[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Wait until the discover oil in Israel.

Ha, will happen soon.

I own stock of http://www.zionoil.com/

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

And if they wern't ready to make peace before 1967, why should i believe they're ready to make peace now if Israel retreats to the 1967 borders ? If the Arabs/Muslims want peace so badly, maybe they should be the ones giving up land for peace for a change.

I can personally think of no better way to flank your sworn enemy when you lack the military resources to do so than to flank them through political pressure. The 1967 borders are nothing more than a desire to flank the Israelis seaside and drive them into it. If Israel were to retreat to 1967 borders, it would be nothing short of suicide. Period.

Reminds me of the story of the toad and the scorpion. The scorpion asks the toad for a ride on his back across the river to the other side. The toad says, “No you will sting me,” and the scorpion says, “No I won't, I promise. Besides, if I sting you we will both surely drown” So with that, the toad agrees and the scorpion climbs aboard. Halfway across, the scorpion begins to sting the toad repeatedly. The toad in much pain, says, “What are you doing? You will kill me and we will both drown.” The scorpion replies, “I am a scorpion, it is my nature.”

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Lets not forget that most(if not all) of the land in that area before the formation of modern day Israel, where the Jews settled, were bought and paid for.

About 463,000 acres were bought by jews in Palestine. That are about 1873 squarekilometers.

Israel today is of the size of about 22,000 squarekilometers. 1873 sk divided through 22,000 sk= 0.08... means 8% of Israel's land was legally bought.

Buying land doesn't mean to have the right to found a state and to issue a right of immigration to jews worldwide...

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Another amusing thing is that, now all the Arabs are calling for the 1967 borders, why is then that before 1967 they were all so determined to do away with Israel anyway ? So they lost the wars...... and now they want to make peace by trading it for what they lost when they lost the war ? thats hilarious.

That's only logical. The jews bought 8% of today's Israel, but were granted much more land by the UN-General Assembly with the partition-plan. The arab's rejection of the partition was only understandable.
But even that allocated land was not enough, as the zionists back then thought it to be too small to found and operate a viable state in, and so they planned to expand and aquire more land through warfare whenever possible. The arab's rejection of the partition opened up the possibility to declare the independence of Israel, without to take the UN into consideration, which allowed the zionists numerous options:
a) to grant unlimited immigration rights to jews from around the world.
b) to acquire more land and ressources through warfare.
c) to expell the palestinians inside Israel in order to ensure the jewish nature of Israel for all times.

This and more can be read up in the writings of important zionists of the time, including for example Ben Gurion.

Back then the dream of Greater Israel was very strong, and so the arabic neighbours' hostility served as a tool to deter and contain Israel.

Nowadays the arabic states not only lost wars, but they see that Israel has given up on the dream of Greater Israel, at least in the case of the labour- and kadima-party, and therefore they logically seek for a peaceful agreement, accepting their military incapability to achieve anything beside deterrence, an agreement that mirrors international law and restores palestinian rights.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

And if they wern't ready to make peace before 1967, why should i believe they're ready to make peace now if Israel retreats to the 1967 borders ? If the Arabs/Muslims want peace so badly, maybe they should be the ones giving up land for peace for a change.

Before 1967 the arabs were boasting all around of wanting to reverse the injustice and destroy Israel as a state and liberate Palestine through a just war. I'm sure you would have believed them back then of wanting to do that.

Nowadays they, with the exception of Iran (and to a lesser extent Syria), all want to make peace with Israel and normalise relations with it, if Israel respects international law and returns to the pre-67-borders, making possible the creation of a palestinian state, but you don't believe it.

For me it's the opposite, I don't believe the boasting of the past to have been meant seriously, since most arab states were more interested in stabilising their own states against islamists and communists, and either under the orders of the US, Britain, France or USSR, but who cares..

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

About 463,000 acres were bought by jews in Palestine. That are about 1873 squarekilometers.

How many acres were bought by Palestinians? If that's an unfair question, how much land was bought by Arabs?

Israel today is of the size of about 22,000 squarekilometers. 1873 sk divided through 22,000 sk= 0.08... means 8% of Israel's land was legally bought.

What percentage of the land was bought by Arabs or Palestinians?

Buying land doesn't mean to have the right to found a state and to issue a right of immigration to jews worldwide...

... but there is the right of Palestinians to found a state and issue rights of immigration to Arabs worldwide regardless of whether or not it was bought by them? *does not compute.

That's only logical. The jews bought 8% of today's Israel, but were granted much more land by the UN-General Assembly with the partition-plan. The arab's rejection of the partition was only understandable.

Right, because there were Arabs living among Jews in the land to be partitioned. Jews were already not allowed into Arab territory in TransJordan. Partition 181 essentially developed Arab territory both east and west of then Trans-Jordan, soon just Jordan. It actually allocated more territory to Arabs to the tune of over 80%. The partition was founded in part on the already established settlements of the time. In fact, this was not enough and Arabs on both sides of the border aligned.

But even that allocated land was not enough, as the zionists back then thought it to be too small to found and operate a viable state in, and so they planned to expand and aquire more land through warfare whenever possible. The arab's rejection of the partition opened up the possibility to declare the independence of Israel, without to take the UN into consideration, which allowed the zionists numerous options:
a) to grant unlimited immigration rights to jews from around the world.
b) to acquire more land and ressources through warfare.
c) to expell the palestinians inside Israel in order to ensure the jewish nature of Israel for all times.

It was the UN plan that bolstered Jewish self-realization in the formation of a State and not in conflict with the UN partition plan at all. In fact, the sole intention was to allow the formation of States. What caused the problem? Israel declared Statehood. That was the problem.

