Now we know- Israel is not interested in peace

[Mr Manifesto]

The assassination attempt on Abdul Aziz Rantissi has had the desired effect with retaliation attacks (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s877502.htm) on Israel. We will never know if Rantissi would have been successful in calling for a ceasefire from Hamas.

One should have known better than to hope for any peace from Ariel Sharon. I wonder how Israel will portray itself as the victim this time?

[renata]

Time line (gathered from CNN news stories)
6/4 Abbas and Sharon set goals for achieving peace. Sharon backs the formation of a Palestinian state and the removal of unauthorized settlements and Abbas rejects the use of violence to achieve Palestinian goals and calls for an end to intifada.
6/5 Arafat criticizes Abbas for his behavior at peace talks
6/6 Hamas called off the ceasefire talks with Abbas. Rantissi says "We are cutting off all dialogue with the Palestinian Authority" saying "Abu Mazen gave the Jews what they did not deserve"
6/7 Radical groups met in Gaza to urge to continue the intifada, leaflets are distributed saying they are continuing the fighting
6/8 Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades combined to kill 4 Israeli soldiers.
6/9 Israel starts dismantling illegal outposts
6/10 Assassination attempt is made on Rantissi

According to CNN, Rantissi

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/10/mideast.rantissi/index.html

He is publicly known as a leader in the political wing, although he has consistently opposed negotiations with the Palestinian Authority for any type of cease-fire.
....

The sources said comments Rantissi has made in recent days include praise for a suicide attack in Iraq against U.S. soldiers, opposition to the road map, support of jihad and refusal to participate in a government "whose establishment is based on Oslo and the recognition of Israel."


So what made you think Rantissi was attempting to call for a ceasefire from Hamas? While I am very disappointed with Israel's actions in this case, they did not attempt to kill Ghandi here. However, I think they made a big mistake and once again, peace is out of reach.

[Tmy]

Its the same old stort. Every time peace raises its ugly head someone attempts to sabatage the whole thing with a well timed bombing or attack. There are warmongers on both sides who do not want a comprimise. They easily dismantle the fragile agreements with soem good old fashion violence.

I am more disappointed wh Sharon because he has full control over teh Isreali military, unlike Abbas and the various rag tag terrorist groups.

[renata]

A sad state of affairs to be sure

Add
6/11 Arafat calls Rantissi, congratulates him.
6/11 Explosion in Jerusalem on a bus. Several killed, casualty number unknown

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Tmy

I am more disappointed wh Sharon because he has full control over teh Isreali military, unlike Abbas and the various rag tag terrorist groups.
Sharon is in power because of democratic elections and represents the will of the Israeli people. Israel is ruled by law.
Palestine/West Bank [whatever] is a mafia, pure and simple. If they or Arafat wanted peace they would clean up their act. But then that would bring peace and Arafat would be out of a job.

[hisham]

Originally posted by Supercharts

Sharon is in power because of democratic elections and represents the will of the Israeli people.
You are insulting the Israeli people

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Supercharts

Sharon is in power because of democratic elections and represents the will of the Israeli people. Israel is ruled by law.
Palestine/West Bank [whatever] is a mafia, pure and simple. If they or Arafat wanted peace they would clean up their act. But then that would bring peace and Arafat would be out of a job.

So if the people elect Sharon who then bombs Palistine and tries to asassinate certain leaders, then the terror groups respond by bombing a bus load of innocent people.....Oh wait, theyre not innocent cause they voted in Sharon! So its OK to blow them up. Its their own fault, clean up your act and your busses wont explode.

[Supercharts]

Israel doesn't attack unless attacked first or provoked.

[Skeptic]

We will never know if Rantissi would have been successful in calling for a ceasefire from Hamas.

Considering the fact that Rantissi repeatedly called for the destruction of israel and the butchery or expulsions of all the jews there by any means necessary, masterminded numerous suicide bombings, and also called all palestinians who talk to the israelies traitors to be killed...

...well, perhaps we would never know for SURE, but I think we can give an EDUCATED GUESS of how likely he was to call for a cease-fire, let alone keep it, or not break it the moment he feels he can kill more jews. Let's just say that Sylvia winning Randi's money is immensly more likely.

Somehow, I do not consider the attack on Sheich "kill all the jews to the last baby" Rantissi as much of a loss to the peace process.

[Skeptic]

You are insulting the Israeli people (that Sharon rules them)

Not really, Hisham.

If you want to talk about a nation insluted by its leaders, look no further than Syria: a nation ruled by holocaust-denying, nazi-sympathizing thugs who butchered tens of thousands of their own people and called on the pope to start a holy war against the jews.

Now THAT'S an insult; it makes it look like all Syrian are insane antisemitic murderers like their leaders. But what can the Syrians do, vote them out of office???

[Skeptic]

[Its their own fault, clean up your act and your busses wont explode.

Actually, the buses started exploding more and more frequently as israel offered the palestinians more and more during the "Oslo peace process", as it raised the palestinian hopes for the "establishments of the inalianable palestinian rights"--that is, the butchery of all jews and the destruction of israel.

