[vmarks]

And we have von Wrangell on record both under the current name making veiled threats and under previous names making direct threats against me and other members of the forums.

We have him here making the personal attack, saying I'm ideologically the same as Hitler and Slobodon Milosevic. (false)

We have him bending facts and taking quotes out of context or falsifying them completely to support his position. (Both falsifying the quotes he uses of other users and the quotes he attributes to early zionists.)

Israel committed no genocide. The zionists committed no genocide. They fought a war that was launched against them. It's a poor genocide that has the people waging it using bullhorns to tell the enemy when you're coming to attack, so they can escape.

And the Palestinians were offered a golden opportunity for peace and a country, and instead chose death, destruction, war. Arafat said of his negotiations and agreements with Israel "I am willing to die for my country, what makes you think I would not lie?"

So Israel is surrendering nearly all the land from 1967 (gaza, Judea, samaria (so-called West Bank)) without any agreement from the PA, because the PA has proven incapable of keeping any agreements. And you STILL can't accept it, and you still never answered why giving up so much won't lead to calls for a return to pre-1948 borders.

And you love to bring up apartheid and south africa. Except that in both cases that's false.

Benjamin Pogrund, a South African-born Jew who was active in the anti-apartheid movement and now lives in Israel, notes:

Apartheid is dead in South Africa but the word is alive in the world, especially as an epithet of abuse for Israel. Israel is accused by some of being 'the new apartheid' state. If true, it would be a grave charge, justifying international condemnation and sanctions. But it isn't true. Anyone who knows what apartheid was, and who knows Israel today, is aware of that. Use of the apartheid label is at best ignorant and naïve and at worst cynical and manipulative. ...

"Apartheid" is used in this case and elsewhere because it comes easily to hand: it is a lazy label for the complexities of the Middle East conflict. It is also used because, if it can be made to stick, then Israel can be made to appear to be as vile as was apartheid South Africa and seeking its destruction can be presented to the world as an equally moral cause. (from the December 2005 issue of Focus, published by The Helen Suzman Foundation)
-- Benjamin Pogrund, a South African-born Jew who was active in the anti-apartheid movement and now lives in Israel.

Prominent South African anti-Apartheid activists Bob Hepple and Joel Joffe stated that

"we reject this parallel [between Israel and apartheid]. Israel may adopt policies with which we disagree, but the institutions of social democratic Israel do not bear comparison with the authoritarian and racist structures of apartheid South Africa. To equate this with Israel distorts the historical record."
-- http://education.guardian.co.uk/high...490918,00.html

[von Wrangell]

Seems like I was correct about yet another thing:

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../060417fa_fact

[abe]

PA textbooks: Israel is Palestine

by Margot Dudkevitch, in the Jerusalem Post

Palestinian schoolbooks for the first time delineate the borders of the West Bank and Gaza Strip on maps but the entire territory encompassed by Israel, the West Bank and Gaza is referred to as Palestine, according to an Israeli government report.

These are the two most significant changes in textbooks published by the Palestinian Authority's Education Ministry for the 2003-2004 school year. The PA textbooks continue to deny Israel's right to exist and claim that the only solution to the current conflict is violence, according to a report by the coordinator of government activities in the territories.

The report, which was obtained exclusively by The Jerusalem Post, says Palestine, not Israel, appears on all of the books' maps and all the village, cities, and towns located in Israel are referred to by their Arabic names.

The PA does not teach pupils about co-existence or peace and the overall policy "appears to be one of delegitimization of the State of Israel and Zionists," the document stated.

While Israel is not formally recognized, it is mentioned as a party to peace agreements and Camp David Accords. Jews and Judaism are portrayed negatively, but martyrdom is depicted as a positive national trend, according to the report.

The Israeli document is based on a study of 26 textbooks ranging from history, geography, economics, civic studies, and language books currently used by grade 4 and junior high students in Palestinian schools. The PA Education Ministry has been gradually replacing antiquated textbooks since the Oslo Accords came into effect in the 1990s.

Certain maps and topics refer to "Historical Palestine" and later as Palestine where the map of Israel and the West Bank and Gaza appear. Other maps portray the defined borders of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip under the heading of the Palestinian Authority.

http://zioneocon.blogspot.com/archiv...n_archive.html

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Seems like I was correct about yet another thing:

Yet another thing? What have you EVER been correct about?

You are a very hateful person von.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

The Iraqi insurgency.

I think if you compare Iran's military capacity to what Iraq's was prior to invasion you'd find that Iran has a much more advanced and capable military force. The Iranians haven't had to deal with 15 years of sanctions, a factor that was significant in the disintegration of Iraq's airforce, for example. The loyalty of the military to the Iranian state is another factor in Iran's favour. I don't think you'd see large chunks of Iranian troops simply leave their weapons and go home upon the arrival of US troops, which is another factor that undermined Iraq's ability to defend herself at the beginning of the war.

Let's be realistic - the US today doesn't have the financial or military capacity to launch a full scale invasion of Iran. Nor would US public or party opinion approve another intervention of this scale so soon after the colossal strategic errors that have been made in Iraq.