Back then the dream of Greater Israel was very strong, and so the arabic neighbours' hostility served as a tool to deter and contain Israel.

Israel did not require containment. We're talking about stretches of land no greater than 11 miles for crying out loud.

Before 1967 the arabs were boasting all around of wanting to reverse the injustice and destroy Israel as a state and liberate Palestine through a just war. I'm sure you would have believed them back then of wanting to do that.

I believe them now of wanting to do that.

Nowadays they, with the exception of Iran (and to a lesser extent Syria), all want to make peace with Israel and normalise relations with it, if Israel respects international law and returns to the pre-67-borders, making possible the creation of a palestinian state, but you don't believe it.

... and they shouldn't. It would be suicide.

For me it's the opposite, I don't believe the boasting of the past to have been meant seriously, since most arab states were more interested in stabilising their own states against islamists and communists, and either under the orders of the US, Britain, France or USSR, but who cares..

Is the boasting of today to be taken seriously or no?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Israel today is of the size of about 22,000 squarekilometers. 1873 sk divided through 22,000 sk= 0.08... means 8% of Israel's land was legally bought.

I really sincerely doubt your figures, but I don't have my own handy. I know a Holocaust survivor who collected money herself to purchase the land, and she for one insists you're wrong. But thank you for reminding me that I have to research that further. Regardless, though, the first Jewish commonwealth under Joshua ben Nun claimed the land of Israel about 2000 years before the advent of Islam. The Jews came home and the Arab occupiers could not stand in the way of it.

Here's a good outside thread on the subject but I need more.

That's only logical. The jews bought 8% of today's Israel, but were granted much more land by the UN-General Assembly with the partition-plan. The arab's rejection of the partition was only understandable.

The Arab's rejection of the partition was only understandable? When the Arabs got in the form of Trans-Jordan the majority of the original Mandate? When the Arabs got the most important areas of Israel under the second partition scheme? It was the Jews who should have rejected the plan by all sane standards because the Jews were getting screwed over twice with two separate partitions of the plan when originally the whole Mandate was set aside for the Jewish homeland, but they were prepared to accept it because even the desert areas were better than nothing. Thank God your people went to war to save Israel from that second partition.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

This is an older post but I just saw it. There never was a country that got taken from anyone. There never was a country of "Palestine," nor a king, nor a government, nor a language, nor a people. Even Arab leaders admitted that fact through the war of independence, back when calling it "Palestine" meant acknowledging Jewish claims and before calling it "Palestine" was synonymous with the Arab struggle to destroy the Jewish population there. Why can't you be satisfied with the 99.3% of the Middle East you control - you really need that 0.7% that you formerly never cared about until the Jews returned home and made it desirable to live there again?

You are forgetting the fact that Muslims consider any land that was EVER under Muslim control at any time to be "Muslim land." Hell, they still claim parts of Spain for that very reason.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

You are forgetting the fact that Muslims consider any land that was EVER under Muslim control at any time to be "Muslim land." Hell, they still claim parts of Spain for that very reason.

That would be 99% of Iberian peninsula.

[Big Mac]

Radical Islamists believe all the world's lands should be under Muslim control. There are two broad categories in Islamist thought. There's the world of submission to Islam and the world Islam as it war with. Anyone want to dispute that fact?

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Radical Islamists believe all the world's lands should be under Muslim control. There are two broad categories in Islamist thought. There's the world of submission to Islam and the world Islam as it war with. Anyone want to dispute that fact?

Next post from one of them will be to parse that to mean it's the "internal war" a Muslim wages within himself to own the planet.

[Hawkeye_a]

The difference: Kin of killed Hamas leader to (undergo) surgery in Israel (AP)

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Radical Islamists believe all the world's lands should be under Muslim control. There are two broad categories in Islamist thought. There's the world of submission to Islam and the world Islam as it war with. Anyone want to dispute that fact?

And radical Jews and radical Christians have their own nonsensical beliefs.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

And radical Jews and radical Christians have their own nonsensical beliefs.

Decisions decisions... One element is several million strong and at war with just about every border it shares. The other numbers about 15 strong and protests against gays at funerals.

[Splinter]

Couldn't help myself... look at what the evul joooz have invented this time. A mechanized Giraffe hunter!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

You are forgetting the fact that Muslims consider any land that was EVER under Muslim control at any time to be "Muslim land." Hell, they still claim parts of Spain for that very reason.

Isn't that pretty much the exact argument for why the area of Israel belongs to the Jews?

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Isn't that pretty much the exact argument for why the area of Israel belongs to the Jews?

Not even close. The Jews don't insist every parcel of land they have ever controlled in their history is theirs.

Not even a good try.

[Taliesin]

Not only has Israel's army used white phosphorus, which has a similarly hazardous effect on human skin as napalm, in residential areas and fired 155mm-artillery-shells into populated areas, not only have Israel's soldiers used palestinian civilians as human shields and their homes as bases to sniper and fire mortars from, not only have they completely forgotten their obligations to make sure that injured civilians in warzones receive the appropriate access to treatment..., now the fate of palestinians detained by israel's army during the latest military operation comes to light:

"The reports indicate that... many detainees - minors as well as adults - were held for many hours - sometimes for days - in pits dug in the ground, exposed to bitter cold and harsh weather, handcuffed and blindfolded," the groups said in a statement.


We spent two days there without any food, water or blankets... The soldiers kept beating anyone who dared ask for anything
Majdi Muhammad Ayid al-Atar, northern Gaza

"These pits lacked basic sanitary facilities... while food and shelter, when provided, were limited, and the detainees went hungry," it said.

The groups accused the military of "gross violation of international humanitarian law" by holding some of the detainees close to tanks.

Incidents involving "extreme violence and humiliation by soldiers and interrogators" were also reported, the statement said, without giving details.