Like in the case of Hitler, the more you try to appease your enemy, the more the enemy will demand, and the more you will suffer. There certainly isn't the slightest evidence that appeasement to people like Arafat and Rantissi works. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[


Like in the case of Hitler, the more you try to appease your enemy, the more the enemy will demand, and the more you will suffer. There certainly isn't the slightest evidence that appeasement to people like Arafat and Rantissi works. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Thats the kind of thinking that leads to perpetual war.

Look at todays bus blast. Now what triggered that? Heres a hint: It wasnt cause Israel closed down some checkpoints. It was retaliation for that assination attempt on whats his name Hammas guy. So for the next 2 weeks theyll trade punches.

At this point Im so fed up. I dont even care when I hear about bus bombs or air raids. And thats sad.

Hey what do you think the death toll will be tomorrow? The over under is 11.

[renata]

Originally posted by Tmy


Thats the kind of thinking that leads to perpetual war.

Look at todays bus blast. Now what triggered that? Heres a hint: It wasnt cause Israel closed down some checkpoints. It was retaliation for that assination attempt on whats his name Hammas guy. So for the next 2 weeks theyll trade punches.

At this point Im so fed up. I dont even care when I hear about bus bombs or air raids. And thats sad.

Hey what do you think the death toll will be tomorrow? The over under is 11.


I am not convinced the bus blast was triggered by yesterday's attack. First of all, the attack this weekend, which left 4 soldiers dead was before the assassination attempt- that tells me Hamas was not interested in pursuing cease fire. Second of all, these attacks tend to have a lot of preparation, both mental and technical. I would not be surprised if this attack was planned all along, but we will of course never know.

[Walter Wayne]

I don't agree with the way Israel responded, but are we sure that the bus bombing was a retaliation attack. Do you believe it would not have happened if Israel had not attempted to kill Rantissi?

Walt

[Tmy]

I dont know. Theyve been playing the bomb game for so long that I bet they can react just as quickly as the Isreali military. Im surethey have guys ready as soon as they get a call. They hit random targets Whats so difficult about strapping on a bomb and boarding a bus.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont know. Theyve been playing the bomb game for so long that I bet they can react just as quickly as the Isreali military. Im surethey have guys ready as soon as they get a call. They hit random targets Whats so difficult about strapping on a bomb and boarding a bus.

There is nothing difficult about it just shows they only go for easy targets I was ready to give them credit for going after military targets then they go back to their old ways.

[hisham]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You are insulting the Israeli people (that Sharon rules them)

You are really Insulting Israeli people again when you said that a war criminal represent them, can you imagine any people in the world will freely elect murder like him?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Tmy


Thats the kind of thinking that leads to perpetual war.

Look at todays bus blast. Now what triggered that? Heres a hint: It wasnt cause Israel closed down some checkpoints. It was retaliation for that assination attempt on whats his name Hammas guy. So for the next 2 weeks theyll trade punches.

At this point Im so fed up. I dont even care when I hear about bus bombs or air raids. And thats sad.

Hey what do you think the death toll will be tomorrow? The over under is 11.


I’m going to repeat the same quote I posted in corplinx’s thread
Here is a BBC report on Hamas which show there real intention.
Notice the bold text.

It also has a long-term aim of establishing an Islamic state on all of historic Palestine - most of which has been contained within Israel's borders since its creation in 1948.

The grass-roots organisation - with a political and a military wing - has an unknown number of active members but tens of thousands of supporters and sympathisers.

Up to 40,000 people rallied in Gaza in December 2002 to mark Hamas' 15th anniversary where they heard the group's blind and paralysed spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, predict Israel's destruction by the year 2025.

"The march of martyrs will move forward... Resistance will move forward. Jihad will continue, and martyrdom operations will continue until the full liberation of Palestine," he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/profiles/1654510.stm


So they are just trading punches you say it looks more like Israel trying to protect them self’s from a group that wants to destroy them.

[Baker]

Originally posted by hisham

You are really Insulting Israeli people again when you said that a war criminal represent them, can you imagine any people in the world will freely elect murder like him?

Did you miss skeptics comment on Rantissi you are thinking of the wrong leader.


Considering the fact that Rantissi repeatedly called for the destruction of israel and the butchery or expulsions of all the jews there by any means necessary, masterminded numerous suicide bombings, and also called all palestinians who talk to the israelies traitors to be killed

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Baker


So they are just trading punches you say it looks more like Israel trying to protect them self’s from a group that wants to destroy them.

I dont think Hamas speaks for every Palistianian. Both sides make grandious statements but I think the public want some sort of peace.

If the zealots control things then there wont be peace.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by hisham

You are really Insulting Israeli people again when you said that a war criminal represent them, can you imagine any people in the world will freely elect murder like him?

When is the last time you freely elected your current dictator...or his deceased father?

Maybe you need to hang out in the Bekka Valley for awhile.

JK

[Skeptic]

Thats the kind of thinking that leads to perpetual war.

Nope. With this kind of thinking, there are three possiblities:

1). Perpetual war;
2). You defeat the bad guys (e.g., WWII)
3). You lose and die.

With the appeasement kind of thinking, only the 3rd possiblity is likely.

Remember Churchill? He was condemned as a "warmonger" and someone whose "insane thinking would lead to perpetual war" by Chamberline, who thought that giving Hitler what he demands would stop the war.

