I'm not going to say anything further on this, because I have already said it in another thread.

S

Typical use of the passive verb to hide culpability. "War began in the Middle East." You mean "The Arab League invaded Israel the very day that the UN established Israel."



Completely false. Propaganda. For example, Yitzhak Rabin officially recognized the Palestinian Authority and essentially granted self-rule to Palestinian territories. Terrorism did not end, and Yassir Arafat never held up any of his sides of the obligation. Furthermore, as Charlotte already pointed out, Israel freely returned 93% of lands siezed in the Six-Day War (another war initiated by an Arab coalition with no provocation). No concessions were given in return.


Israel made peace with Egypt because it wanted peace. They weren't afraid of Egypt. They had kicked its ass in 1948, 1967, and 1973.


Israel went into South Lebanon because the PLO was operating from there, launching continual terror attacks into Israel (not to mention terrorizing and slaughtering Lebanese as well). Since Lebanon could not stop the PLO, Israel tried to do it itself.

Incidentally, Lebanon is a great example of the nature of Palestinian terrorism. The group known as Hezbollah was formed "to push Israel out of South Lebanon." Israel left South Lebanon. To this day, Hezbollah continues terrorist attacks on Israel. This is why Israel is wary of negotiating with terrorist groups.


A frequently propagated myth. But it is not true. Palestinian militants have the means to fight a legitimate, proper war. They have, on many occassions, killed IDF soldiers. They have, on a couple of occassions, even destroyed Merkava main battle tanks. They choose to continue using attacks on civilians as their main form of action. They could fight a legitimate war against IDF units in Palestinian territories, but they consciously choose to kill women and children in Haifa and Tel Aviv instead.


I don't like hearing about Palestinian civilian casualties either. But they are an unfortunate consequence of operations meant to shut down the terrorist groups that deliberately target civilians.

If terror attacks stopped, the incursions would stop. If the incursions stopped, terror attacks would not stop. The ball is in the Palestinian court.


Every time Israel has compromised, there has been an increase in terrorism, not a decrease. This is because Palestinian terrorists are opposed to any negotiated compromise. They say so very clearly in their very own charters. The PLO Charter calls for a complete dissolution of the state of Israel to this day, despite the fact that Yassir Arafat pledged to remove those clauses in exchange for the recognition of the Palestinian Authority (10 years ago). The Hamas Charter goes even further, and clearly and unequivocally states:

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."


Did you read that in Mein Kamph or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Or did you learn about the Jewish control of the US government from the American Nazi Party? For fuck's sake, why don't you toss in the myth that Jews drink blood as well? It's got about as much credibility.

SS



Edited By StarvingStudent47 on 1046975712

Then what the fuck is this?!

CNN: Palestinians say 11 killed in Israeli incursion

Actually, the US media bias swings the OTHER way. They chalk up "body counts" that do not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. They publish stories "8 Palestinians killed" when five were terrorists and three were a tragic accident, and they say "Eight Israelis killed" when they're schoolchildren. They even fucking add SUICIDE BOMBERS to the Palestinian "death toll." They also repeatedly ignore the issue of intent. Terrorists want to kill civilians. The IDF tries to avoid hurting civilians when they fight terrorist groups, but sometimes fails in that objective. But the New York Times draws moral equivalency between the two.

SS

Well see, Israel was never meant to be there in the first place and Palestinians are defending their own country that has been taken from them.


Why didn't Israel take it and settle there instead of suggesting to Palestinians to take this land (not to forget that Palestinians have been in their land long before Israel was ever "born") ?


Never did any terror act?
What about the offensive attacks on the electricity of Lebanon and what about flying over Lebanon with no permission?
What about the cells (that are 1 meter big) where they kept civilians there and not until they left that they were able to free those men and women? (South Lebanon)
What about the destruction of Houses of civilians ?(South Lebanon)
What about the massacre in Kana (a town in South Lebanon) about 4 years ago when they killed about 100 civilians and bombed a car at the same day and killed 7 people and destroyed a house and killed 8 members?
And in the end, Israel apologized and said "It was a mistake." *rolls his eyes*
Evidence: Qana Massacre
Another Link
More of Qana's massacre
Pictures of the massacre
Care to read more about Israel during its occupation of South Lebanon?


