Sharon shows his own and Likuds true intentions

[a_unique_person]

Sharon was never interested in a peace deal, nor was Likud. The settlements never stopped, the proof of the intent in the past, and his triumphant boasts confirm it. The right wingers were never going to settle for anything less than taking as much of the West Bank as they could.

Israelis have made a pact with the devil.



Speaking to a gathering of about 500 of the 30,000 residents in Maale Adumim, the West Bank's largest Jewish settlement, Mr Sharon said that their homes would "continue to be built as part of Israel, for all eternity".





"We'll hear no more of that nonsense about the unique Jewish morality, the moral lessons of the holocaust or about the Jews who were supposed to have emerged from the gas chambers pure and virtuous. No more of that. The destruction of Eyn Hilwe (and it's a pity we did not wipe out that hornet's nest completely!), the healthy bombardment of Beirut and that tiny massacre (can you call 500 Arabs a massacre?) in their camps which we should have committed with our own delicate hands rather than let the Phalangists do it, all these good deeds finally killed the ******** talk about a unique people and of being a light upon the nations. No more uniqueness and no more sweetness and light. Good riddance."

....

And you can write that I am disgrace to humanity, I don't mind, on the contrary. Let's make a deal: I will do all I can to expel the Arabs from here, I will do all I can to increase anti-Semitism, and you will write poems and essays about the misery of the Arabs and be prepared to absorb the Yids I will force to flee to this country and teach them to be a light unto the gentiles. How about it?"





http://www.voicesofpalestine.org/ArielSharon.asp

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Following the 1967 war Israel seized East Jerusalem, forced out all of the 6,500 residing Palestinians, and bulldozed their religious centers. The UN reported that by 1971, 48 Palestinian villages were destroyed, and by 1974 the Red Cross counted almost 20,000 Palestinian homes crushed by Israeli bulldozers. The surviving refugees joined their 1948 counterparts in squalid camps. Meanwhile, Israeli leaders had come to a certain consensus about the nature of their victims, namely that they were all animals. "Two-legged beasts", "grasshoppers", "snakes", "drugged insects", "cockroaches"-terms employed not by random Israeli fanatics, but rather very well-placed ones, i.e. prime ministers, defense ministers, and so forth-have been used to describe, or rather dehumanize, Palestinians. One wonders if Israeli leadership plans on erecting zoos across the country to house the newly dispossessed 'Negroes': it would be a welcome respite from the hovels and ghettoes that comprise much of the Occupied Territories.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.counterpunch.org/alam20713.html



Informed of Palestinians' reaction, Sharon was quoted by two well-informed Israeli columnists covering his White House visit as saying: "They have a better understanding of the significance of (Bush's) letter than most Israelis. I said that we were going to deal them a lethal blow, and they were dealt a lethal blow."



http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=4842265&src=eDialog/GetContent&section=news



'A MORTAL BLOW'

"My plan is tough on the Palestinians. A mortal blow. In a unilateral process there is no Palestinian state. This situation could go on for many years," Sharon said before he saw Bush.

Many Palestinians believe Sharon seeks to push them into crippling internal strife to scuttle any chance of negotiations that would require more significant handovers of territory.



http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=4844301&src=eDialog/GetContent&section=news

Sharon has never wanted anything less than this. He has worked away, either as leader, or in his other official capacities, to deny the Palestinians a State.

A big question now is, what will happen to the Palestinians. Sharon owns them, and he is not interested in them or their plight whatsoever.

This is the attitude the Palestinians have been up against from day one. There has never been a chance of peace while people like Sharon made sure that there was violence enough to cause enough instability for them to take control.

He is a racist thug who was never going to settle for anything less than victory on his terms.

There are two big questions now.

1) Can they really go it alone against the rest of the world? Sharon doesn't care what others think of him. Not everyone else is so insensitive. They seek approval and recognition.

2) Does this mean that Israel now rules Palestine, with it's population living in a legal twilight world, not citizens of any country. Israel rules them, but they have no independant country.

[Cleopatra]

You see Unique the Israelis have the option not to vote for Sharon if they wish an option that the Palestinians do not have.