The result, of course, was merely that Hitler started WWII immensly strenghtened. Had Britian started a "perpetual war" against him in 1938, tens of millions of lives would have been saved.

Same situation here.

Look at todays bus blast. Now what triggered that? Heres a hint: It wasnt cause Israel closed down some checkpoints. It was retaliation for that assination attempt on whats his name Hammas guy.

Nope.

You see, this was the 11th suicide bomber that attempted an attack since the Abbas-Sharon summit. They simply stopped the rest. It is purely a chance event that this attack came a few hours after the assassination attempt.

Hamas tries to kill all the jews it can any way it can, all day, every day. If there was an israeli action before one of their suicide bombers succeeds, they claim it's "retaliation" for it. If there wasn't, they claim it's part of the general "brave war for the liberation of palestine from the criminal zionists".

Only the excuse would have changed if the assassination attempt did not occur beforehand; not the bombing itself.

[Skeptic]

Can you imagine any people in the world will freely elect murder like him?

Why, yes, I can imagine a few people in this world that would support murderers as leaders:

The Syrians (led for 25 years by a murderer of their own people, now by a murderer of the Lebanese)

The Libyans (Quaddaffi)

The Egyptians (remind me: how many hundreds of his own people Mubarrak recently killed in the crackgown on the opposition?)

The Jordanians (Hussein killed 20,000 palestinians in 1970)

The Algerians (two words: airplane hijacking)

The Saudis (sept. 11th done by saudis trained in government-sponsored islamic madrassas)

The Iraqis (Saddam)

The Iranians (Humeini)

The Palestinians (Arafat)

...come to think of it, ALL of the arab world is led by murderers, with a few minor exceptions (Morocco, the gulf states).

Then again, you have a point: you can't say any of these guys were freely elected. That's a big no-no in the Arab world.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Supercharts

Sharon is in power because of democratic elections and represents the will of the Israeli people. Israel is ruled by law.
Palestine/West Bank [whatever] is a mafia, pure and simple. If they or Arafat wanted peace they would clean up their act. But then that would bring peace and Arafat would be out of a job.

One of the unfortunate quirks of democracy is the balance of power effect, with small parties able to negotiate their loyalty by taking policy concessions out of proportion to their representation. In this case, small extremist organisations have been steadily building settlements which the majority of Israelis don't want, and would happily trade for peace.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
The assassination attempt on Abdul Aziz Rantissi has had the desired effect with retaliation attacks (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s877502.htm) on Israel. We will never know if Rantissi would have been successful in calling for a ceasefire from Hamas.

One should have known better than to hope for any peace from Ariel Sharon. I wonder how Israel will portray itself as the victim this time? '

Oh, what's this? A man who is dedicated to the destruction of israel was SUDDENLY going to be the key component of turning EVERYTHING around. Suddenly these terrorist groups were going to turn into good guys picking daisies when an ill-timed assassination attempt made them go bad.

This is the same a**hole, need I mention, that was key in uniting the three militant factions in opposition of the peace process. But oh, suddenly within the space of hours he was going to be the key to peace. Right.

All Israel's faul, all of Israel's fault.

[synaesthesia]

One more minor addition. Sharon is in power because of a lack of credible opposion. The majority of Israelis, for instence, view the settlements as a barrier to peace whereas sharon is a hardline supporter of them.

But why bother splitting such hairs. The Israelis in general are not interested in peace and should be blown up.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by synaesthesia
The Israelis in general are not interested in peace and should be blown up.

So you are saying the Jews should be 'blown up'? Were you reading Mein Kampf as you were typing that, or are you a Jew-hater for another reason?

JK

[Ove]

Nope. With this kind of thinking, there are three possiblities:

1). Perpetual war;
2). You defeat the bad guys (e.g., WWII)
3). You lose and die.

With the appeasement kind of thinking, only the 3rd possiblity is likely.


This kind of thinking makes me wonder if you guys slept through all your history/geography lessons in scool. We are not talking about an enemy that is a "country" with borders and goverment and all that. The Palestinians and the Israeli's are living together inthe same country. True there are some decidedly palestinian areas but they are also living all over the rest of Israel.

This is a civil war we are witnessing and unfortunately it is the extremists on both sides that set the agenda. The one option you could resort to was to forcefully collect all palestinians and round them up in camps and keep them there under guard, wait...... that sounds familliar. ;)

Problem is that the Israeli society needs the palestinians or at least their work force in order to exist. How to solve the problem?? I really don't know i have given up. The right wingers in Israel and the suicide bombers are both heavily convinced that they have a "god given right" to live in Israel and that their opponents are sacreligious beasts that should be exterminated.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


So you are saying the Jews should be 'blown up'? Were you reading Mein Kampf as you were typing that, or are you a Jew-hater for another reason?

JK

Yes Jedi, I was readng Mein Kampf as I was typing that.:rolleyes:

I am actually a vhement supporter of Israel because I happen to live in a place where it is fasionable to defend palestinian terrorism as noble. My point was that Israeli's as a whole cannot be held responsible for the actions of their government.

This of course links to my broader view: I despise terrorist tactics and anyone who would defend them as legitimate activities or equate them with self-defense.