Well, probably he is making mistakes but what world leader wouldn't want to keep his country because if he signs the peace treaty, then he will lose lands from Palestine. It's very clear he is defending his country. Yes, he probably is one of the richest leaders in the world but how would he help his own country when Israel keep destroying it?

BelleMort--

So are you saying that nothing short of the complete dissolution of the state of Israel is an acceptable solution? That the state should not exist, period? That's what you seem to be saying.

Just curious,
SS

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Israelis and the Palestinians both Semitic people and therefore have equal claim to the disputed territory? Therefore saying that the Palestinians have been there before the official founding of Israel is a moot point.

Also how come you haven't responded to some of the other replies like the offensive/defensive one?

Mes - likes dictionary.com

What happened already did.
My whole point is that Israel should only mind its own country instead of attacking the countries that they think it's a "threat" for them.
They should remove their army from the Palestinian territory and just stop attacking. Did they even think about doing this?
Probably in this way they will not have any "terror" attacks every week anymore. (imo)

I agree with you.

Reason why I didn't reply to this post and others: It's because I don't wait for people to reply to my posts and when I see that someone replied, I will try to reply.
If I have something more important, I tend to wait and reply when I'm sure I'm not going to be busy doing something else.

You don't have to rush me. I only posted this post yesterday. :l

THEY HAVE TRIED THIS REPEATEDLY. Charlotte already pointed this out, and you ignored her. It did not, I repeat, did not result in an end of terrorism. Or even a decrease in terrorism.

As I stated before, both the charters of Hamas and the PLO state quite clearly that nothing short of the dissolution of the state of Israel is acceptable. Palestinian self-rule is not enough, so long as Jews live in Haifa and Tel Aviv. They say this quite clearly. I provided the links earlier.

Don't defend terrorists if you don't even know why they are fighting.

SS



Edited By StarvingStudent47 on 1047007913

The Arab League never invaded Israel. They were against them, yes, but that doesn't mean they invaded them.
Remember, the Arab countries are almost all allies and try to help each others. When the Jews were granted a land in Palestine with no permission by the owners of the land, war of course is gonna break out.


A quick question, why didn't Israel give Palestinians their whole land back?


True.


Hizbullah is a terrorist group but that doesn't mean Lebanon is and its civilians.
The Lebanese army cannot stop Hizbullah because Syria operate this group, in a way, and since the Syrian Intelligence almost decide everything for Lebanon, the Lebanese army is not allowed to attack Hizbullah.
Now that finally the Syrian army is leaving Lebanon slowly that the Lebanese Goverment is able now to "breath."

How could they fight a war if they can't get that much weapons to their country?
And anyways, they can't get weapons or then Israel will invade them.

Maybe because the Palestinian civilians are attacked regularly and that's why they choose to attack civilians in Israel?


That's non-sense. No one could stop terrorism. The more we catch of them, the more others join terrorism or create a new terrorist group to avenge. (imo)

[quote]Every time Israel has compromised, there has been an increase in terrorism, not a decrease. This is because Palestinian terrorists are opposed to any negotiated compromise. They say so very clearly in their very own charters. The PLO Charter calls for a complete dissolution of the state of Israel to this day, despite the fact that Yassir Arafat pledged to remove those clauses in exchange for the recognition of the Palestinian Authority (10 years ago). The Hamas Charter goes even further, and clearly and unequivocally states:

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
Everytime Israel proposed a peace treaty, they wanted to keep a city or more instead of complete withdrawal.

[quote]Did you read that in Mein Kamph or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Or did you learn about the Jewish control of the US government from the American Nazi Party? For fuck's sake, why don't you toss in the myth that Jews drink blood as well? It's got about as much credibility.[quote]
One question, why do you think the U.S. keeps giving Israel
Weapons?