"We were handcuffed and blindfolded. They put us in a three-meter deep ditch with some 70 other people," Majdi Muhammad Ayid al-Atar, 43, from northern Gaza described, in one of the testimonies.

"We spent two days there without any food, water or blankets. They also didn't let us go to the toilet. Afterwards they moved us to another ditch. The soldiers kept beating anyone who dared ask for anything," he was quoted as saying.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7856372.stm

Meanwhile Obama sent Mitchell into the region to listen to the two sides, or rather to Israel, Fatah and Egypt, in an environment of tit-for-tat-violence.

The idea is to stop Hamas from smuggling weapons through the tunnels at the egyptian border and to open up Gaza's boders not only for aid but also for full trade.
What many already know is that by opening up the borders for trade, the tunnel-smuggling-industry will cease to exist, through which the Gazans receive not only weapons, but also food, medicine, gas... for which they pay handsomely.

Israel's PM Olmert though thinks in strange dimensions:

An Olmert aide said the prime minister told Mr. Mitchell that the crossings would “not be permanently opened” until the case of a captured Israeli soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, was resolved. Corporal Shalit was seized in a cross-border raid in 2006 and taken into Gaza.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/wo...html?ref=world

Blackmailing 1.5 million Gazans so that they pressurize Hamas to quicken the release of a kidnapped israeli soldier!

But what will happen in the next few weeks, months? Taking the optimistic view that a major renewment of the military conflict will not happen for at least a year, that a ceasefire-agreement gets adopted, with the Hamas and Fatah forming a unity-government, with Fatah-people with residence in Gaza controlling the then opened borders, with Galid Shalit being released in exchange for a few hundred palestinian prisoners... the consequence would be that Hamas wins the next parliamentary and presidential elections, if the elections are free and not manipulated.

Hamas will come out of this militarily severely weakened but politically considerably strengthened.

On the other side in Israel, the Likud will most likely win the next elections and probably forming a government together with the Labour-party and the Shas-party.

Likud on the one side ruling the israelis, Hamas on the other side ruling the palestinians, Obama will have a hell of a time trying to force them into a peace-agreement.

Taliesin

[Hawkeye_a]

People, i repeat .....

1. Israel withdraws from Gaza, and dismantles settlements in her quest for peace with the Arabs, according to the agreements made.
2. Hamas takes over Gaza.
3. Hamas starts smuggling weapons and starts firing into Israel.
4. Years later(and without any pressure on the Arabs to stop it), due to unrelenting attacks on civilian populations, Israel responds.
5. And this is suddenly Israel's wrong doing ?

Lets not forget that Hamas s the one who constantly declares war with Israel, the same Hamas that those people 'voted' into power. So where is the Abab/Muslim's world condemnation of ISLAMIC terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hez, AQ, etc who purposely target innocent non muslims around the world ? In fact where is Tal's condemnation of such groups and their goals ? How is it that these groups move freely in the Abab world ? and get a heck of a lot of funding from the Muslim world ?

NO NO, lets not ask those questions, lets pick on Israel for using legal weapons to curb years of cross border attacks, when none of the Muslim regimes or communities did anything to curb funding or weapons smuggling which promote the violence.

Funny how they beg for aid but seem to have an ample supply of ammunition. Ask the UN, red cross and amnesty international to investigate THAT.

Two days ago terrorists from Gaza attacked a border crossing with Israel, killing one soldier and injuring three, effectively breaching the cease fire. If it were my COUNTRY that came under such attacks from outside forces, i would hope the response would be a lot more severe than what Israel did in response. Israel (or any country for that matter) has no obligation to keep it's borders open with a "community" that has declared war with them and poses a threat. I suggest Israel close all it's border crossings into Gaza.

If the Arabs/Muslims really want peace(and not just land), i suggest they(for a change) give up their quest for lands they lost, recognize Israel and establish diplomatic relations... it's just that easy.

If the Arabs/Muslims really want equality and freedom, i suggest they crack down on Islamist militant organizations, adopt non racist constitutions with equal rights for EVERYONE, and then maybe the world will develop a different view of what has quite possibly become the most racist community on the planet today.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Monique 

Israel has the right to defend itself no matter what.

Absolutely agreed, I pledge 100% unconditional support to Israel.

[Hawkeye_a]

I have been following the usual media outlets (CNN, BBC, EuroNews, Sky, Fox) through the operation in Gaza, and am honestly shocked at the biased coverage of the conflict, as Israel was always portrayed(unfairly) as the aggressor in this conflict and the people in Gaza as the 'victims'.

Synagogues in Europe and now S.America have been attacked by, i wonder who(sarcasm). and those barely get any coverage at all.

The recent fiasco and publicity stunt at Davos by the Turkish PM was so unfairly shown on CNN, that i went onto youtube to get the other side of the debate from the President of Israel, Peres. Also, To those of you who do not follow this conflict i recommend you watch it as well, as a lot of facts and numbers which otherwise go unreported are presented here by a legal head of state.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

For what it's worth, I completely agree with Peres. The legality and morality is clear, unlike what he Muslims in this, or any, conflict say and do.

Earlier today, Hamas fired 4 rockets into Israel. If those rockets were fired into your country (wherever you may be), how would you expect/want your government to react ?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Not even close. The Jews don't insist every parcel of land they have ever controlled in their history is theirs.

Not even a good try.

Actually yes, the radical orthodox jews, who are also zionists at the same time insist on every parcel of land the jews in the ancient past have controlled as a state.

Exactly the same and equally wrong type of thinking.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

People, i repeat .....