Just in case you still don't get it: I do NOT support blowing up Jews. I am sickened by the though that such abhorrent views are common enough that you could seriously suspect I held them.

[PogoPedant]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


When is the last time you freely elected your current dictator(...)
JK
Hitler was freely(ish) elected on the promise that he would do away with democracy.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by PogoPedant

Hitler was freely(ish) elected on the promise that he would do away with democracy.

No, Hitler was given the Chancellorship because he claimed he was protecting German democracy.

Then the Reichstag burned.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by synaesthesia


Yes Jedi, I was readng Mein Kampf as I was typing that.:rolleyes:

I am actually a vhement supporter of Israel because I happen to live in a place where it is fasionable to defend palestinian terrorism as noble. My point was that Israeli's as a whole cannot be held responsible for the actions of their government.

This of course links to my broader view: I despise terrorist tactics and anyone who would defend them as legitimate activities or equate them with self-defense.

Just in case you still don't get it: I do NOT support blowing up Jews. I am sickened by the though that such abhorrent views are common enough that you could seriously suspect I held them.

I am confused now. First you said this:

The Israelis in general are not interested in peace and should be blown up.

Then you claim:

Just in case you still don't get it: I do NOT support blowing up Jews.

What do you mean "in case you still don't get it"? Two seconds ago you said it was cool to blow Jews up, then you flame me in your next post for me basically saying you used Nazi-style rhetoric and that "I don't get it".

Trust me, I "do get it". Everytime someone says they want to see Jews blown up it doesn't take any further explaining to me where they stand.

Having been to Israel I found the country to be one of the most tolerant I have ever seen. Every possible form of religious representation was seen scurrying about in Jerusalem, especially the Old City. The Jews who lived there joked about all the religious people who came to their country and they came by the boatload.

I don't think that Israel wants war but I do think they are very prepared to fight one, a war that will probably include the destruction of all Arab nation-states and many in Europe.

The Jews are a suspicious people because they were betrayed in World War II where 50% of their global population was gassed, burned alive, shot and ethnic cleansed from almost all regions during the war except the United States. That suspicion remains entrenched because of the constant military pressure they have been under since 1948 just to remain a viable nation-state. They understand that as a race they have many enemies that wish to see them cleansed from the very face of the planet.

The State of Israel is but a small sliver of land in a sea of Muslim countries that control the entire north of Africa, southeast to Somalia and east to Asia. Yet Israel has to be convinced that it is they that have to give up territory and resources to create yet another hostile nation-state that will directly border them, and in human history, no nation-state has ever formed without war.

There are 13 million Jews left alive on the entire planet. Circumstances continue to make the Jewish populations the targets of more stressors than any other indigenous population.

Moving beyond the basic facts, I think there is room on this planet for an unaltered Jewish nation-state but it will take honesty. It will take honesty to recognize that the Palestinians are merely a proxy force who never had a claim to Palestinian land in history and their intent is to drive the Jewish State out of existence and its peoples into the sea.

It will also take honesty for leaders to recognize that Islam is not a religion of peace, no matter how many times that phrase is repeated. Islam, as a religion, claims that its 'prophets' were the final prophets of God and any religious information claimed after the coming of Muhammed is punishable by death. In fact, anyone that claims to be a prophet individually is recognized by the whole of Islam as a false-prophet and subject to liquidation by any means necessary. Islam regards Jesus Christ as a legitimate prophet but not a 'son of God'.

What does this mean? Well, in sum, it means Islam is a religion that through the very foundations of its existence requires all non-believers of Islam to be converted or be liquidated. Islam is, in essence a radical form of fascism.

I think that giving the so-called "Palestinians" a homeland parked next to Israel is a tremendous mistake that will destabilize the entire world.

You say that 'Israel wants war'? I disagree. I think they want nothing more than peace. I also think that a major war is being brought to them, one that will be fought with suspicion and the most dangerous weapons. That is what I predict. Jordan is the historical homeland of the Palestinians, Not Israel.

Jordan passed a law in 2001 that Palestinians cannot own land in the country. This was done because Jordan is planning on sending its 15 million Palestinians to the newly formed Palestinian state once it occurs.

To me, a decision must be made. Do we allow Israel to maintain territorial integrity as a nation-state, or do we force the true 'global minority' to give up its handful of land to the global majority population and allow another Muslim nation-state to form?

Liberal thinkers in the United States believe that if we give the Palestinians a state that everything will just "get peaceful", that the Palestinians and all their Muslim brothers and sisters will embrace the Jews with open arms and "celebrate" each other.

That is a dangerous game. If it doesn't work out--if Israel is still militarily harrassed after the formation of such an appeasement state--Israel will perhaps attack Palestine nation-state to nation-state.

That will be unbearable for European leftists to sit back and watch and things will escalate. It is for this reason that I am concerned nuclear weapons will be used in Arab states and Europe as the second use of such weapons in history.

The key here is thinking of sovereignty--national sovereignty is still valid thought. We are not a borderless world yet. We can't be until we figure out what to do about Islamic agression. The war we are engaging with Islam will last, in my opinion, 50 years.

The question is, will we all survive it? I leave that topic for another debate.

But I will accept your statement that you were just kidding about Jews being blown up. I wouldn't advise a continuance of the Jewish people being blown up in Israel because I sense fluctuations in their nervousness. Given their very extensive arsenal, it could be an explosive situation.