So, do not vote for Ariel Sharon when you will become an Israeli citizen and get over Sharon.

His existence is not connected with your well-being in Australia.

Jesus! Some people play video games, others start threads about Sharon to amuse themselves in Saturday evenings.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You see Unique the Israelis have the option not to vote for Sharon if they wish an option that the Palestinians do not have.

So, do not vote for Ariel Sharon when you will become an Israeli citizen and get over Sharon.

His existence is not connected with your well-being in Australia.

Jesus! Some people play video games, others start threads about Sharon to amuse themselves in Saturday evenings.

It's Sunday.

Sharon has finally admitted what he wanted all along. He sold himself as being able to defend Israel. This is only secondary to what he has wanted all along.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It's Sunday.

Sharon has finally admitted what he wanted all along. He sold himself as being able to defend Israel. This is only secondary to what he has wanted all along.

Sharon was elected in 2001, what did you blame everything on before then?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Sharon was elected in 2001, what did you blame everything on before then?

There has been a constant tension between the expansionists and those who want a civilised settlement of the issue. Giving someone a country to live in when he has none, and you control the land he is living on, appears to be a sensible start. If you don't, he might get angry.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There has been a constant tension between the expansionists and those who want a civilised settlement of the issue.

There has also been a constant tension between those that want to destroy Israel and those who want a civilised settlement of the issue.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Giving someone a country to live in when he has none, and you control the land he is living on, appears to be a sensible start. If you don't, he might get angry.

Now close your eyes and pretend it's 1947 and say that.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Sharon was elected in 2001, what did you blame everything on before then?

I'm not sure...who was the last Zionist in charge of land theft before Sharon?

As you so kindly point out in your sig line Mycroft. There is no place for Arabs in the future plans of Sharon....

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
I'm not sure...who was the last Zionist in charge of land theft before Sharon?

As you so kindly point out in your sig line Mycroft. There is no place for Arabs in the future plans of Sharon....

Yeah? What's Sharon doing to the 1.2 million Israeli-Arabs?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mycroft


There has also been a constant tension between those that want to destroy Israel and those who want a civilised settlement of the issue.





Let me guess...

civilised settlement = Israel takes whatever it wants.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
Let me guess...

civilised settlement = Israel takes whatever it wants.

If you need more straw for that, you can have mine. I don't use it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by The Fool


I'm not sure...who was the last Zionist in charge of land theft before Sharon?

As you so kindly point out in your sig line Mycroft. There is no place for Arabs in the future plans of Sharon....

You could try to claim the million, but Randi might point out everyone already knew that.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You see Unique the Israelis have the option not to vote for Sharon if they wish an option that the Palestinians do not have.

So, do not vote for Ariel Sharon when you will become an Israeli citizen and get over Sharon.

His existence is not connected with your well-being in Australia.

Jesus! Some people play video games, others start threads about Sharon to amuse themselves in Saturday evenings.

I guess the other point is that, since the Palestinians are ruled by Israel, they should get a franchise to vote for it's leader.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Yeah? What's Sharon doing to the 1.2 million Israeli-Arabs?

A work colleague saw first hand. He was being shown around Jerusalem by an Arab guide. When the guide wanted to walk past a guard, he was told he wasn't allowed to walk there, he had to go to the same destination by a much more roundabout route. The Arab was furious, but did as he was told, as the guard was armed, and he wasn't. Why was he told to do that? According to my colleague, just to intimidate and humiliate him. Don't worry Mycroft, a fried of my father was also outraged by similar acts of discrimination and humiliation.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I guess the other point is that, since the Palestinians are ruled by Israel, they should get a franchise to vote for it's leader.

Well, there are about 200,000 in Jerusalem who have rejected that offer.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


There has also been a constant tension between those that want to destroy Israel and those who want a civilised settlement of the issue.



Now close your eyes and pretend it's 1947 and say that.

The Jews were all citizens of countries, at least they had that. Palestinians don't even have that, in the the land they live in.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The Jews were all citizens of countries, at least they had that.