1. Israel withdraws from Gaza, and dismantles settlements in her quest for peace with the Arabs, according to the agreements made.
2. Hamas takes over Gaza.
3. Hamas starts smuggling weapons and starts firing into Israel.
4. Years later(and without any pressure on the Arabs to stop it), due to unrelenting attacks on civilian populations, Israel responds.
5. And this is suddenly Israel's wrong doing ?

Last time I didn't want to adress this due to lack of time and thinking that it was merely some ironic jab or an emotional rant, but since you repeat it, it seems you believe what you have written. I will reply to every point raised:

to 1: Israel withdrew from Gaza the settlers and army, but did so unilaterally with no agreement and espescially did not stop the occupation. Isn't withdrawing unilaterally equal to a stop of the occupation you will undoubtedly ask: No! Israel kept the control over borders, airspace, territorial water, population registry, tax system and supply of goods in Gaza. A stationing of troops on the ground is not necessary for an occupation to work if control is excercised in other ways and a redeployment of troops through incursions and invasion is possible at short notice.
In fact, through the withdrawal of the soldiers and settlers, Israel merely gained the right to make life for the Gazans worse by getting rid of the responsibility for the welfare of the Gazans and by gaining the right to declare war on the Gazans if threatened or attacked.

Remember Sharon ordered the withdrawal not out of generosity or the insight that the Gazans deserved freedom, but for way more deplorable reasons: First and foremost he wanted to stop the roadmap to peace that Bush's administration pressed on. By doing something unilaterally he would not have to make concessions in negotiations that he doesn't want to make. His eyes layed on the Westbank and Jerusalem, he wanted to keep the big settlements there and Jerusalem as a whole.
That's only logical considering the extreme power-relation between Israel and the palestinians, the much stronger side wants to hold the initiative and determine the facts on the ground. Because of the weakness of the palestinians, politically and militarily, Israel doesn't want to negotiate with them and in fact only negotiates with the powerful states that want to see an agreement, the UN-Quartett, but espescially with the US.
So Israel made a deal with the US as some israeli officials leaked to withdraw from Gaza (with its 8,000 settlers that were too expensive to protect), but in return get the allowance to keep hold of the major settlements in the Westbank and to build the wall to incorporate them to Israel proper.

to 2.: Hamas took over Gaza not out of its own initiative, but in reaction to the US and Israel's covert plan to dethrone Hamas as the elected government of the palestinians and to replace it again with the Fatah. The reason for this planned coup was that Hamas didn't want to recognize Israel, denounce violence and accept the agreements the PLO has signed with Israel.
The US brought up the weapons, with financial support of pro-US-arabic governments and Israel delivered them to the Fatah, Fatah-activists and bataillons got trained by Egypt and Jordan.. what followed was a campaign of abductions and assassinations against Hamas initiated by the PA, and the rest is history.

to 3.: Hamas smuggles weapons? Why shouldn't they, it's their right to smuggle weapons and accept aid and training from whomever they wish. A liberation movement has the legal right to operate an armed resistance, the objection is therefore not the smuggling or the armed resistance, it's the goals and methods used.
Hamas views all of Israel as occupied, but even that is not in breach of international law because of the expelled palestinian refuggees and their descendants that Israel doesn't want to let return. Imho it is unrealistic and stupid to view all of Israel as occupied, and it would be way more wise to define occupation as the territories occupied after 1966, but radicals always strive for the maximum, until they get moderated through reality and politics.

to 4: The rocketfire by the palestinians is a direct although weak response to the continuing occupation, oppression and landgrabs against the palestinians.
Until Israel withdraws to the internationally recognised borders and withdraws its settlers from the occupied territories, Israel can't claim a morale high ground.
Sure, the firing of unguided rockets, as weak as they may be, on southern Israel is a crime against humanity, but occupation, and all its effects like the robbing of land, ressources, incursions, arbitrary arrests, checkpoints, extrajudicial executions, torture, harrassment... is a much (1000 times) bigger crime against humanity.

to 5: No, it's not suddenly Israel's fault, it has been Israel's wrong doing since the sixties of last century.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

If the Arabs/Muslims really want equality and freedom, i suggest they crack down on Islamist militant organizations, adopt non racist constitutions with equal rights for EVERYONE, and then maybe the world will develop a different view of what has quite possibly become the most racist community on the planet today.

The arabic/islamic world became the most racistic community? Hardly, the arabic world is doing business with every race and culture around the world, be it europeans, africans, asiats or whatever, through tourism people from around the world can travel and enjoy the arabic world, all races and people can enter any restaurant and bus, museum, hotel or whatever in the arabic world, and all people from any race can convert to Islam.

Racism is definitely not the problem in the islamic world, although like in every society there are muslims who indeed are racistic.

The thing that you wrongly described as racism is the policy in some wahabitic arabic states, like Saudi-Arabia and some gulf-states, where the wahabitic ideology seeks to retain Islam's superiority in politics and public and therefore restricts or even prohibits the public expression of religious convictions of other religions than Islam.

Taliesin

[Big Mac]

Ah, Taliesin. Thank you for all the help. By continually writing on this subject you simply arm your intellectual adversaries.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Ah, Taliesin. Thank you for all the help. By continually writing on this subject you simply arm your intellectual adversaries.

I wonder if his post was even worthy of a response ? after reading it, i don't think i'll get into a discussion with him.... hope he doesn't start firing rockets at me to get his attention or something.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Ah, Taliesin. Thank you for all the help. By continually writing on this subject you simply arm your intellectual adversaries.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I wonder if his post was even worthy of a response ? after reading it, i don't think i'll get into a discussion with him.... hope he doesn't start firing rockets at me to get his (I guess you meant: "my") attention or something.