As I recall, at the time of Desert Storm, Iraq possessed the 4th largest and best-equipped military in the world, there were no sanctions, and they had fought the Iranians to a standstill. The technology gap between the Iraqi military of that day was FAR smaller vis-a-vis the US that Iran's is with the US today.

They lasted 100 hours.

Don't kid yourself.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

As I recall, at the time of Desert Storm, Iraq possessed the 4th largest and best-equipped military in the world, there were no sanctions, and they had fought the Iranians to a standstill. The technology gap between the Iraqi military of that day was FAR smaller vis-a-vis the US that Iran's is with the US today.

They lasted 100 hours.

Don't kid yourself.

The US wasn't alone in Desert Storm.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll

The US wasn't alone in Desert Storm.

By the end of September 1990, there were nearly 200,000 American personnel in Saudi Arabia enough to repel any Iraqi attack.

While we weren't alone, it could have been done by us alone.

"Overall, the coalition air campaign (consisting mostly of U.S. pilots)accumulated a total of 109,876 sorties over the 43-day air war — averaging 2,555 sorties per day. Of those, more than 27,000 sorties struck enemy Scuds, airfields, air defenses, electrical power, biological and chemical weapons caches, headquarters, intelligence assets, communications, the Iraqi army, and oil refineries."

"At 3 a.m on January 17, the Iraqis fired seven Scud missiles at Israel. Israelis were awaiting the Scuds with gas masks on, thanks to Saddam's previous threats to burn half of Israel with chemical weapons. As it turned out, the Scuds bore only conventional warheads, but their terror value was high. To avoid a wider war, U.S. officials pleaded with Israeli officials to not respond to the Scud attacks. The Israelis agreed because the Americans promised to target all Scud missile sites and knock them out."

Day One ground attack. On February 24th at 4 a.m., Allied troops led by U.S. Marines crossed the border into Iraq. During the days before the attack, Iraqi troops had been subjected to merciless air attacks; every imaginable target was destroyed with accuracy.

Day Three ground attack Day Three dawned on the largest tank battle in history. The American armored forces engaged the tank forces of the Iraqi Republican guard. Like shooting fish in a barrel, the American tanks destroyed the Iraqi heavy armor without losing a single tank.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Prominent South African anti-Apartheid activists Bob Hepple and Joel Joffe stated that

"we reject this parallel [between Israel and apartheid]. Israel may adopt policies with which we disagree, but the institutions of social democratic Israel do not bear comparison with the authoritarian and racist structures of apartheid South Africa. To equate this with Israel distorts the historical record."
http://education.guardian.co.uk/high...490918,00.html

You're purposefully confusing two things. There is the question of whether there is apartheid within Israel and there is the question of whether Israel practises apartheid in the occupied territories. Hepple and Joffe (and the other signatories) are talking about accusations of apartheid within Israel. I agree with you that I don't find Israel itself to be an apartheid state, but I do think that Israel practises apartheid in the occupied territories.

My view on this question has changed slightly over the years. I think that the system of coordinated oppression of the Palestinians goes beyond what the architects of apartheid imagined and it addresses the task differently. I think it belittles the Palestinian suffering to compare it to apartheid South Africa because it is a different, and in many ways, more terrible form of suffering. Have a look at what Ronnie Kasrils has said below.

Here are some quotes from a range of people regarding Israel and apartheid:

Bishop Desmond Tutu Nobel Peace Prize Laureate:
"I was very deeply distressed [by a visit to the Holy Land]. It reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa".

"I saw the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about".

"Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people".

Tutu has also roundly criticised Palestinian terrorism and suicide bombings btw.

Nelson Mandela, nobel peace prize laureate and detained by the apartheid regime for 27 years:
"Palestinians are not struggling for a "state" but for freedom, liberation and equality, just like we were struggling for freedom in South Africa.

Ronnie Kasrils, possibly the most prominent Jewish anti-apartheid activist:
"There are things we South Africans recognise in the Palestinian struggle for national self-determination and human rights. The repressed are demonised as terrorists to justify ever-greater violations of their rights. We have the absurdity that the victims are blamed for the violence meted out against them. Both apartheid and Israel are prime examples of terrorist states blaming the victims."

On a visit to the Occupied Territories:
"This is much worse than apartheid. The Israeli measures, the brutality, make apartheid look like a picnic. We never had jets attacking our townships. We never had sieges that lasted month after month. We never had tanks destroying houses. We had armoured vehicles and police using small arms to shoot people but not on this scale."

How about some Israelis on the topic:

B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights group on the system of system of roads in the OTs (certain roads are reserved for Israelis and even though they are in "Palestine", Palestinians cannot use them):
"The system bears clear similarities to the racist apartheid regime that existed in South Africa."

Yitzhak Rabin:
In 1976, at the height of apartheid, when South African politicians were unwelcome anywhere, the Israelis invited the neo-Nazi President Vorster of South Africa on an official visit to Israel.

"We toast the ideals shared by Israel and South Africa: the hopes for justice and peaceful coexistence".
(Peaceful co-existence was how the SA government referenced apartheid)

"Our countries both face foreign-inspired instability and recklessness." (a comparison of ANC terrorists and the Palestinians.)