The benefit there being what?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Palestinians don't even have that, in the the land they live in.

Tragic.

Someone recently made a list of opportunities for Palestinian statehood starting from the UN partition plan all the way to Camp David in 2000. What were there, a half-dozen or more of them?

[geni]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
His existence is not connected with your well-being in Australia.


Really? Has Isreal decomisioned it's nukes while I wasn't looking?

[charley_bigtime]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


The benefit there being what?



Tragic.

Someone recently made a list of opportunities for Palestinian statehood starting from the UN partition plan all the way to Camp David in 2000. What were there, a half-dozen or more of them?

I think they wanted their state, not the bits that Israel was offering them, even as it created more settlements. I don't even know why they had to ask? Where did that bit come from? As it is, what they have is absolutely nothing, not citizens, not owners of land where the title is worth the paper it is written on, with laws created for them by a so called democracy.

[Skeptic]

Well, even if all that comes off, I don't see the great injustice involved. Why SHOULDN'T israel extract a penalty in land from the Palestinians for a three-year terror war of annihilation they started?

If the Palestinians are re-offered the same deal again and again, regardless of their behavior, the sole result is to encourage terror and violence, since they know they've got nothing to lose: if they win the war, they destroy israel, but if they lose it, they still keep all the territory.

[Skeptic]

I think they wanted their state, not the bits that Israel was offering them,

The "bits" israel offered were all of the Gaza strip, 97% of the WB, and territory from inside israel to compensate for the other 3%.

Sounds like more than "bits" to me.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, even if all that comes off, I don't see the great injustice involved. Why SHOULDN'T israel extract a penalty in land from the Palestinians for a three-year terror war of annihilation they started?

If the Palestinians are re-offered the same deal again and again, regardless of their behavior, the sole result is to encourage terror and violence, since they know they've got nothing to lose: if they win the war, they destroy israel, but if they lose it, they still keep all the territory.

A military occupation is an act of war. Israel has been at war with Palestine for over 30 years. Perhaps they don't like that. Then they have to beg for the war to be over.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
A military occupation is an act of war. Israel has been at war with Palestine for over 30 years. Perhaps they don't like that. Then they have to beg for the war to be over.

Or at least ask for peace.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I think they wanted their state, not the bits that Israel was offering them,

The "bits" israel offered were all of the Gaza strip, 97% of the WB, and territory from inside israel to compensate for the other 3%.

Sounds like more than "bits" to me.

Sounds more like fantasy to me. Take the best bits of the West Bank, include such insanity as the Hebron settlement, and give away some useless bits of the West Bank. What part of giving back the West Bank don't you understand, not to mention a right of return to property that was owned before the ethnic cleansing during the war.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Or at least ask for peace.

They have been asking for just that. Why should they have to bargain for an end to a war. They have had a war imposed on them for over 30 years, and they have to beg for it to end. If they fight back, they are branded as terrorists. They more desperate they get, the more it suits Sharon. He has already said exactly that. He is the ultimate player in 'Wedge Politics'.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


A military occupation is an act of war. Israel has been at war with Palestine for over 30 years. Perhaps they don't like that. Then they have to beg for the war to be over.

How could they be at war with 'Palestine' when they took that land from Jordan, Egypt....etc?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Sounds more like fantasy to me. Take the best bits of the West Bank, include such insanity as the Hebron settlement, and give away some useless bits of the West Bank. What part of giving back the West Bank don't you understand, not to mention a right of return to property that was owned before the ethnic cleansing during the war.

Do you have any documentation of which parts of the West Bank are the "best bits?"

If you insist that events of the Israeli war of independence constitute "ethnic cleansing", do you have an explanation for all the Arabs that were not cleansed, who's descendents are still living in Israel as Israeli citizens?

Can you provide a reasonable explanation why events of the Israeli war of independence should be characterized as "ethnic cleansing" even though so many Arabs were not moved and were actually protected by Jewish forces in that war, but the removal of Jewish settlements from Gaza and the West Bank should not be called ethnic cleansing?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


How could they be at war with 'Palestine' when they took that land from Jordan, Egypt....etc?