Low, sneaky ways that some people use to win arguments:
...
2. Ridicule and humiliate your opponent. This can be very effective in front of an audience but will never win over the opponent himself.
3. Deliberately provoke your adversary. Find something that makes them angry and keep wheedling away on this point until they lose their temper and so the argument.
4. Distract. Throw in diversions which deflect the other person from their main point.
...

Remember that an argument between two people is very different from a debate in front of an audience. In the first you are trying to win over the other person so look for ways of building consensus and do not be belligerent in making your points. In front of an audience you can use all sorts of theatrical and rhetorical devices to bolster your case and belittle your adversary. In these circumstances humour is a highly effective tool so prepare some clever lines in advance.

Source: http://www.lifehack.org/articles/com...y-tactics.html

Pretty ok use of that advice by you two, espescially hawkeye's joke was pretty funny, although misworded. The problem is that these tactics work much better in a live-spoken-discussion (where you two would probably destroy me), in an environment like this where everything has to be written down and kept for long periods for everyone to read, they (unfortunately for you, fortunately for me) don't work as well, in fact they work against you.

Taliesin

[olePigeon]

Israel calls for a cease fire.
2 days later rockets fly out of Gaza.
Israel fires back.
People in Gaza exclaim that people have died.
Israel calls for a cease fire.
2 days later rockets fly out of Gaza.
Israel fires back.
People in Gaza exclaim that people have died.
Israel calls for a cease fire.
2 days later rockets fly out of Gaza.
Israel fires back.
People in Gaza exclaim that people have died.
Israel calls for a cease fire.
2 days later rockets fly out of Gaza.
Israel fires back.
People in Gaza exclaim that people have died.
Israel calls for a cease fire.
2 days later rockets fly out of Gaza.
Israel fires back.
People in Gaza exclaim that people have died.
Israel calls for a cease fire.
2 days later rockets fly out of Gaza.
Israel fires back.
People in Gaza exclaim that people have died.
Israel calls for a cease fire.
2 days later rockets fly out of Gaza.
Israel fires back.
People in Gaza exclaim that people have died.

Lemme know if you see a pattern.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Israel calls for a cease fire.
2 days later rockets fly out of Gaza.
Israel fires back.
People in Gaza exclaim that people have died.
Israel calls for a cease fire.
2 days later rockets fly out of Gaza.
Israel fires back.
People in Gaza exclaim that people have died.
Israel calls for a cease fire.
2 days later rockets fly out of Gaza.
Israel fires back.
People in Gaza exclaim that people have died.
Israel calls for a cease fire.
2 days later rockets fly out of Gaza.
Israel fires back.
People in Gaza exclaim that people have died.
Israel calls for a cease fire.
2 days later rockets fly out of Gaza.
Israel fires back.
People in Gaza exclaim that people have died.
Israel calls for a cease fire.
2 days later rockets fly out of Gaza.
Israel fires back.
People in Gaza exclaim that people have died.
Israel calls for a cease fire.
2 days later rockets fly out of Gaza.
Israel fires back.
People in Gaza exclaim that people have died.

Lemme know if you see a pattern.

Is this adressed to me?

If yes, then: Yes I see a pattern: Israel is illegally retaliating for equally illegally indiscriminately fired rockets from Gaza by killing palestinians. Sure the Gazans (in these days it is not Hamas that does the firing, but other groups) could stop the illegal rocket-firing and Israel would stop the equally illegal retaliation-attacks.

There is though not yet a ceasefire-agreement between the Gazans and Israel, just because Israel declares a unilateral ceasefire after having killed over a thousand palestinians and wounding over five thousand, doesn't mean that the other side has to follow suit without conditions.

There has to be a negotiated and accepted agreement, whereby Israel opens the borders to Gaza for undisturbed trade and stops all incursions and military operations in Gaza and Westbank, including emprisonment and extrajudicial executions as well as to officially declare to seek the establishment of an independent palestinian state in Gaza and Westbank with East-Jerusalem as its capital, and whereby Hamas stops the rocketfire into Israel proper and even more important takes steps to prevent other groups to fire rockets, recognises Israel within the pre-67-borders, commits to a palestinian state in Gaza, Westbank with East-Jerusalem as its capital, commits to a dissolvement of the militias by integrating the fighters into a national defense-force and to let go its insistence on the right of return of palestinians into Israel proper in return for a reparation-offer.

The basis for the agreement would be of course UN-SC-resolution 242 and the arabic-council-peace-offer from 2002 offering normalised relations between the arabic states and Israel.


Taliesin

[Macrobat]

The pattern I see:

Taliesin: "No matter what, Israel is ALWAYS wrong."

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The pattern I see:

Taliesin: "No matter what, Israel is ALWAYS wrong."

Bingo! Macrobat, i present to you the "moderate muslim". (might i draw your attention to his support of arming terrorist organizations whose stated goals are to kill Jews)

That seems to be their predominant mindset of any conflict in the world today involving territorial disputes (no matter which continent, country or culture)... The non-muslim side is apparently ALWAYS wrong. Take it from a person who has read their newspapers and watched their news reports.

[Monique]

The Hamas lots of people are supporting now, just stole blankets and medication from poor people.

If Palestinians civilians died it is the fault of Hamas who used them as shield.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The pattern I see:

Taliesin: "No matter what, Israel is ALWAYS wrong."

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Bingo! Macrobat, i present to you the "moderate muslim". (might i draw your attention to his support of arming terrorist organizations whose stated goals are to kill Jews)

That seems to be their predominant mindset of any conflict in the world today involving territorial disputes (no matter which continent, country or culture)... The non-muslim side is apparently ALWAYS wrong. Take it from a person who has read their newspapers and watched their news reports.

So you really don't want to discuss, you just want that I nod to your point of view and say "yes and amen", that's a sad behaviour for people participating in a discussion-forum.