Alon Liel, head of the Israeli foreign ministry's South Africa desk in the 80s:

"After 1976, there was a love affair between the security establishments of the two countries and their armies. We were involved in Angola as consultants to the [South African] army. You had Israeli officers there cooperating with the army. The link was very intimate."

Massimo D'Alema, the former Italian prime minister:
"Ariel Sharon told me that the bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict with the Palestinians. That is not interpretation. That is a precise quotation of your prime minister."

Sharon's tourism minister, Rehavam Ze'evi advocated the "transfer" of Arabs out of Israel and the occupied territories. Uzi Cohen, who has backed a bill to establish a national memorial day for this racist and an institute to perpetuate his forced removals idea said:

"Arabs in the occupied territories should be given 20 years to leave voluntarily. In case they don't leave, plans would have to be drawn up to expel them by force. Many people support the idea but few are willing to speak about it publicly."

Uzi Landau, Sharon's security minister:
"Palestinians should be forced to move to Jordan because they are in the way of Israeli expansion in the West Bank. They are encroaching on our very right to be there."

When Sharon objected to the expression of such blatant racism, it was not because of the immorality of the views themselves but because the "international situation wouldn't be conducive" to forced removals!

Israeli state-owned factories at Beit Alfa Kibbutz were turning out anti-riot vehicles for use against protesters in the black townships - vehicles South Africa couldn't get anywhere else because of sanctions. South Africans and Israelis were working on various arms that were used to prop up the apartheid state, including nuclear weapons and Israelis were helping South African soldiers to destabilise the region as part of the apartheid strategy. Israel was the only country in the world to recognise the "homelands" in South Africa, allowing Bophutatswana to open an embassy.

Is it a coincidence that a country whose politicans have admired the apartheid South African state and worked intimately with it today draws on some of the cornerstone policies of apartheid? I think not. I think the Israel's leaders think that "separateness" (the translation of apartheid) is the only solution for them and that this should be achieved through bantustans and destabilisation. Having seen what happened to South Africa, they are more subtle about how they reference their ideas but the effect is the same. A justice system that grants Israelis different rights to Palestinians. A justice system that condones the murder of Palestinians by Israelis. A system of water rights that effectively denies Palestinians access to their own acquifers while dishing out discounted water to Israeli settlors. A system of checkpoints and roads that restricts Palestinian free movement and creates separate amenities for jews and Arabs. A system of bantustans and forced removals. An entire population that has been going backwards for 50 years.

Again I say, I think that there are elements of apartheid in Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the OT. It doesn't matter what you call it though. At the end of the day, a people is being systematically oppressed by another.

[vmarks]

At the end of the day, forced removals has applied to Jews in Gaza and soon will apply to Jews in Judea, Samaria, thanks to Sharon and Olmert. So much for your 'bantustans.'

At the end of the day, a system of checkpoints and roads that restricts free movement exists because Palestinians who used roads freely in the absence of checkpoints used them to bomb Israelis.

At the end of the day, Palestinians have time and time again supported leadership that works against peace and are supported monetarily and with arms from foreign nations, in spite of peace agreements to the contrary. (Egyptian funneling of arms, for example.)

you say "Is it a coincidence that a country whose politicans have admired the apartheid South African state and worked intimately with it today draws on some of the cornerstone policies of apartheid? " -- I answer you by asking, what is the proper way to deal with a untrustworthy element within your borders who intends to eradicate and commit genocide against your citizenry and has publicly declared this desire?

Do you look to other examples in the world that have similar destructive violent people in their midst? It obviously wasn't the same situation, as far as I know, Mandela and Tutu never publicly declared their desire to kill all the whites of South Africa and wipe them from the face of the Earth.

You make the presumption that the so-called occupied terroritories are the right of Palestinians. They're disputed territories. Here's a conniption for you: They're Israeli territories being held under occupation by terrorist Palestinians.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060410/...l_palestinians

"JERUSALEM - The new Hamas-led Palestinian government is quietly working to end a surge in violence, urging rival militant groups in the Gaza Strip to refrain from launching rockets at Israel without official permission."

Because asking forgiveness is so much easier than asking permission.




How about those new fall fashions?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

At the end of the day, a system of checkpoints and roads that restricts free movement exists because Palestinians who used roads freely in the absence of checkpoints used them to bomb Israelis.

No one is complaining about check points at your own borders. But you knew that.

you say "Is it a coincidence that a country whose politicans have admired the apartheid South African state and worked intimately with it today draws on some of the cornerstone policies of apartheid? " -- I answer you by asking, what is the proper way to deal with a untrustworthy element within your borders who intends to eradicate and commit genocide against your citizenry and has publicly declared this desire?

And here again we have vmarks denying the Palestinian right to a state. In his opinion the West Bank and Gaza are a part of Eretz Israel. Which is of course why he supports the apartheid policies of the racist Israeli government.

You make the presumption that the so-called occupied terroritories are the right of Palestinians. They're disputed territories. Here's a conniption for you: They're Israeli territories being held under occupation by terrorist Palestinians.