JK

[richardm]

Originally posted by renata

First of all, the attack this weekend, which left 4 soldiers dead was before the assassination attempt- that tells me Hamas was not interested in pursuing cease fire.


I think we're all clear that Hamas isn't interested in pursuing a cease fire. But there are people in Palestine who do want to do so. Their job is made impossible when Israel is firing bloody great missiles into public streets in order to assassinate individuals. It's really not much better than blowing up a bus. Sure, they're targetting a terrorist, but they don't appear to care at all about anybody else who gets in the way. If they want to assassinate someone, do it with a rifle. Using high explosives is such a random, inflammatory thing to do.

You might compare the Hamas vs. the Palestinian situation with the situation in Northern Ireland. The Provisional IRA signed up to a ceasefire, which many supported. The "Real IRA" disapproved, and set up as a splinter group to "continue the struggle". Yet people have tried to put that on one side and sort out a permanent peace.

Israel is supposed to be the responsible, elected state, but at the moment they're running around like, well, like a bunch of terrorists. (Flying around, actually, in helicopters.)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Israel doesn't attack unless attacked first or provoked.

Pffft!

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by richardm

You might compare the Hamas vs. the Palestinian situation with the situation in Northern Ireland. The Provisional IRA signed up to a ceasefire, which many supported. The "Real IRA" disapproved, and set up as a splinter group to "continue the struggle". Yet people have tried to put that on one side and sort out a permanent peace.


You might also have noticed that the 'real' IRA hasnt been recieving much support lately. They are dying, atrophying in the light the peace process.

Of course, this peace process could have been destoyed many times, eg. the Omagh(?) bombings. Did the British government go sending in tanks yo bulldoze ctholic neighbourhoods in NI in response? Did they use fighters and helicopters to fire missiles in busy streets in catholic neighbourhoods? No, they stuck with the peace process and restrained themselves from bloodthirsty massacres and collective punishment of an entire population for the crimes of a few individuals.

Wonder why no British soldier has been shot in NI for years now? Wonder why so many Isrealis are being killed by paramilitaries and terrorism?

[hisham]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


No, Hitler was given the Chancellorship because he claimed he was protecting German democracy.

Then the Reichstag burned.

JK

Sharon is the same case :D , he claims he will bring security for the Israeli people , then the violence burned.

[hisham]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Can you imagine any people in the world will freely elect murder like him?

Why, yes, I can imagine a few people in this world that would support murderers as leaders:

The Syrians (led for 25 years by a murderer of their own people, now by a murderer of the Lebanese)

The Libyans (Quaddaffi)

The Egyptians (remind me: how many hundreds of his own people Mubarrak recently killed in the crackgown on the opposition?)

The Jordanians (Hussein killed 20,000 palestinians in 1970)

The Algerians (two words: airplane hijacking)

The Saudis (sept. 11th done by saudis trained in government-sponsored islamic madrassas)

The Iraqis (Saddam)

The Iranians (Humeini)

The Palestinians (Arafat)

...come to think of it, ALL of the arab world is led by murderers, with a few minor exceptions (Morocco, the gulf states).

Then again, you have a point: you can't say any of these guys were freely elected. That's a big no-no in the Arab world.
All of them are dictators and supported by American administration because they are doing the "perfect job" and protecting its interests.
The majority of them reached the leadership using American tanks. Why you don't ask your leadership to stop supporting them.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by synaesthesia
Just in case you still don't get it: I do NOT support blowing up Jews. I am sickened by the though that such abhorrent views are common enough that you could seriously suspect I held them.

Unfortunatly, synaethesia, sarcasm doesn't work well on the internet. No matter how obviously absurd something you say seems to you, there is SOMEBODY out there who a). believes it, b). has a web page to that effect. You were sarcastic... but people like Hisham and AUP DO believe JUST THAT, that the jews should be blown up.

(AUP, by the way, claims that this isn't antisemitism because he only supports this in a "strictly limited geographical area", and not against every jew anywhere in the world. Uh-huh. And I don't hate black people: I only shoot n----ers during hunting season.)

So, in this case, JK could easily have been mislead about your real position.

[Skeptic]

All of them are dictators and supported by American administration because they are doing the "perfect job" and protecting its interests.

Riiiiiiight. Like Saddam Hussein and Muamar Quaddafi, I presume.

Interesting, though, how NOTHING bad in the Arab world is EVER the Arabs' fault. You are led by a dictator? It's surely some sort of zionist-American conspiracy that props him up against the will of the people. The people are poor? Must be a jewish racist control of the world's money. Sept. 11th? A jewish conspiracy to blame the innocent Arabs. A movie portrays Arabs as terrorists? (Imagine that! Whatever gave them THAT crazy idea?) It's the old jewish control in Hollywood working again. An Arab kid disappeared? The jews sacrificed him for matzos.

By the way, hisham, I would be careful if I were you. You just called your glorious leader, Saint Bashar Al-Assad, a "dictator", and worse, one that "supports American interests". Hope you aren't in Syria: that sort of talk there carries the death penalty without trial. Then again, OF COURSE you aren't in Syria: you cannot actually get on the 'net in Syria without severe restrictions, since the government doesn't allow any source of information that they cannot control with state-sponsored propaganda to reach the people.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]
Nope.