Taliesin

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The pattern I see:

Taliesin: "No matter what, Israel is ALWAYS wrong."

The pattern *I* see:
Right-wingnut: "No matter what, Israel is *never* wrong and Arabs are *always* wrong"
Left-wingnut: "No matter what, Israel is *always* wrong"

What *I* see:
Both sides (Israel and Palestine) are wrong. The only question is the *degree* to which each side is wrong.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The pattern *I* see:
Right-wingnut: "No matter what, Israel is *never* wrong and Arabs are *always* wrong"
Left-wingnut: "No matter what, Israel is *always* wrong"

What *I* see:
Both sides (Israel and Palestine) are wrong. The only question is the *degree* to which each side is wrong.

Yup. I think you got it right. But that's the thing with any confrontation, when both sides think they are absolutely right then they will never think about pursuing a non-violent solution to that conflict IF doing so (pursuing a non-violent solution) means admitting they aren't absolutely right.


As for me, I will say the same thing I always do in these threads: Let them keep on fighting until they are tired of fighting or they are all dead. I don't really care what is the final outcome as long as people who want to fight to the death are given the chance to do so.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

As for me, I will say the same thing I always do in these threads: Let them keep on fighting until they are tired of fighting or they are all dead. I don't really care what is the final outcome as long as people who want to fight to the death are given the chance to do so.

I used to have that same view... 'Nothing is worth fighting/dying for', and i soon realized how idealistic that was, to me.

Did the people on the planes on 911 deserve to die, were they fighting ? how about those people in that bar in Bali ? or those people commuting in London ? or those people in cafe's, hotels and shabat houses in Bombay ? or those kids in schools in Russia ? or how about those people in Israel who have to put up with being targeted 24/7/365 ?

Did any of those people who lost their lives threaten others or fight wars or deserve to die the way they did ?

What i'm getting at it..... what if one side is peaceful and non militant(like the Christians in Jordan and Lebanon for example) and the other has a bloodlust against anyone not like them ? Do we, who are not geographically there have a moral responsibility to protect peace loving people ?how about if we have family or friends who are targets of militants just because of the color of their skin, religion, economic status, race, etc like in Armenia, Darfur, etc ?

I am all for peace and if given the choice that would be my first choice, but that choice requires that both sides are committed to maintaining the peace. And unfortunately, more often than not, the ones who want peace have to suffer at the hands of those who want to 'wipe them off the map'.

Specific to this thread, if Israel didnt have as competent a Defence Force as it does, do you think it would exist today ?

Cheers

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Specific to this thread, if Israel didnt have as competent a Defence Force as it does, do you think it would exist today ?

To take the polar argument, one could say that if Israel's "defense" force weren't so quick to take the offensive and perpetuate the tit-for-tat game, the conflict might have ended peacefully a long time ago.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

To take the polar argument, one could say that if Israel's "defense" force weren't so quick to take the offensive and perpetuate the tit-for-tat game, the conflict might have ended peacefully a long time ago.

Well, show me one of the 7 wars that Israel was involved in, that was not justified ? And show me one nation that would have acted differently given the circumstances.

Before the 1967 war(the 6 day war that Israel won), Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan had a coalition with similar rhetoric of wiping Israel off the map. Egypt moved it's troops into the Sainai, Israel's southern border and closed israel's access to the red sea. To quote a member of the IDF regarding the planning for the war "The question was, can you defend this slither of the mediterranean if they attack. The answer is 'No'".

In bombing the nuclear project in Bagdad, there was 1 casualty..... that doesn't sound like a people/"defense force" bent on killing people based on religion. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the other side.I point you all to the youtube videos i linked above, to Peres' speech in Davos. There's a difference of night and day with respect to intention in this war, and thats what makes the difference to me.

I see no reason why anyone would support the Arabs/Muslims in this conflict (apart from oil). If you have lived on the Muslim side of this conflict, you would have witnessed the racism against non muslims, the only thing that hindered the massacres of Christians and Jews were the colonial powers of Europe (hence the massacre of Christians in the Lebanon when France left), even before the creation of Israel.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Well, show me one of the 7 wars that Israel was involved in, that was not justified ?

I don't think Israel has taken any unjustified actions. But, I *do* think they had the power to take the moral high-ground and end the tit-for-tat conflict.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I don't think Israel has taken any unjustified actions. But, I *do* think they had the power to take the moral high-ground and end the tit-for-tat conflict.

This is so tiresome Wiskedjak. Honestly. So they take the "moral high-ground and end the tit-for-tat". Yayy! Now what... just tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat? I mean c'mon man, we can't just act like we haven't seen this before.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I don't think Israel has taken any unjustified actions. But, I *do* think they had the power to take the moral high-ground and end the tit-for-tat conflict.

Three to Four years of no action, 5500 rockets 4000 mortar shells against civilian populations(since 2005), 1167 dead Israeli's and 8500 wounded at the hands of muslim Terrorists (Peres, Davos'09) and that was alright ? So what's the 'high road' here, giving them a pat on their back ? How about insisting that the Arabs/Muslims NOT TAKE the 'low road' for a change ? or is that asking for too much ?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Three to Four years of no action, 5500 rockets 4000 mortar shells against civilian populations(since 2005), 1167 dead Israeli's and 8500 wounded at the hands of muslim Terrorists (Peres, Davos'09) and that was alright ? So what's the 'high road' here, giving them a pat on their back ? How about insisting that the Arabs/Muslims NOT TAKE the 'low road' for a change ? or is that asking for too much ?

This debate is a lost cause. Once the intellectual copouts have become fashionable, they become the foundation for discourse. Having to "take a side" is such a tiresome endeavor. It's much easier to say stuff about high roads etc... problem solved.

