians. Such a belief is offensive to Jews and Christians on a certain level, and it really makes no rational sense, especially when applied in the context of history. But again, that is your belief and not mine. My biblical ancestors were Jews who practiced Judaism. Likewise, the promises of the Hebrew Scriptures that were given by God to my people remain promises to my people. They cannot be co-opted by your people, because they were not given to your people, even though your religion claims to supersede mine. A duck cannot be a turtle. A Jew cannot be an Arab - Israel cannot be Ishmael. If you wish to have a religious claim to the land of Israel, convert and become a Jew.

All of that aside, it seems you’re quite misinformed about the nature of God’s promise to the nation of Israel. First of all, you seem to place great importance on the fact that the Jewish people were monotheistic at a time of rampant polytheism, as if God’s covenants with the Jewish people is somehow contingent on the Jews being the sole monotheists in the world. (If I have misunderstood your claim, I apologize, but that’s how it reads.) Based on that understanding of your belief, I’ll inform you of the following biblical fact: the Jewish people were not the first monotheists. Adam and Eve were, of course, the first. Noah revived believe in the one true God. His son, Shem, was a priest of God. Abraham became the first Jew, and God established His covenant with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac. Go read Genesis. God does not tell Abraham that the land is granted to him and his descendants until the rise of another people professing a monotheistic belief. The land is promised to Abraham as an eternal possession, a promise which is reaffirmed many times over to Abraham’s descendants, the Jewish people. We do have to perform according to His expectations in order to maintain sovereignty over the land, and we were twice exiled because we could not deliver. But while He may punish us in various ways and even exile us (as was prophesied anyway), none of that affects God’s promise to us. The land will always be Jewish. It’s unconditional, just as our existence on earth is unconditional. Muslims come up with a variety of theories to justify depriving us of our God given land, and none of them have merit. Those Muslim theories are not even based on Koranic teachings, because (as I said before) the Koran is entirely silent on the subject of the land of Israel.

2. Even if one dishonestly point to the ancient times where the jews as the only monotheists were living in ancient Israel as stated in the old testament, one should not forget that they also were expelled according to divine order numerous times,

Addressed/Refuted Above

Only under the leadership of a prophet, who brought God's order and forgivance, were they allowed back. So where's that prophet that would have justified the recreation of Israel according to the old testament.

Show me a commandment that states my people are only allowed to return to their land when led by a prophet. There is no such requirement. To the contrary, we are commanded to clear out and occupy the land (Numbers 33:53). Neither prophet nor king, no special leader of any kind is required for the Jewish people to individually and collectively observe God’s commandments.

3. What is important to understand is that the holy land was holy because it was meant as a refuge for God's servants, the only monotheistic tribe in a world of polytheistic tribes in ancient times.

False. So you deny the prophsied eventual return of the Jewish people to their land. God states in the Torah that he would scatter us among the nations until such time that we merited returning to our land. Do you know of that promise? The prophets speak of Israel’s final return from exile, the rebuilding of the Holy Temple and the reign of universal peace and justice throughout the world in depth. Do you know of any of those prophecies? If you don’t know of them, do you need me to show them to you? And if you do know of them. do you deny their validity?

But things changed considerably, with the advent of the messengers Jesus and Muhammad, all people could become God's servants. . .

False. God told the world of the ultimate course of human events. God promised us that we will be restored to our land, our Temple will be rebuilt and our monarchy restored. You profess to believe in the words of the Jewish prophets, so you should learn of these prophecies. Of course God knew that many nations would eventually come to monotheism. In fact, it is prophesied that when the hand of God is revealed the nations will claim they worshipped Him and did not oppress His people. Their eventual path to monotheism does not in any way abrogate the relationship of God to His chosen nation. Your nonsensical belief turns God into a liar who violates His word and breaks His eternal covenant.

That seperation and the peace-pact will over the time of decades and centuries hopefully, if God will, cool down the people on both sides..

Ah, you see the need for a separation of two conflicting peoples. The major practical difference between our two visions is that you envision the carving up of the tiny strip of land that is today’s Israel. My vision is for most of the Arab population to go home to any one of the 22 Arab countries on the earth or the other 30 non-Arab Muslim countries and to leave the only Jewish country alone. I am fairly certain that is the only way we as mortal men will ever achieve peace. Any other course will simply perpetuate the bloodshed, until the hand of God is forced.

[Big Mac]

[delete]

[Big Mac]

[delete]

[Troll]

A tank was attacked by Palestinian combatants resulting in two deaths and one soldier captured. That was a military encounter. Israel responds by blowing up civilian installations - bridges and electricity plants. That is terrorism, imho. The Israelis are targeting the civilian population in response to a military defeat.

[Big Mac]

[delete]

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Troll

A tank was attacked by Palestinian combatants resulting in two deaths and one soldier captured. That was a military encounter. Israel responds by blowing up civilian installations - bridges and electricity plants. That is terrorism, imho. The Israelis are targeting the civilian population in response to a military defeat.

No, only a few civilian infrastructers were targeted. It's done in preperation before a military operation. Same thing was done by NATO against Serbia. You make it sound like the Isrealis bombed a shopping mall and a few residential houses, you know, the usual tactics done by palestinian militant groups...