You see, this was the 11th suicide bomber that attempted an attack since the Abbas-Sharon summit. They simply stopped the rest. It is purely a chance event that this attack came a few hours after the assassination attempt.

Hamas tries to kill all the jews it can any way it can, all day, every day. If there was an israeli action before one of their suicide bombers succeeds, they claim it's "retaliation" for it. If there wasn't, they claim it's part of the general "brave war for the liberation of palestine from the criminal zionists".

Only the excuse would have changed if the assassination attempt did not occur beforehand; not the bombing itself.


I disagree. There have been cease fires in the past that have lasted relatively long. If Hamas is only interested in blowing up all the jews they can, then why bother with cease fires?

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am confused now. First you said this:

The Israelis in general are not interested in peace and should be blown up.

Then you claim:

Just in case you still don't get it: I do NOT support blowing up Jews.


Please don't isolate passages. Given the context, the irony was very hard to miss.

At any rate, thanks for your comments.

[synaesthesia]

I would also like to point the finger at all the other Muslim states in the region. They love to prod the situation and permit it to be blamed for their internal difficulties.

But do they accept palestinian refugees to ease the crisis? No. Do they contribute substantial aid to non-militant causes? No. This problem is evidently just too convenient to solve.

[Tmy]

What is ANY country really doing to ease the situation. Not just the muslim countries but the western countries that helped create Israel in the first place. They started a fire and then left it to burn.

[Skeptic]

The western countries that helped create Israel in the first place. They started a fire and then left it to burn.

Yeah, those crazy fools with the idea that jews deserve their own state, just like any other nation.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The western countries that helped create Israel in the first place. They started a fire and then left it to burn.

Yeah, those crazy fools with the idea that jews deserve their own state, just like any other nation.

It was crazy and foolish to carve the state out of land that others claimed and lived on.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by No Answers


It was crazy and foolish to carve the state out of land that others claimed and lived on.

Is there an example in history when this kind of country carving has not led to strife? Not to say they should not have done it, but they definately should not have pulled out and let things go to hell.

[Skeptic]

It was crazy and foolish to carve the state out of land that others claimed and lived on.

That's right; which is why the USA is giving all the land back to the indians next year.

Oh wait.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by Skeptic
It was crazy and foolish to carve the state out of land that others claimed and lived on.

That's right; which is why the USA is giving all the land back to the indians next year.

Oh wait.

This reasoning is pretty flawed. The USA was not given to the Pilgrims and their successors by a separate body, it was taken gradually.
It surprises me that you would attempt to use such an idiotic, appels/oranges argument.

[Supercharts]

FWIW Dept.: Database of Middle East Armies etc.

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/m.asp

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by No Answers
It was crazy and foolish to carve the state out of land that others claimed and lived on.

There is no such thing as a "Palestinian". That is leftist propaganda and revisionist history. There has never been a "Palestinian" state in history and the only folks who resided in that area were Jews and the nomadic bedoins who never layed claim to that land, ever.

It would be exactly like a group of Mexicans going into the Mojave Desert and then claiming they are "Mojavians", a new form of human the world has never seen but which deserves its own nation-state ripped from the US.

Yasser Arafat, the PLO terrorist leader and now the head of the PLA is himself not a Palestinian, but Egyptian.

When you get a clue, come back and let us know.

JK

[DialecticMaterialist]

Oh yes, but Hamas and PLO has always been so interested in peace. :rolleyes:

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


There is no such thing as a "Palestinian". That is leftist propaganda and revisionist history. There has never been a "Palestinian" state in history and the only folks who resided in that area were Jews and the nomadic bedoins who never layed claim to that land, ever.

It would be exactly like a group of Mexicans going into the Mojave Desert and then claiming they are "Mojavians", a new form of human the world has never seen but which deserves its own nation-state ripped from the US.

Yasser Arafat, the PLO terrorist leader and now the head of the PLA is himself not a Palestinian, but Egyptian.

When you get a clue, come back and let us know.

JK

Spare us the semantics argument. Call them what you want they still exist. This isnt the matrix

I suppose there was not a sole was in the mideast until about 1941 right? Just cause the area has some of the oldest cities on Earth. I hear Jerusalem was nothing more than a vacant parking lot until the Israelis took over.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Nevermind the great restrain Israel has shown in cooperating with these people. Or how Israel has shown more cooperation with the UN in the past.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tmy


Spare us the semantics argument. Call them what you want they still exist. This isnt the matrix

I suppose there was not a sole was in the mideast until about 1941 right? Just cause the area has some of the oldest cities on Earth. I hear Jerusalem was nothing more than a vacant parking lot until the Israelis took over.

There was never a nation-state there until Israel established a country--that is all that matters.

Also, when the Israelis established a state there after fleeing the genocide in Europe, the Jews gave the bedoin Arabs there a chance to share government power right from the start. What did the Arabs give Israel? A military attack from every Arab nation-state in the region.

The creation of a Palestinian nation-state is the greatest deception against Jews in history. It rivals the concentration camps of the Nazis.