Again we have Israel denying a people their right to a state. For him it's a one way street. The righteous good Jews are always right and have more rights than the subhumans in Palestine. Nothing new here. Just seldom he makes it so clear.

[vmarks]

The Palestinians have been offered a state. They refused. Israel vacated unilaterally, effectively establishing the state for them, and you STILL squeal. They STILL launch rocket attacks daily.

Some people can never be appeased.

EDIT: Actually, come to think of it, I know what it would take for them to be appeased. The genocide of Jews and the elimination of Israel, with a resulting Islamic state named Palestine built on top of the graves. At least, that's what Hamas is saying.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

The Palestinians have been offered a state. They refused. Israel vacated unilaterally, effectively establishing the state for them, and you STILL squeal. They STILL launch rocket attacks daily.

Some people can never be appeased.

Gaza? Or what "state" are you referring to?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

At the end of the day, forced removals has applied to Jews in Gaza and soon will apply to Jews in Judea, Samaria, thanks to Sharon and Olmert. So much for your 'bantustans.'

Their property is being expropriated by a government that they elected and they are being compensated.

The racist proposal of elements within the Israeli government is to remove people that did not elect that government from land that Israel does not claim, without compensation so that Jews can expand their lebensraum through Israeli annexure. There is no comparison of those two situations.

Originally Posted by vmarks

At the end of the day, a system of checkpoints and roads that restricts free movement exists because Palestinians who used roads freely in the absence of checkpoints used them to bomb Israelis.

Which is one of the justifications that the apartheid government gave for the repression of blacks in South Africa. As Kasrils said, "The repressed are demonised as terrorists to justify ever-greater violations of their rights. We have the absurdity that the victims are blamed for the violence meted out against them."

In any event, you can't have it both ways. You can't deny that Israel practises apartheid and then admit that Palestinians can't travel on Jewish roads. All you're really doing is admitting that you practise apartheid but justifying it on the basis of security concerns.

Originally Posted by vmarks

I answer you by asking, what is the proper way to deal with a untrustworthy element within your borders who intends to eradicate and commit genocide against your citizenry and has publicly declared this desire? Do you look to other examples in the world that have similar destructive violent people in their midst? It obviously wasn't the same situation, as far as I know, Mandela and Tutu never publicly declared their desire to kill all the whites of South Africa and wipe them from the face of the Earth.

Mandela and Tutu didn't call for genocide no. Mandela was part of the armed struggle which was responsible for the bombing of civilian and other targets. But there were other groups that did call for genocide. The PAC who were responsible for the murder of American activist Amy Biehl had a motto that was pretty clear - "One settlor, one bullet".

It's been 50 years vmarks. In that time, has all of the violence that Israel has committed and all of the other half-assed attempts both sides have made to make peace done anything to reduce terrorism?

Originally Posted by vmarks

You make the presumption that the so-called occupied terroritories are the right of Palestinians. They're disputed territories. Here's a conniption for you: They're Israeli territories being held under occupation by terrorist Palestinians.

Disputed how? Does Israel claim that the occupied territories belong to her? What has Israel been doing since 1948 to resolve this "dispute"?

The rest of the world recognises Israel as an occupying power - occupying territory that does not belong to Israel. The international community does not recognise the Israeli principle of acquisition of land by conquest. Beating the occupiers of land to a pulp or forcing them to flee and then installing your own people is called colonialism and it's something that global morality outlawed years ago. Besides, you know as well as I do that Israel would never consider incorporating the OTs into the state of Israel because Israel would instantaneously become an Arab state.

Originally Posted by vmarks

"JERUSALEM - The new Hamas-led Palestinian government is quietly working to end a surge in violence, urging rival militant groups in the Gaza Strip to refrain from launching rockets at Israel without official permission."

I think it's a pity that the Palestinians are so hardened by years of Israeli oppression that the democratic majority thinks that a government that promises to fight back should be elected. I'll bet though that if you'd held a general election in South Africa in 1976, the ANC would have lead the polls - a political party that invoked the right of their people to a military struggle against the oppressors.

After 50 years of the sh1t that Israel dishes out to Palestinians, I think I would have had enough too. And if I had to vote in a democratic election, I think I'd probably vote for a party that takes a harder line against Israel. I think it's a pity that Palestinians have been so hardened that this is where they are at today. But how blind do you Israelis have to be to not understand what is happening here. Your violence against the Palestinians is not making them friendlier to Israel. Your oppression of their human rights. Your trying to separate Arabs and Jews with walls and separate roads is not making you more secure. It's pushing the Palestinians to hate you more. Sharon's idea of beating them into submission, of pushing the Palestinians to the negotiating table through murder and oppression isn't working.

You want to protect yourselves? Do it inside your own country. You need a buffer zone? Create it inside your own country. Recognise that Palestinians don't just want a state. They want freedom and security and self-determination just like you do. Part of that is getting a state but another important element is dignity. That means a real state not one that you invade whenever you like, that has no right to protect itself with an army and that is at Israel's mercy.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Troll

You want to protect yourselves? Do it inside your own country. You need a buffer zon? Create it inside your own country.