Jordan and Egypt just gave up. The people who actually live there, who never seem to figure in the equation, are the ones who have been subjet to war for over 30 years.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
They have been asking for just that.

When? How?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Why should they have to bargain for an end to a war.

Because other ways to end wars are far less pleasent.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
They have had a war imposed on them for over 30 years, and they have to beg for it to end.

You say “beg” but another word for that is “negotiate”.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If they fight back, they are branded as terrorists.

Certainly when their method of “fighting back” involves random slayings of people riding busses and eating in restaurants, yes.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
They more desperate they get, the more it suits Sharon. He has already said exactly that. He is the ultimate player in 'Wedge Politics'.

Perhaps. And? Are you suggesting that the inverse is not true, that the more desperate Israeli citizens get it doesn’t suite Arafat and Hamas more? That Arafat and Hamas are uninterested in “wedge politics”?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Do you have any documentation of which parts of the West Bank are the "best bits?"

If you insist that events of the Israeli war of independence constitute "ethnic cleansing", do you have an explanation for all the Arabs that were not cleansed, who's descendents are still living in Israel as Israeli citizens?

Can you provide a reasonable explanation why events of the Israeli war of independence should be characterized as "ethnic cleansing" even though so many Arabs were not moved and were actually protected by Jewish forces in that war, but the removal of Jewish settlements from Gaza and the West Bank should not be called ethnic cleansing?

I am sure you have heard all about how vital water is in a desert country.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Jordan and Egypt just gave up. The people who actually live there, who never seem to figure in the equation, are the ones who have been subjet to war for over 30 years.

I suppose "just giving up" is another way of saying they decided that peace was better than war.

I fail to see how you can say the Palestinian-Arabs have never figured into the equation. It seems to me they have been the primary factor in the equation.

[Skeptic]

A military occupation is an act of war.

Oh really?

So the war in Germany didn't end in May 1945, and the war in Japan didn't end in August 1945, but both only ended in the early 1950s when the US and other troops stopped occupting the countries?

What was all that "VE" and "VJ" bruahaha all about, then?

Israel has been at war with Palestine for over 30 years.

Only according to your defintion of "war".

Perhaps they don't like that.

They could have stopped it at least three different times since 1967, but the condition in each case was actually recognizing that israel has a right to exist. That is a no-no for the Palestinians.

What they REALLY don't like is israel's existence. The rest (including "the occupation") is merely an excuse.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


When? How?



Because other ways to end wars are far less pleasent.



You say “beg” but another word for that is “negotiate”.



Certainly when their method of “fighting back” involves random slayings of people riding busses and eating in restaurants, yes.



Perhaps. And? Are you suggesting that the inverse is not true, that the more desperate Israeli citizens get it doesn’t suite Arafat and Hamas more? That Arafat and Hamas are uninterested in “wedge politics”?

Why should you have to negotiate for an occupying power to leave, unless that power is just a brutal imperialist. In that case, sure, you have to negotiate, otherwise, if you are civilised and democratic and Western, as we are constantly being told, then you just leave.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I am sure you have heard all about how vital water is in a desert country.

So you plan to document which parts of the West Bank have better access to water?

Shall I take your non response on the other issues as acceptance of those points?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
A military occupation is an act of war.

Oh really?

So the war in Germany didn't end in May 1945, and the war in Japan didn't end in August 1945, but both only ended in the early 1950s when the US and other troops stopped occupting the countries?

What was all that "VE" and "VJ" bruahaha all about, then?

Israel has been at war with Palestine for over 30 years.

Only according to your defintion of "war".

Perhaps they don't like that.

They could have stopped it at least three different times since 1967, but the condition in each case was actually recognizing that israel has a right to exist. That is a no-no for the Palestinians.

What they REALLY don't like is israel's existence. The rest (including "the occupation") is merely an excuse.

Can't you get it numbskull. Of course they don't like the fact that Israel exists. It's creation has been the biggest source of misery for them for the past 60 years. It has taken their land, their dignity, their freedon and their lives. Do you expect them to hold a 'celebrate the creation of Israel Day' evey year?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


So you plan to document which parts of the West Bank have better access to water?