JK

[DavidJames]

"It would be exactly like a group of Mexicans going into the Mojave Desert and then claiming they are "Mojavians", a new form of human the world has never seen but which deserves its own nation-state ripped from the US."

Or the English crossing the ocean, landing in North America and then claiming they are "Americans". a new form of human the world has never seen but which deserves its own nation-state ripped from the native americans.

;)

[Malachi151]

The biggest dissapointment in all this is the UN.

The UN should simply say f**k everyone, and claim international law, set the conditions, and enforce them through any means necessary.

The UN should draw the lines, put an army in place, and whoever doesn't like will be shot on site, Jew or Palastinian, does not matter.

The bs has gone on long enough.

These guys have both given up their right to negotiate IMO, time to enforce international. Keep UN forces there for 100 years if need be until these morons give up and live in peace and accept what they have. Yes, someone will get screwed, so what, its not as bad as this continual war bs.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


There was never a nation-state there until Israel established a country--that is all that matters.

Also, when the Israelis established a state there after fleeing the genocide in Europe, the Jews gave the bedoin Arabs there a chance to share government power right from the start. What did the Arabs give Israel? A military attack from every Arab nation-state in the region.

The creation of a Palestinian nation-state is the greatest deception against Jews in history. It rivals the concentration camps of the Nazis.

JK

Israel was in the process of being created prior to WWII.

Israel was created due to anti-Semitism because people didn't want Jews in their countries, they wanted them to all go off to Israel.

Many Jews around the world opposed the creation of Israel at the time, mostly Socialists though, like Einstein and Trotsky, etc.

Zionism is Jewish fascism. Many Jews opposed Jewish nationalism and claimed that the creation of Israel would cause global conflict. Geee, we should have listened to them. Of course its too late now.

[Monketey Ghost]

I certainly hope Malachi will be warned about cussing.

[Pyrrho]

Malachi, please avoid cussing.

[Malachi151]

What the heck are you guys talking about?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Israel was in the process of being created prior to WWII.

It is good that you admit that. Now you know then that it was no surprise when the State of Israel formed.

JK

[Baker]

Originally posted by Malachi151
What the heck are you guys talking about?


Notice the 6th word in your quote that Pyrrho edited for you.

The UN should simply say f**k everyone, and claim international law, set the conditions, and enforce them through any means necessary.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


It is good that you admit that. Now you know then that it was no surprise when the State of Israel formed.

JK

The conflicts between the Arabs and Jews in that region, realted to the formation of Israel date back to the 1920s, but most specifically the 1930s just prior to WWII.

The anti-Semities in Britain, Churchill being one of them, wanted to oblige the Zionist Jews and give them their own state so that they would all leave Europe. It was all part of the same effort to rid Europe of the Jews.

Both the future "Allied" and "Axis" countries were anit-Semitic and working together to get rid of Jews. Russia, Germany, Italy, France, and Britain all wanted to be rid of the Jews, which is why Hitler was tollerated for so long in the first place, because all those countries were in some anti-Semitic/anti-Communist agreement.

Many people in America were cooperating too, FDR and the liberals were not, but the Republican Congress was in addition to many wealthy private Americans, who were very anti-Semitic, like Henry Ford, and Ireene du Pont, who all wanted the formation of Israel so that all the Jews could go there and leave America, and Europe, and they put up with Hitler because he was cooperating with them in anti-Semitic and anti-Communist activity, and Stalin was also cooperating.

FDR and the Socialists were the main supportes of the Jews at that time, and they (the socialists) opposed the formation of Israel because they knew that is was an anti-Semitic agenda.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Baker



Notice the 6th word in your quote that Pyrrho edited for you.



Oh, I didn't even notice. It get's masked anyway, so whats the big deal?

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Oh, I didn't even notice. It get's masked anyway, so whats the big deal?

The big deal is that users have been suspended for this offense. IMO, certain users who were singled out for punishment. I would like to see even application of the rule.

[CapelDodger]

There is no such thing as a "Palestinian". That is leftist propaganda and revisionist history. There has never been a "Palestinian" state in history and the only folks who resided in that area were Jews and the nomadic bedoins who never layed claim to that land, ever.

Just the sort of ahistorical BS one would expect from JK. The Jewish population of Palestine was a small minority before 1880, and still a minority in 1948. The fertile coastland was extensively farmed, just as it always has been (including cultivation of bananas, the sort of entrepreneurial activity ogten claimed as exclusive to the Zionists), and the cities were fully populated. The partition proposed by the UN (but rejected) gave the Zionists 55% of the land area of the mandate, where Jews would have a 55% majority of the population. By the time the Haganah was finally stopped they controlled 78%, with a Jewish minority. This would not, of course, have been a viable proportion for a Jewish State, which is why the expulsions were necessary (this was known as "population transfer" in Zionist circles since the 1920's).

The US is not being given back to the Native Americans, but how happy are they about that? I'm sure there are many who like to have it for themselves, but there's nothing they can do about it. In contrast, Israel is not viable and the situation in Palestine might well be reversed. Since the principle that "might is right" was good enough for Zionists, it's hard to see what they have to complain about.