[vmarks]

Actually, empirical evidence shows that when Israel defends itself assertively, the attacks are reduced.

When Israel comes to the table, offers greater and greater concessions, pulls back from land, refrains from responding to attacks, the attacks increase.

[Kevin]

Why should Israel HAVE to create such a thing in the first place von?

Get rid of the reason it exist, and the problem takes care of itself.

:biggerthumbsup:

[vmarks]

“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.”

— Euripides


http://www.localnewsleader.com/elyti...news&id=173980

TEHRAN - Iranians will hear "good news" on their country‘s nuclear program on Tuesday night, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.

The news is widely expected in Iranian media to be the announcement that Iran has enriched uranium to the 3.5 percent level needed to fuel nuclear power stations like the one it is building at the Gulf port of Bushehr.

Such an announcement would be a big setback to UN efforts to get Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment work, as it has done before.

"After hearing all the good news tomorrow (Tuesday) night, Iranians should prostrate themselves before almighty God," Ahmadinejad said in the northeastern city of Mashhad on Monday night.

Iran has been referred to the UN Security Council after failing to convince the international community that its nuclear activities are aimed at producing only nuclear power, and not weapons

AND

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...04-11-11-01-21

Iran Enriches Uranium, Ex-Leader Says

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer



AP Photo/STR

More World Video



Advertisement




TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran has successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a major development in its quest to develop nuclear fuel, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani said Tuesday.

Current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad added that the country "will soon join the club of countries with nuclear technology."

The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop all uranium enrichment activity by April 28. Iran has rejected the demand, saying it has a right to develop the process.

The comments by the Iranian officials came as the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, was due to visit Tehran this week for talks on the nuclear standoff.

[von Wrangell]

Congratulations to Iran.

[yakkiebah]

Iran, soon to be erased from the map.

[Y3a]

The current Muslim indoctorinations and teachings pretty well mean they will have to be destroyed. They continue to arm themselves to kill others, and they have spent most of their time and efforts to kill people who don't think like them anyway. What are the alternatives? Surrender or remove them from the earth for all others safety. Sad and pathetic.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Y3a

The current Jewish indoctorinations and teachings pretty well mean they will have to be destroyed. They continue to arm themselves to kill others, and they have spent most of their time and efforts to kill people who don't think like them anyway. What are the alternatives? Surrender or remove them from the earth for all others safety. Sad and pathetic.

Wonder how long it would take to get banned if you posted that instead......

[Kevin]

Difference? The Jews aren't doing that.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Iran, soon to be erased from the map.

oh the irony!

[black bear theory]

file this one STRICTLY under RUMOUR:

iran has 250 nuclear warheads from the ukraine... (do a google search)

please disspell...

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

oh the irony!

I'm pretty sure he worded it that way to get the response he wants.

[abe]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

No one is complaining about check points at your own borders. But you knew that.

And here again we have vmarks denying the Palestinian right to a state. In his opinion the West Bank and Gaza are a part of Eretz Israel. Which is of course why he supports the apartheid policies of the racist Israeli government.

Again we have Israel denying a people their right to a state. For him it's a one way street. The righteous good Jews are always right and have more rights than the subhumans in Palestine. Nothing new here. Just seldom he makes it so clear.

Do you think the Palestinian rhetoric still has credibility here in the P/L?

Do you think anyone believes the mistruths, the twisted facts and vile insinuations you lob at vmarks, over and over again?

I think anyone reading the body of information and checking the facts will conclude that vmarks has been fair and accurate. And you have been clever.

I searched using the term, "two state solution" and these are just three of the results. He has continually lobbied and argued for the conditions which might enable Palestine and Israel to co-exist in peace.

I don't know how you can stand there and say the things you do and think no one will check them for accuracy.

Or would you prefer we call it hyperbole?

vmarks
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel / USA
Posts: 5,590
Status: Offline
Report Abuse  
09-23-2004, 06:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Perhaps. But it was the beginning of what is the only reasonable resolution to the conflict: 2 states. Before that we only had total rejectionism of the other's right to exist.

Of course the devil will always be in the details, but we had to start somewhere.

Oslo was not the beginning of the two state solution.

It has been offered many times in the last century, and at every opportunity, refused.

The reality is, as soon as partition into two states or homeslands was proposed, the Jews accepted it and the Arabs rejected it.

In 1937, the Peel commission recommended a partition plan. The Peel commission recommended a Jewish state where there was a Jewish majority (and despite what you may have heard, there was a Jewish majority) and an Arab state where there was an Arab majority.

The Jews accepted the commission plan, while the Arabs rejected it, demanding that the Arabs be given control, and that the Jews be transferred out.

Again in 1947, the possibility of a two-state solution presented itself, in the U.N. partition plan. Again, it was refused.

Israel once again showed its willingness to make peace with its attackers by agreeing to give back lawfully captured territories gained in a defensive war, but only as a part of an overall peace agreement recognizing Israel's right to "live in security." The major Arabs states along with the Palestinian leadership categorically rejected the principles of Reolution 242 because it violated the three no's: No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel.