Shall I take your non response on the other issues as acceptance of those points?

Israel already has this well documented.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Why should you have to negotiate for an occupying power to leave, unless that power is just a brutal imperialist. In that case, sure, you have to negotiate, otherwise, if you are civilised and democratic and Western, as we are constantly being told, then you just leave.

As far as I know, there are only two ways to end a war: 1) Complete victory with unconditional surrender of the vanquished. 2) A negotiated settlement.

Personally, I prefer the second. If you can show me a conflict that ended in a different way and demonstrate how it might apply to this situation, I'd like to see it.

Shall I take your non response on the other issues as acceptance of those points? Let me enumerate them for you:

1) You didn't respond to when and how the Palestinian-Arabs aksed for peace, so they did not ask for peace.

2) You use of the word "beg" really does mean "negotiate", you don't expect the Palestinian-Arabs to negotiate anything.

3) Their method of fighting back is terrorism.

4) You concede the point that the Israeli population becoming desperate does suit Arafat and Hamas, and that Arafat and Hamas are also practicioners of "wedge politics."

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Can't you get it numbskull. Of course they don't like the fact that Israel exists. It's creation has been the biggest source of misery for them for the past 60 years. It has taken their land, their dignity, their freedon and their lives. Do you expect them to hold a 'celebrate the creation of Israel Day' evey year?

None of these things were lost to their perpetuating war for 60 years?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Israel already has this well documented.

Is this an article of faith on your part, or can you show this?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
A military occupation is an act of war.

Oh really?

So the war in Germany didn't end in May 1945, and the war in Japan didn't end in August 1945, but both only ended in the early 1950s when the US and other troops stopped occupting the countries?

What was all that "VE" and "VJ" bruahaha all about, then?


Those were the final acts of the war, and a part of the peace settlement. The Occupying forces returned control of the countries to the people who lived there as soon as possible. In each case, it was just a few years. Those people were still Japanese or German citizens, and got to keep their own homes. There were no 'settlers' turning up.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Those were the final acts of the war, and a part of the peace settlement. The Occupying forces returned control of the countries to the people who lived there as soon as possible. In each case, it was just a few years. Those people were still Japanese or German citizens, and got to keep their own homes. There were no 'settlers' turning up.

Neither did the Germans or Japanese form terrorist cells with the goal of destroying the United States. One can only imagine how long the conflict would have gone on if they had.

[Skeptic]

The Occupying forces returned control of the countries to the people who lived there as soon as possible. In each case, it was just a few years.

And what does "as soon as possible" mean? Well, as soon as they were sure that they'll be no revival of nazism or Bushido-code Japanese nationalism that will once again threathen the world with war. If the palestinians had this kind of willigness simply not to attack israel with intent to destroy it, they would have had a state long ago. The problem is that with the Palestinians, Hitler and Tojo are still in power.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Neither did the Germans or Japanese form terrorist cells with the goal of destroying the United States. One can only imagine how long the conflict would have gone on if they had.

If the US had hung around for 30 years, I think it is a pretty safe bet they would have.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If the US had hung around for 30 years, I think it is a pretty safe bet they would have.

You should re-read Skeptics post above.

Did you know that the Palestine Liberation Organization was formed in 1964, three years before Israel captured these territories?

What do you suppose they planned to liberate?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The Occupying forces returned control of the countries to the people who lived there as soon as possible. In each case, it was just a few years.

And what does "as soon as possible" mean? Well, as soon as they were sure that they'll be no revival of nazism or Bushido-code Japanese nationalism that will once again threathen the world with war. If the palestinians had this kind of willigness simply not to attack israel with intent to destroy it, they would have had a state long ago. The problem is that with the Palestinians, Hitler and Tojo are still in power.

As you have been so keen to point out, the the terrorism just gets worse. Maybe if Israel had cleared out, it would never have got to the depths it has reached now.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person As you have been so keen to point out, the the terrorism just gets worse. Maybe if Israel had cleared out, it would never have got to the depths it has reached now.