[Troll]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

No, only a few civilian infrastructers were targeted. It's done in preperation before a military operation. Same thing was done by NATO against Serbia. You make it sound like the Isrealis bombed a shopping mall and a few residential houses, you know, the usual tactics done by palestinian militant groups...

Oh come on. It is not standard to cut off electricity to a civilian population when you are going after a militant cell. NATO action in Serbia was against the government that controlled the infrastructure that was destroyed. The telecommunications systems that were destroyed were used by the military they were fighting. Israel has an obligation to inflict as little damage on the civilian population as possible. So unless it's necessary to wipe out power to the Gaza strip, it shouldn't be doing that. You know as well as I do that cutting off the electricity is not going to make it any easier to find that soldier or the people responsible for the attack on the tank. Israel did that because it wants the Palestinian people to realise that there are consequences for resisting the Israelis. It's intimidation, collective punishment, terrorism.

Every 6 weeks or so, Israeli troops march into the West Bank or Gaza and capture a Palestinian militant who they then take back to Israel and hold. What's the difference here?

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Troll

Every 6 weeks or so, Israeli troops march into the West Bank or Gaza and capture a Palestinian militant who they then take back to Israel and hold. What's the difference here?

Interesting point. How would you feel if an armed group of settlers from Israel snuck into Gaza, kidnapped Palestinian security forces and secretly detained them? I just have a hard time following who's the militant wing of a political group and who's an armed group of thugs. Is there a chart somewhere?

[PacHead]

Hamas doesn't recognize Israel and it never will. Anybody stating that Hamas wishes for peace is a liar, simple as that.

Good for Israel for moving into the terrorist territories. I've always advocated war and hopefully terrorists will die on an unprecedented scale, screw civilian terrorist casualties, they mean nothing since the terrorists use them for cover. And today, IDF jets flew over the house of the Syrian president, a little message for him ? Israel should also bomb Hamas leaders located in Syria. Israel should also bomb Iran which is supplying weapons to the terrorist palestinians. Israel should retake the entire Gaza strip and expel the terrorist inhabitants.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Troll

Oh come on. It is not standard to cut off electricity to a civilian population when you are going after a militant cell.

Palestinians are terrorists, they deserve no electricity, water or food at all. They voted for their democratically elected government, and they will have to live with the consequences of their moronic decisions. If a million palestinians were to die, then that would not be a big loss.

[Troll]

60% of Gaza has no water or electricity tonight. That's 840,000 people being collectively punished for the actions of a handful.

[yakkiebah]

Bomb a powerplant and a bridge and they are out of water. Strange, i just read on the BBC site that civilians are busy stockpiling water and food.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Troll

60% of Gaza has no water or electricity tonight. That's 840,000 people being collectively punished for the actions of a handful.

Maybe electing terrorists to form a government wasn't such a good idea! Are Palestinians too thick to realize that?

(Obligatory: OH NOZ That's taboo!1 Kerrigan makes teh generalization!)

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Troll

60% of Gaza has no water or electricity tonight. That's 840,000 people being collectively punished for the actions of a handful.

It might be better viewed as a helpful lesson in how the people, (you know, the moderate Muslims?) really must assume responsibility for actions done in their name. Once the people realize they will suffer for what the militants do perhaps their hearts will soften towards their peace-seeking Jewish neighbors.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Troll

Oh come on. It is not standard to cut off electricity to a civilian population when you are going after a militant cell. NATO action in Serbia was against the government that controlled the infrastructure that was destroyed. The telecommunications systems that were destroyed were used by the military they were fighting. Israel has an obligation to inflict as little damage on the civilian population as possible. So unless it's necessary to wipe out power to the Gaza strip, it shouldn't be doing that. You know as well as I do that cutting off the electricity is not going to make it any easier to find that soldier or the people responsible for the attack on the tank. Israel did that because it wants the Palestinian people to realise that there are consequences for resisting the Israelis. It's intimidation, collective punishment, terrorism.

Every 6 weeks or so, Israeli troops march into the West Bank or Gaza and capture a Palestinian militant who they then take back to Israel and hold. What's the difference here?

A militant cell? Yeah thats a good one. Any idea how many are out there now? Hamas is one of them and they are the new government. Elected by the majority of the palestinians. That's not a handfull of idiots. Maybe these idiots should stop firing rockets from and into residential areas and building tunnels, no? Israel has every right taking out these militants. And Israel is doing an amazing job in inflicting as little damage on the civilian population as possible, considering that the enemy hides among the civilian population.

It's a world of difference. Those militants have absolutely no right in taking Israeli soldiers or settlers hostage.

BTW, you want a list of what NATO bombed in Serbia? Powerplants and bridges(civilian) are included.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Troll

60% of Gaza has no water or electricity tonight. That's 840,000 people being collectively punished for the actions of a handful.

That's 40% too little.

[darth-vader000]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

(Obligatory: OH NOZ That's taboo!1 Kerrigan makes teh generalization!)

That's ok, I should now consider the source when responding, you want to be close minded so be it

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

If you doubt my words, ask yourself the following: What is the language of the America? What is the ethnicity of the American? When in history was there a sovereign America? Who was its ruler? What were its borders? What distinguishes so-called Americans from English, French or Irish?

Fixed.

I realize now in history there is a sovereign America, but America didn't just exist forever.