Before the 1990s, a number of senior Fatah figures had been preaching the 'two-state solution', but these individuals had experienced assassination, at the hands of other Palestinians. From its founding in 1964 (and even before), the PLO (and its predecessors) had rejected the two-state solution in favor of terrorism, the destruction of Israel, and the transfer out of the Jewish population.

Oslo was to give autonomy to Palestinians on their way to a two-state solution. The PLO became the Palestinian Authority. Israel armed Palestinian Security forces. In return, the PLO/PA was supposed to recognize Israel's right to exist. They got the weapons and the authority, but never did recognize a right to exist.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...on#post2202713
*****
vmarks
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel / USA
Posts: 5,590
Status: Offline
Report Abuse  
10-15-2004, 12:05 PM

Arab-hating?

You must be mistaken.

I'm going to be very very candid:

This is not a "conflict." This is not a "cycle of violence." This is war. This is war started by Arab nations and Palestinians with one goal only: To deny the existence of Israel and kill all the Jews. There are two outcomes from this war: One, Israel wins and continues to exist, and the other, Palestinians win and there will be no Israel, the land Judenfrei.

When the Palestinians are ready to accept the existence of a state of Israel, the war can end and negotiations for a two state solution can begin. Until Palestinians accept Israel's existence, negotiations are premature and will have no lasting good effect.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...on#post2238357
*****
vmarks
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel / USA
Posts: 5,590
Status: Offline
Report Abuse  
11-11-2004, 05:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by UnixMac:
I guess all we can do now is wait and see what happens.. Arafat is no more... and there will be new and more moderate leadership. Let's see if Isreal is ready to "**** or get off the pot"

Israel has always been ready, don't you see? Israel made peace with Egypt, Jordan, and settled with Lebanon, even though arms still come in from Egypt to be used against Israel (in violation of the peace accords) and Lebanon never stopped firing katuyashas on Israel.

Israel offered a two state solution four times in its history, and signed onto Oslo, and implemented the first steps of the Roadmap, while the Palestinians didn't reciprocate, but chose to attack.

Here's the thing that is important to understand going forward. It isn't necessarily what the leadership wants, it is how willing the population is to follow. Jordan's peace agreement was the warmest of any that had ever been signed with Israel. Egypt's was among the coldest. The result was that economic relations opened up with Jordan, Israelis went to Jordan to get dental work done-- right up until the dental association told the dentists that if they worked on any Jew they would lose their license to practice. The people have to want peace regardless of what the leaders want.

I'll repeat: The Palestinian people have to want peace regardless of what the leaders want.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...on#post2281467

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by abe

Do you think the Palestinian rhetoric still has credibility here in the P/L?

Do you think anyone believes the mistruths, the twisted facts and vile insinuations you lob at vmarks, over and over again?

LBK Would!

[abe]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why should Israel HAVE to create such a thing in the first place von?

Get rid of the reason it exist, and the problem takes care of itself.

:biggerthumbsup:

[abe]

Originally Posted by Kevin

LBK Would!

There's something you gotta admire...blind loyalty.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I'm pretty sure he worded it that way to get the response he wants.

Now where is my eraser...

[Troll]

What do you think Iranians reading the New Yorker or visiting a site like this are thinking? Do you think they're saying, "We don't need nuclear weapons, the Americans are really nice people. Let's drop the whole programme"?

If any one of you had half a brain and were employed as a strategist for the Iranian government, what would you be telling them to do? The US has listed three countries as part of an axis of evil. It started by taking out the weakest of the three. The other leg of the axis is so far untouched because it appears that they may have nuclear weapons. At the same time, the politicians in charge in the US say that Iraq is part of a broader plan for the entire region. Are you going to tell your boss he doesn't need nukes? I can't see how you could possibly argue that. The only way Iran can protect itself is to build nuclear weapons as fast as humanly possible and the more the US ratchets up the talk of the use of force, the greater the chances that Iran will arm itself. Apart from nukes, Iran would be absolutely stupid not to be manufacturing arms and training soldiers as fast as possible right now. Which is exactly what we need in that region isn't it?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by abe

There's something you gotta admire...blind loyalty.

You would admire that of course.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll

You would admire that of course.

He was being sarcastic.

[von Wrangell]

And still nothing has been done about the person calling for a genocide against Muslims. What a surprise......

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

And still nothing has been done about the person calling for a genocide against Muslims. What a surprise......

1. You don't know what the mods have done or said
2. Is it any worse than anything you've said? I mean you've made personal threats to members in this very forum. Should we do something about you?

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Troll

The US wasn't alone in Desert Storm.

You're under the ridiculously naive assumption we would be if Iran used nukes?

Besides, how many allies of the US aren't using US military technology?


Your nick is appropriate

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

You're under the ridiculously naive assumption we would be if Iran used nukes?

No, I'm under the ridiculously naiive assumption that if the US decided to invade Iran next week, it would be on its own. I never said what you're accusing me of saying.