Maybe. That's interesting speculation. Of course, we know they could have fulfilled their nationalistic ambitions (assuming they have nationalistic ambitions) had they taken any of the opportunities that presented themselves over the last 30 years, but that would mean requiring some amount of accountability from the Palestinian-Arabs, and we can't do that.

[Skeptic]

Maybe if Israel had cleared out, it would never have got to the depths it has reached now.

That's a bit unlikely, considering that the terrorism had gotten worse proportionally to the amoung of land the Palestinians were given.

There was little terrorism before the Oslo "peace" agreement; then, once the PA was established, the more land it got from israel, the more terrorism there was. Finally, they were offered their own state on 97% of the territory--and in response started an unprecedented terror war.

No, the equation is pretty clear: more land given = more terror. It doesn't seem that if israel "just cleared out" and given all the land there would be less terror, does it?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Maybe. That's interesting speculation. Of course, we know they could have fulfilled their nationalistic ambitions (assuming they have nationalistic ambitions) had they taken any of the opportunities that presented themselves over the last 30 years, but that would mean requiring some amount of accountability from the Palestinian-Arabs, and we can't do that.

Given that it was the right thing to do, and that it is a reasonable guess that the longer the occupation went on, the angrier the Palestinians were going to get, maybe it was just the right course to take.

Of course they don't have nationalistic ambitions. They only fight because they are animals.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Given that it was the right thing to do, and that it is a reasonable guess that the longer the occupation went on, the angrier the Palestinians were going to get, maybe it was just the right course to take.

Of course they don't have nationalistic ambitions. They only fight because they are animals.

I question the nationalistic ambitions of the Palestinian-Arabs because they have passed up so many opportunities to fulfill them.

As for calling them animals, you're the one who is suggestion that the only thing they are capable of is to become more and more angry, that's the reaction one expects from a wild animal, not a human being.

I think it's fascinating that those who support the Palestinian-Arab cause are the very ones who expect the least from them.

[a_unique_person]

Look, can't you see the point of this topic. All along, the aim has been to dehumanise the Palestinians. It is part of a process of trying to get them to just disappear, move off, give up. Sharon has made no secret of it. The recent comments he has made just confirm what he said in the interview. For every step towards reconciliation by some Israelis, there have been the Sharons determined to cause trouble. For each step forward, the settlements were expanded. With settlements come armed guards and the IDF, segregated roads, and, as Cleopatra has pointed out, Settlers, for whom the Palestinians just don't exist.


Look at this picture. Notice anything about the top half. It is a green, fertile forest, in the West bank. That means an underground source of water.

Now notice the bottom half. No forest. A housing estate that can only exist because it is using that water.



http://www.arij.org/paleye/tourism/

http://www.arij.org/paleye/tourism/abughnaim.jpg

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


I question the nationalistic ambitions of the Palestinian-Arabs because they have passed up so many opportunities to fulfill them.

As for calling them animals, you're the one who is suggestion that the only thing they are capable of is to become more and more angry, that's the reaction one expects from a wild animal, not a human being.

I think it's fascinating that those who support the Palestinian-Arab cause are the very ones who expect the least from them.

The aims were not just nationalism, but the right of those who wanted to, to have their homes back. It appears that such a request is totally unreasonable

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Sharon was elected in 2001, what did you blame everything on before then?
Clinton!..........
Oh, sorry wrong country........carry on.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The aims were not just nationalism, but the right of those who wanted to, to have their homes back. It appears that such a request is totally unreasonable

First, by not addressing the point that not expecting anything but blind anger from the Palestinian-Arabs it is you, not I, who thinks of them as animals, are you conceding that point?

Second, what do you honestly think is more important: Peace today? Or addressing the grievances of great-grandpa? Can you think of any calamities that have happened in your family over the past three generations? Would you ever, under any circumstances, send your children off to die to revenge these calamities?

No, it is not unreasonable to address grievances of the past. What is unreasonable is to continue to suffer today for grievance of 60 years ago. Such grievances should be addressed reasonably in a context of peace, not war.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Clinton!..........
Oh, sorry wrong country........carry on.