Where's the kaboom? The earth-shattering kaboom?!?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is so tiresome Wiskedjak. Honestly. So they take the "moral high-ground and end the tit-for-tat". Yayy! Now what... just tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat? I mean c'mon man, we can't just act like we haven't seen this before.

Give us Israeli tits over Palestinian tats any day of the week.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Three to Four years of no action,

I don't know in which alternative universe you live, but in this one there were no three to four years of no action, in fact every six months there was a major israeli offensive on top of the daily/weekly bombardments, incursions, assassinations...

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

5500 rockets 4000 mortar shells against civilian populations(since 2005)

If we would count the amount of israeli rocket, mortar and other shelling-attacks we would arrive at a 10x-sum, not to speak of the much higher efficiency of causing casualties.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

, 1167 dead Israeli's and 8500 wounded at the hands of muslim Terrorists (Peres, Davos'09) and that was alright ?

Just as wrong as the multiple times more dead palestinians and wounded at the hands of the israeli army and secret agencies. Between 2000 and 2005, the ratio was 1:4, meaning israeli casualties versus palestinian casualties, in 2006 it raised to 1:30, in 2007 it was 1:40, since then it raised even more, and much more when taking in the latest offensive.

These casualties-numbers only count palestinians killed that didn't participate in hostilities, counting all palestinians would be slightly more, and ignore the deaths caused by the policy of occupation, restrictions, curfews, checkpoints, embargoes and blockades.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

So what's the 'high road' here, giving them a pat on their back ? How about insisting that the Arabs/Muslims NOT TAKE the 'low road' for a change ? or is that asking for too much ?

There can't be a lower road than to drive out palestinians from their land and homes, stealing their country, and to go on and occupy more palestinian territory, driving out more and oppress the rest of the population, and start an israeli settler-program in the occupied territories robbing the palestinians their land and ressources.

I'm not even expecting Israel to take the high road, it would be enough if it took an even road for a change or is that asking for too much?

Obviously it is because Israel, convinced by its military power and the political support by the US in the UN-security-council, has decided to ignore UN-resolution 242 and to keep half of Westbank as well as all of Jerusalem, making a viable palestinian state improbable.

The palestinians out of weakness have chosen the tactic of guerillia-warfare, upping the price of colonialisation, and terrorism to provoke Israel into a disproportionate retaliation causing the international community to act on behalf of the palestinians and to put pressure on Israel.

It's not easy to find a good solution as parts of palestinians want all of its land that is now Israel back, and parts of israelis want to annex all of the occupied territories but without its palestinian population.

A bi-national state would be the best in the long-run, but because of the bloodletting of the last four decades and hatred generated because of it, this is off for at least a century or two, leaves only a twostate-solution as a compromise for the next two centuries.

Taliesin

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

It's not easy to find a good solution as parts of Palestinians want all of its land that is now Israel back, and parts of Israelis want to annex all of the occupied territories but without its Palestinian population.

Taliesin

Why isn't Lebanon (or Jordon)referred to as "occupied territory" since the Maronite(Hashemite) also "occupy" and area of "Palestine"
Now, if you can find some Canaanites, then we can talk about "occupied territories."

A bi-national state would be the best in the long-run, but because of the bloodletting of the last four decades and hatred generated because of it, this is off for at least a century or two, leaves only a two state-solution as a compromise for the next two centuries.

Unfortunately, the only solution acceptable to Israels enemies is a one state solution and the destruction of Israel.

We had this conversation before,:http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...omed-campaign/
The bottom line seems to be it doesn't matter if there ever was a people(nation) called "Palestine", they are a means to an end.

[Hawkeye_a]

Funny thing happened a year before Israel became a nation. Half a world away, there was yet another Muslim vs non-Muslim conflict unfolding... the result was two countries; India and Pakistan(on Indian soil). One of the largest migrations of people took place, conflict still exists over disputed areas(big surprise). But it's a pity that the Arabs wern't smart enough to agree to the UN partition plan in 1948 or they would have had a state by now. But they probably wanted it all by killing off the Jews maybe ?

The onus is on them to make a state, not Israel. Just as it was the Paki's responsibility to make a state, without India's 'help'.

My recommendation to Israel:
-Do not trade land for peace.
-Do not grant Arabs citizenship
-All citizens of Israel, whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian should serve in the armed forces and swear allegiance to Israel. And anyone who does not should be stripped of all voting rights and citizenship.

[Chongo]

The difference between Israel and their enemies

[Ratm]

Originally Posted by Monique 

Israel's children have also the right to live.

The reason why they chose Palestine is that no one wanted the Jews and they were almost wipe out of the earth. (Oh god really!?!?)

Palestinians had the choice to accept the new government or to live somewhere else. They chose violence from the start when they persuaded the Arab countries (6 of them) to attack Israel. From that point on it was an ongoing battle to wipe out Israel from the earth.

If what happened 60 years ago is irrelevant so is the claim from the Palestinians to any land.

Israel won the Gaza strip and West bank fair and square after the 1968's war. If it would be the other way aroung would the Arab countries give back the territories, I do not think so.

But, in the latest treaty of 2006 Israel had agreed to give back the territories but that did not stop the violence.

I have a co-worker that says if Israel goes back to its original territory there would be no more fighting. I do not think so.

Palestinians have long ago decided to play the victims as for the Israeli they have built a thriving country.

I believe Australia offered them land after the war. No, their decision to settle in Palestine was motivated by their religious zealotry. There was no other choice. You ask any Jew and they'll tell you the same....if they are honest enough.

Oh and the first terrorists in Israel were the Jews. If you don't believe me just ask the British.