I say that the US would be alone because Russia and China have already said that they will not support a UN resolution for the use of force against Iran and because the UK has already indicated that it won't yet support military action. I say that because after the Iraq incident, other countries don't trust the US and so it will take a lot more hard evidence for anyone to support the US. Of course, if Iran used a nuke, other countries would join the US but we're a number of years away from that scenario by most reliable accounts. Bush will be gone before Iran is in a position to use a nuclear weapon.

[Macrobat]

But the US most decidedly will NOT be gone. If Iran uses nukes, or even demonstrated a nuclear weapon in a test, they'd be toast.

I said NOTHING about a unilateral invasion of Iran. Although, look at a map. Iran is in a classic pincer with Iraq and Afghanistan on either side and US forces already present in both places.

Not to mention that you are WRONG about "no one supporting the US" if the US decided to invade. I'll give you the three nanoseconds it should take for you to come up with the ally's name.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Kevin

He was being sarcastic.

Thank you.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by abe

Thank you.

Oh wow, great comeback. I'm almost sorry the ignore feature saved me from Kevin's assist ... almost. Of course, showing us that you thought I didn't realise you were being sarcastic, does make you look a tad silly but whatever.

Shall we get back to the topic then? As the resident conspiracy theorist, do you think perhaps the Illuminati is involved? Or the Martians? I heard a delivery guy from DHL said the box from the Acme Nuclear Bomb Company that he delivered to Iran had a return address on Mars.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by Troll

I heard a delivery guy from DHL said the box from the Acme Nuclear Bomb Company that he delivered to Iran had a return address on Mars.

Was it from Wile E. Coyote...Soouuuper Genius?

[abe]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

And still nothing has been done about the person calling for a genocide against Muslims. What a surprise......

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...31#post2948131

von Wrangell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: دارالحرب
Posts: 3,292
Status: Offline
Report Abuse
Yesterday, 08:18 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monique
But, they are your friends, since you take the Palestinians cause to heart.


No one who kills an innocent is my "friend".

Are you going to tell me how I can stop suicide bombers or will you continue to act like a cünt?
__________________
"Show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid those who choose to remain ignorant."

The Holy Quran, 7:199

Almost as surprising as this.

[abe]

As much as Ahmadinejad's threat of wiping Israel off the map rings in our ears there's little doubt anyone here is mistaking posts to wipe Iran off the map as anything but an example of "tit for tat."

However, despite Iran's sudden admission that they had lied and defied re: their nuclear developments, there seems little likelihood of anyone being wiped off anything by anyone at this point.

As much as I fear the safety of Israel posed by an Iranian nuclear weapons capability, I'm starting to get the idea that Iran is STILL five years from developing a bomb. This gives us time.

There are those who say that Iran wants nukes for prestige or bragging rights and to be considered a big dog in the region.

But what do the Sunni Arabs of Saudi Arabia think of the Iranians, who are primarily Persian Shiites, having a nuclear weapon?

What do the Syrians or the Turks or the Egyptians think?

It isn't only the Israelis who are threatened by a sudden shift in the balance of power.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll

Oh wow, great comeback. I'm almost sorry the ignore feature saved me from Kevin's assist ... almost. Of course, showing us that you thought I didn't realise you were being sarcastic, does make you look a tad silly but whatever.

Shall we get back to the topic then? As the resident conspiracy theorist, do you think perhaps the Illuminati is involved? Or the Martians? I heard a delivery guy from DHL said the box from the Acme Nuclear Bomb Company that he delivered to Iran had a return address on Mars.

It wasn't a come-back. You simply didn't get his sarcasm. And I pointed it out to you.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll

Bush will be gone before Iran is in a position to use a nuclear weapon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...07/wiran07.xml

Iran has successfully developed ballistic missiles with the capability to carry nuclear warheads.

Detailed analysis of recent test firings of the Shahab-3 ballistic missile by military experts has concluded that Iran has been able to modify the nose cone to carry a basic nuclear bomb. The discovery will intensify international pressure on Teheran to provide a comprehensive breakdown of its nuclear research programme.


An Iranian Shahab-3 missile on parade in Teheran
Last week, the United Nations Security Council gave Iran 30 days to freeze its uranium enrichment programme that many experts believe is part of a clandestine attempt to produce nuclear weapons.

Iran denies it is trying to acquire a nuclear arsenal. But ballistic missile experts advising the United States say it has succeeded in reconfiguring the Shahab-3 to carry nuclear weapons.

The Shahab-3 is a modified version of North Korea's Nodong missile which itself is based on the old Soviet-made Scud.



The Nodong, which Iran secretly acquired from North Korea in the mid-1990s, is designed to carry a conventional warhead. But Iranian engineers have been working for several years to adapt the Shahab-3 to carry nuclear weapons.

"This is a major breakthrough for the Iranians," said a senior US official. "They have been trying to do this for years and now they have succeeded. It is a very disturbing development."

The Shahab 3 has a range of 800 miles, enabling it to hit a wide range of targets throughout the Middle East - including Israel.


Apart from modifying the nose cone, Iranian technicians are also trying to make a number of technical adjustments that will enable the missile to travel a greater distance.

Western intelligence officials believe that Iran is receiving assistance from teams of Russian and Chinese experts with experience of developing nuclear weapons. Experts who have studied the latest version of the Shahab have identified modifications to the nose cone.