:D

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


First, by not addressing the point that not expecting anything but blind anger from the Palestinian-Arabs it is you, not I, who thinks of them as animals, are you conceding that point?

Second, what do you honestly think is more important: Peace today? Or addressing the grievances of great-grandpa? Can you think of any calamities that have happened in your family over the past three generations? Would you ever, under any circumstances, send your children off to die to revenge these calamities?

No, it is not unreasonable to address grievances of the past. What is unreasonable is to continue to suffer today for grievance of 60 years ago. Such grievances should be addressed reasonably in a context of peace, not war.

That's the double standard, Jews can grieve for a home that only existed in mythology, but Arabs can't want a home back that is a few hours drive in a car that they have the title for.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Look, can't you see the point of this topic. All along, the aim has been to dehumanise the Palestinians. It is part of a process of trying to get them to just disappear, move off, give up.

First, I disagree. At the moment, the goal is to defeat them because negotiating didn’t work.

Second, exactly what do you think the point of suicide-bombing if not to dehumanize the Israelis, get them to disappear, move off and give up?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Sharon has made no secret of it. The recent comments he has made just confirm what he said in the interview.

What he actually said: In a unilateral process, there is no Palestinian state. Which suggests that in a bilateral process, there is. How can that happen? Well, maybe if Arafat called for a cessation of the Intifada and came back to the table, you think?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
For every step towards reconciliation by some Israelis, there have been the Sharons determined to cause trouble. For each step forward, the settlements were expanded. With settlements come armed guards and the IDF, segregated roads, and, as Cleopatra has pointed out, Settlers, for whom the Palestinians just don't exist.

Every agreement that called for the cessation of settlement expansion also had requirements of the Palestinian-Arabs that were not met. The process must be bilateral.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Look at this picture. Notice anything about the top half. It is a green, fertile forest, in the West bank. That means an underground source of water.

Now notice the bottom half. No forest. A housing estate that can only exist because it is using that water.


Nice speculation on your part, but the website you lifted the picture from decried that development as being unfair competition for tourist dollars, not a word about the aquifer.

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume your speculation to be true. Would it be an issue had the Oslo process been followed and the Palestinian state created back in 1998? Or maybe Camp David, which would have had a Palestinian state in 2002?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That's the double standard, Jews can grieve for a home that only existed in mythology, but Arabs can't want a home back that is a few hours drive in a car that they have the title for.

Nope, but that’s a nice straw-man.

What I said was that the needs of today are more important than the grievances of the past, and that past grievances should be addressed in the context of peace, not war.

Further, I specifically said it is not unreasonable to address grievances of the past.

The purpose of Zionism was not to address any old grievance, but to create a refuge from persecution of the day (and today, for that matter).

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Nope, but that’s a nice straw-man.

What I said was that the needs of today are more important than the grievances of the past, and that past grievances should be addressed in the context of peace, not war.

Further, I specifically said it is not unreasonable to address grievances of the past.

The purpose of Zionism was not to address any old grievance, but to create a refuge from persecution of the day (and today, for that matter).

That's fine, if it's going to work and doesn't sacrifice anyone else's life in the deal. On both counts, Israel is a failure. A Jew is far more likely to die in Israel than the other countries of the world they are living in.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That's fine, if it's going to work and doesn't sacrifice anyone else's life in the deal. On both counts, Israel is a failure. A Jew is far more likely to die in Israel than the other countries of the world they are living in.

I bring up the purpose of Zionism because you keep portraying it as a movement based on religion/mythology when in fact it was based on a response to very real worldwide oppression. Continually ignoring that amounts to disseminating disinformation.

The Zionist movement was founded at the end of the 19th century. The next 65 years, the first half of the 20th century, contained the most violent economic, social and military upheavals in human history, none of which could have been anticipated. While the Arab/Jewish conflicts are certainly regrettable, they were not inevitable. History has many turning points.