Apply your idiotic theory to the U.S. Someone invades asks us to support their government or we can get lost and find another spot......what the **** would you do? I know, choose nonviolence, the new government and occupation. Yay! Is there someone close to you there now? Ask them to hold out their hand. What I want you to do is run face first into it. Done? Thanks.

Israel killed 400 children in their attacks.

What happened 60 years ago means nothing? So tell them to shut the f**k up about the holocaust. Christ!

[Ratm]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

My recommendation to Israel:
-Do not trade land for peace.
-Do not grant Arabs citizenship
-All citizens of Israel, whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian should serve in the armed forces and swear allegiance to Israel. And anyone who does not should be stripped of all voting rights and citizenship.

Now that sounds like a plan! We should do that here in the U.S.

No?

You're insane.

[Hawkeye_a]

Welcome to the discussion.

How long have you lived in the middle east ? what's your experience and knowledge regarding conflicts in this region ?

Given your Point-of-view, could you answer the following....
-What was the immigration policy to that area during the Aliyahs ? under the muslims and under the British ? Did the Jews 'violate' any laws by immigrating there ?
-When the British split India into 2 Muslim states and one Hindu, why did they do it ? did they have the authority ? was it the right thing to do ? Maybe India should refer to Pakistan as 'occupied territory' ?
-Were equal rights afforded to Jews and Christians in that territory before and during British rule ? would the Jews and Christians in that area have survived after the British left if a Jewish state was not formed ? (I refer you to what happened in Armenia, Jordan and Lebanon when the colonial forces left the region).
-When the United Nations proposed a partition plan to form a Jewish state next to a Muslim state, did they have the authority and legal jurisdiction to do so ?
-Did the Jews break any laws by complying with the United Nations ?
-Did the Muslims(Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian, etc) break international law the day after Israel was declared a state by attacking a sovereign country ?
-By your Point-of-view, does the United States, Australia, South American Nations have a right to exist ? How about current day Turkey, considering as how it was part of the eastern-roman empire and predominantly Christian, until the Turks invaded and slaughtered most of them ?

And as far as my recommendations to Israel, are you in favor of different laws applying to people of different in the same country ? such as the segregation of colored and white people in the U.S., Europe, S.Africa, etc ? or the different laws in the Arab world were muslims have a different set of laws and rights when compared to non muslims ?

Personally i'm in favor of equality, the same set of laws applying to all citizens. And if people want to claim the rights of citizens afforded to them by a state, they have to swear allegiance to the state, whether that state be the U.S., Australia or Israel. Equality, i know..... im insane to expect that when dealing with the muslim world.

If most Arab countries can choose not to grant citizenship to people who have lived there for 20-30 years as residents, just based on the fact that they are non-muslim, why should other countries afford them the option of getting citizenship ?

Israel killed 400 children in their attacks ? how about the ~5500 Arab children who were treated at the Peres center in Israel that offers medical treatment to Arab children with no money or insurance ? Is there any Muslim country in the world that would treat a Jewish/Israeli child ?

Who's fault is it that between 2005-2008 the people in charge of these territories were incapable of taking the responsibility of controlling the rocket fire from both Lebanon and Gaza ?(and they want to form a country, which is a joke) The 'authorities' couldn't stop it, the people couldn't stop it ... so Israel(and any other sovereign nation) should just take it and send them flowers ? The firing of a single rocket breaks international law, ceasefire agreements and treaties agreed to by both parties. The firing of a rocket is a declaration of war, the fact that Israel waited 3 years and nothing was done to stop it by the 'poor Gazans' or the Arabs or the Iranians supplying them, or the International community leaves very little choice for the Israelis.

"Had we known that Israel would respond so strongly, we wouldn't have started it" - Hez leader referring to the 2006 war that Israel won (the objective was to stop the cross border attacks).

So, if you are a non-muslim, move to a middle-eastern muslim country, live there for a few years, observe whats going on on ground level. If you are muslim and have lived there, i'd imagine it's the greatest place on earth for you, considering you have all the laws and policies on your side similar to the whites in S.Africa during the Apartheid.

My recommendation to the Arabs/Muslims.... change... and grow.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Ratm 

Now that sounds like a plan! We should do that here in the U.S.

-Do non-Americans swear allegiance to the flag and constitution when becoming citizens ?
-Do Americans reserve the right to grant entry and citizenship to who they choose ?
-Do Americans have a different set of laws and requirements of citizens based on color and creed by law?

Cheers

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

-Do non-Americans swear allegiance to the flag and constitution when becoming citizens ?
-Do Americans reserve the right to grant entry and citizenship to who they choose ?
-Do Americans have a different set of laws and requirements of citizens based on color and creed by law?

Cheers

The rallying call for borders solutions in Israel is pre '67 borders. We should of course forget Jewish history 60 years ago in favor of Arabian history 40 years ago.

It is the hottest of flaming morons that burn out most quickly. You should've closed your post with "oh and... goodbye".

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We should of course forget Jewish history 60 years ago in favor of Arabian history 40 years ago.

No, we should not forget Jewish history from 60 years ago. But, neither should we think that Jewish history 60 years ago makes Jews MORE entitled than Arabs to the land that makes up Israel simply because of their suffering in the Holocaust.

If you think
horrific collective suffering = entitled to land as compensation
please tell me how you would feel about giving back major chunks of land in the United States to the native communities here that we decimated in our past?

The point here is that the horrors of the Holocaust do NOT give collective world Jewry more rights to the land that makes up Israel than the Arabs who were living there. If you think the horrific suffering endured in the Holocaust DOES entitle Jews to have more rights to that land than Arabs, please come out and say so explicitly.

[Hawkeye_a]

dcmacdaddy, Do you think that Jews and Christians appeared in that region only during and after WWII ?