Instead of the single cone normally attached to this type of missile, the new Shahab has three cones, or a triconic, warhead. A triconic warhead allows the missile to accommodate a nuclear device and this type of warhead is normally found only in nuclear weapons.

According to the new research, the Iranian warhead is designed to carry a spherical nuclear weapon that would be detonated 2,000 feet above the ground, similar to the Hiroshima bomb.

Although US defence officials believe that Iran is several years away from acquiring nuclear weapons, they point out that the warhead could hold a version of the nuclear bomb Pakistan is known to have developed. Iran has acquired a detailed breakdown of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

-- error in the article: the Shahab 3 is capable of 930 miles range, not 800. The Shahab 4 is capable of 1,200 miles.

Commentary: Of COURSE the Russians and Chinese aren't going to back a US action, they're busy making money supplying Iran with assistance.

Short Summary of events so far:
* Iran agrees and agrees with UK/France/Germany talks telling them to not dev. nuclear tech. until they've gotten far enough along they can simply say "here it is! heck with you!" Iran also ignores the UN's 30 day freeze order.

* Iran claims it is for peaceful energy, but has advice and plans from Khan who provided the knowledge behind Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Khan's talks with el-Baradei (IAEA) have revealed enrichment facilities in Iran that Iran was keeping secret from the IAEA.

* Iran modifies Shahab 3 (which it got from North Korea, another violator of all sorts of wonderful agreements and treaties in this arena) for nuclear warheads and greater range.

[Taliesin]

A good discussion between troll and vmarks. I really would like to join the debate, but due to timeconstraints and more important topics calling for my attention, I have to refrain from it.

Just wanted to pop in and state that the arguments are pretty good from both sides.

Taliesin

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

"This is a major breakthrough for the Iranians," said a senior US official. "They have been trying to do this for years and now they have succeeded. It is a very disturbing development."

Was he waving around a vial of white substance at the time, did he have images of the missiles doing laps in the dessert or an artists impression of the missile mounted on a train? Excuse me for not believing a word any US official has to say on this matter. After Iraq, they have 0 credibility. They are either liars or too incompetent to even organise a p1ss up in a brewery. Either way, they can talk to the hand.

Originally Posted by vmarks

Although US defence officials believe that Iran is several years away from acquiring nuclear weapons, they point out that the warhead could hold a version of the nuclear bomb Pakistan is known to have developed. Iran has acquired a detailed breakdown of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

So, in "several years" time, if they've developed a nuclear weapon, they will have the capacity to fire it 1,200 miles. I don't have the time to look at a map, but who might be at risk in several years time if Iran chooses to and actually does develop nuclear weapons?

What do you think the best strategy is for motivating Iran not to develop nuclear weapons? Do you think threatening to do to them what was done to Iraq will push them to develop ever more weapons, potentially even nuclear, or it will it focus Iran's attention away from defence and military spending?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll

Was he waving around a vial of white substance at the time, did he have images of the missiles doing laps in the dessert or an artists impression of the missile mounted on a train? Excuse me for not believing a word any US official has to say on this matter. After Iraq, they have 0 credibility. They are either liars or too incompetent to even organise a p1ss up in a brewery. Either way, they can talk to the hand.

So instead you'll trust Iran which has absolutely proven themselves to be liars and deceivers as opposed to the US.

So, in "several years" time, if they've developed a nuclear weapon, they will have the capacity to fire it 1,200 miles. I don't have the time to look at a map, but who might be at risk in several years time if Iran chooses to and actually does develop nuclear weapons?

What makes you think that distances will stand still even as they work on the weaponry? There's no reason to believe that they will stay static at 1,200 miles.

And who can they actually hit at that range? Greece, Italy, Bulgaria, Turkey, Georgia, Israel to name a few.

Perhaps you don't mind if they nuke Israel, but what will you say when they hit Italy or Greece?

What do you think the best strategy is for motivating Iran not to develop nuclear weapons? Do you think threatening to do to them what was done to Iraq will push them to develop ever more weapons, potentially even nuclear, or it will it focus Iran's attention away from defence and military spending?

France, Germany and the UK already tried to convince them to refrain. Iran lied to them repeatedly and continued anyway. The non-threatening strategy was tried and failed.
As a repeat of North Korea, the non-threatening strategy was what led to their successful development.

The US has not made any threats at this time. What do you think the answer is, given Iran's history of deception and threats against America and Israel?

[pooka]

Originally Posted by vmarks

So instead you'll trust Iran which has absolutely proven themselves to be liars and deceivers as opposed to the US.

Well, it's no secret that no one really trusts the US, it's citizens, officials, politicians, etc. What I can not understand is the backingthenutball********underdogbecausehesgivingb ushthefinger mentality. I dare anyone to tell me with a straight face that Ahmadinejad isn't a psycho, two-faced, lying douche bag. I mean c'mon, the leader of a nation standing before the world thanking GOD for the successful extraction of radioactive sedimate from an industrial centrifuge. That wackiness alone should warrant condemnation from the world. He's so full of **** they can smell his breath in Greece.