It is simply not true that a Jew is more likely to die in Israel than in any other country. While horrific, deaths from terrorism are statistically negligible.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


I bring up the purpose of Zionism because you keep portraying it as a movement based on religion/mythology when in fact it was based on a response to very real worldwide oppression. Continually ignoring that amounts to disseminating disinformation.

The Zionist movement was founded at the end of the 19th century. The next 65 years, the first half of the 20th century, contained the most violent economic, social and military upheavals in human history, none of which could have been anticipated. While the Arab/Jewish conflicts are certainly regrettable, they were not inevitable. History has many turning points.

It is simply not true that a Jew is more likely to die in Israel than in any other country. While horrific, deaths from terrorism are statistically negligible.
I think you and ZN need to be introduced to each other. He is big on mythology, and it is a major driving force behind the settlements.

[epepke]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That's fine, if it's going to work and doesn't sacrifice anyone else's life in the deal. On both counts, Israel is a failure. A Jew is far more likely to die in Israel than the other countries of the world they are living in.

This is true. However, if you also eliminate countries where their parents or grandparents were killed of where they didn't get to immigrate much in the first place, the list becomes much smaller.

The US tops the list with population of Jews at more than 5 million. It also tops the list of places where, not only do Jews not get killed, their temples don't get burned down. Israel is second, with 4 million and change. Of the rest of the countries, only France breaks the 10% mark with 900 thousand.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think you and ZN need to be introduced to each other. He is big on mythology, and it is a major driving force behind the settlements.

Ah, change of topic. We were talking about the founding of Israel, now suddenly we're talking about modern day settlements.

Oh, and since you did not argue the other points, I take it you accept them?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Ah, change of topic. We were talking about the founding of Israel, now suddenly we're talking about modern day settlements.

Oh, and since you did not argue the other points, I take it you accept them?

I think I have said before, the creation of Israel was a mistake, but it is here now, and the best compromise I can see is for each side to get the best deal it can out of what is there now. The fanatics in Israel, from Sharon down, want nothing less than the destruction of Palestine, but no right of return. Please tell me, what the hell is supposed to be the fate of the Palestinians.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Skeptic
A military occupation is an act of war.

Oh really?

So the war in Germany didn't end in May 1945, and the war in Japan didn't end in August 1945, but both only ended in the early 1950s when the US and other troops stopped occupting the countries?

What was all that "VE" and "VJ" bruahaha all about, then?


For one thing, the US forces are still in Germany and, I think, in Japan. So, technically speaking they did not stop occupying the countries.

Also, in the late 80s in school, I was told that Germany was not at peace with the US, both that a cease-fire was in effect since May 8th, 1945.

VE was the *lands on aircraft carrier* "Mission Accomplished" day.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think I have said before, the creation of Israel was a mistake, but it is here now, and the best compromise I can see is for each side to get the best deal it can out of what is there now.

Setting aside your opinion of the creation of Israel, do you think the cause of the Palestinian-Arabs is advanced or hindered by blowing up a bus full of people? Does it make their lives better or worse?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The fanatics in Israel, from Sharon down, want nothing less than the destruction of Palestine, but no right of return.

What do you think the destruction of Palestine means? Is it political destruction? An end to the Palestine Authority? Do you think it means literal destruction? The death of four million people? Do you think it means the destruction of their will to fight?

That statement could be interpreted in a lot of different ways. How do you interpret it?

Originally posted by a_unique_person Please tell me, what the hell is supposed to be the fate of the Palestinians.

Nothing lasts forever, not even war. The only questions are how it ends, when, and what's left over. My personal preference is for it to end sooner rather than later, with as little destruction as possible. Is that your preference too?

[Skeptic]

It is simply not true that a Jew is more likely to die in Israel than in any other country. While horrific, deaths from terrorism are statistically negligible.

And even if so, so what? Why should genocidal hatered against jews living in place X mean they have no right to live in place X?

By this logic, since more Palestinians are killed in the territories than elsewehre, they have no right to live there.

Oh, remember Hitler and the Inquisition? Well, they were right: since it was patently unsafe to be a jew in 1943 Germany or 1492 Spain, their claims that the jews have no right to be there were surely correct.