First of all, Palestinians have been living peacefully under Egyptian and Jordanian rule before Israel occupied the land that wasn't supposed to Israel's according to the 11\29 UN decision. They started having national consciousness only after being under non Arab rule.

Secondly, I want to give an example to why Israel should have been were it is now. This is a report of a jew from Palestine who visited Poland in March 1940. I don't know if this will help this discussion but I hope this will help you realize why there was no other place for Israel to be founded.

You're denying basic facts of history now. The fact that the Arab League invaded Israel in 1948 has never been contested. It's like denying that the Vietnam War took place. It just doesn't make sense.


Militarily defensible borders. Israel realized that, so long as the Arab states were going to continue to periodically invade, it needed militarily defensible borders.


That has nothing to do with what I said. Hezbollah said it was using terrorism to push Israel out of Lebanon. Israel is out of Lebanon. Hezbollah is still attacking Israeli civilians today. This is why it doesn't pay to appease terrorists.


I just explained that the DO have the arms. They have the capability to wage a guerilla war against the IDF instead of a terrorist campaign against Israeli civilians. But they choose to attack civilians anyway. You even quoted where I showed this. Just saying "no they can't" is not adequate refutation of my point.


Nice try. That's like saying "Osama Bin Laden attacked the Twin Towers to protest US military action in Afghanistan." You're reversing action and re-action.

The incursions have specific purpose. For example, if there is a machine shop manufacturing mortars and Qassam rockets, the IDF goes in and destroys that machine shop. It is an unfortunate fact that, because the terrorists have embedded their networks within civilian populations, there may be civilian casualties in these operations. On the other hand, attacking a bus in Haifa is not part of any sort of rational action. It's just killing civilians. Period. End of story.


That's because Yassir Arafat declares EVERYTHING in Israel to be part of what he considers Palestine. His refusal to remove clauses from the PLO charter calling for a complete destruction of the Israeli state reflect this.

The Israeli leadership has always been willing to compromise. It's the Palestinian leadership who refuses any sort of compromise, and is forcing this horrible situation on the civilians of both countries.


1) Because they're a democracy. The only true democracy in the Middle East. And it's good to support democracies against dictatorships (such as Arafat's violent control of Palestinians) and militant anarchies.
2) Because Israel helps the United States out (such as its destruction of an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, and its material support of the USA during the first Gulf War), whereas groups like Hamas would love to see all Americans dead.

SS

SS- you have some good points there, though I think you're still displaying a rather pro-Israeli bias. I don't think they're as nice as you're making out.

In fact, I would equate them more to the way the British empire operated in dealing with Ireland.
Sadly, I agree that the PLO (and co) are not acting sensibly. They should be attacking military targets (as the IRA tended to do- military or political were the main targets for the main body of them). If they were to cease fighting, or actually fight against the military (and political if they felt the need) forces then they would probably get far more sympathy.

As for Israelis working for peace, the assassination of the leader most likely to bring peace (strangely not prevented by such an effective intelligence network as Mussad, in fact I seem to remember there being some sort of link to them) seems to suggest otherwise. I would suggest that maybe both sides are actually in this (at least those at the top) for a bit of posturing and to prove a point (which has long since been lost) rather than for any intelligent cause.

Bah, I'm losing track of what I'm saying.

S- Head for cyberpunk, it is a liberating experience.

I think it is going to be almost impossible to create a mutually benificial situation for both the Isrealis and Palestines.

It's very complicated.

I'm putting in a vote for "It's not the leaders that need to change, it's the people."

If they stopped fucking worrying about whether you live on one side of the road or another, which is all it will amount to in some places, they'd be a lot happier, to tell you the truth, if I was talking to both an Isreali and a Palestine I wouldn't be able to see any difference, why should they?

Ben ~ Realises changing the opinions of people can also be almost impossible