The fact there was never a Palestinian state is of no relevance. The whole are was part of the Ottoman Empire since the days of Suleiman the Magnificent unti the Mandate period. The nation state is a modern European invention, and much of even that continent was part of the German, Austrian and Russian Empires before 1919. Why should it be assumed that because people don't have their own "state", they have no right to their land or normal life, but can be expelled by European immigrants who claim to have created a "state"?

[CapelDodger]

From Malachi:
Both the future "Allied" and "Axis" countries were anit-Semitic and working together to get rid of Jews. Russia, Germany, Italy, France, and Britain all wanted to be rid of the Jews, which is why Hitler was tollerated for so long in the first place, because all those countries were in some anti-Semitic/anti-Communist agreement.
Complete bollocks. Hitler's anti-semitism was regarded as the least of anybody's worries. If Britain had wanted to get rid of the Jews by creating a Jewish State, they had the Mandate in which to do it. If all their allies wanted that, why didn't they do it? This kind of nonsense just serves to reinforce the exaggerated role of anti-semitism in 20th century history. Even Hitler's electoral support was based more on his social policies and nationalist rhetoric than his anti-semitism.

[CapelDodger]

From DialecticMaterialist :
Nevermind the great restrain Israel has shown in cooperating with these people. Or how Israel has shown more cooperation with the UN in the past.
Could you expand on that?

[Mr Manifesto]

Well, DM, Israel certainly isn't doing much cooperation right now. Shortly after closing down a few insignificant outposts, they've opened up five more. Israel can't even keep the least of her promises.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by CapelDodger


Why should it be assumed that because people don't have their own "state", they have no right to their land or normal life, but can be expelled by European immigrants who claim to have created a "state"?

This question bothers me, and it's why I have sympathy for the Palestinian people. Not the suicide bomber subculture, mind you, but the people.

[Baker]

Originally posted by CapelDodger


Just the sort of ahistorical BS one would expect from JK. The Jewish population of Palestine was a small minority before 1880, and still a minority in 1948. The fertile coastland was extensively farmed, just as it always has been (including cultivation of bananas, the sort of entrepreneurial activity ogten claimed as exclusive to the Zionists), and the cities were fully populated. The partition proposed by the UN (but rejected) gave the Zionists 55% of the land area of the mandate, where Jews would have a 55% majority of the population. By the time the Haganah was finally stopped they controlled 78%, with a Jewish minority. This would not, of course, have been a viable proportion for a Jewish State, which is why the expulsions were necessary (this was known as "population transfer" in Zionist circles since the 1920's).

The US is not being given back to the Native Americans, but how happy are they about that? I'm sure there are many who like to have it for themselves, but there's nothing they can do about it. In contrast, Israel is not viable and the situation in Palestine might well be reversed. Since the principle that "might is right" was good enough for Zionists, it's hard to see what they have to complain about.

The fact there was never a Palestinian state is of no relevance. The whole are was part of the Ottoman Empire since the days of Suleiman the Magnificent unti the Mandate period. The nation state is a modern European invention, and much of even that continent was part of the German, Austrian and Russian Empires before 1919. Why should it be assumed that because people don't have their own "state", they have no right to their land or normal life, but can be expelled by European immigrants who claim to have created a "state"?


Arabs did have a majority in western Palestine and the majority over all but the Jews were a majority in the area allotted to them by the resolution and in Jerusalem.
Prior to the Mandate in 1922, Palestine’s Arab population had been declining. Afterward, Arabs began to come from all the surrounding countries. In addition, the Arab population grew exponentially as Jewish settlers improved the quality of health conditions in Palestine.
The Mandate (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/mandatetoc.html)

[CapelDodger]

From Baker:
Arabs did have a majority in western Palestine and the majority over all but the Jews were a majority in the area allotted to them by the resolution and in Jerusalem.
As I pointed out, in the area allocated to Israel there was a 55% Jewish population, which was not a sufficient majority to create a stable "Jewish State", especially given that 5-10% of the Jewish population didn't (and don't) recognise such a state.

Prior to the Mandate in 1922, Palestine’s Arab population had been declining. Afterward, Arabs began to come from all the surrounding countries. In addition, the Arab population grew exponentially as Jewish settlers improved the quality of health conditions in Palestine.
I can see no good reason why the Palestinian Arab population wouldn't be rising at the same rate as just about everyone else. In 1919 Palestine passed from a corrupt and bankrupt Ottoman administration to a Mandate territory administered by the British Foreign and Colonial Office. And to your mind the improvements in conditions were down to the very minor Jewish immigration of the time. You think you know this, presumably, because you were told so. Do you ever think about statements that you find fit your desired narrative?

[DialecticMaterialist]

OK Israel didn't just invade the region. It's not like if Mexican immigrants claimed california.

Jews(many of which were Zionist) migrated into the region to establish their own state in the 19th century, when it was owned by the Ottoman empire, and more so, when it was owned by britain.

A better example would be then if China owned california and during the course of this ownership, saw that there were two groups which hated eachother(one consisting of new people migrating in/establishing themselves in large numbers) and another which had been there a while.

Lets say it's Muslims(originals), and Xians(immigrants).

Now China can a) kick the immigrants out. b) Let the Muslims take all the land....which would likely result in mass opression, genocide and civil war. c) Let the immigrant take all the power(silly idea) or d) split the land in half.

Britain, picked d, much like our hypothetical california owning china would.

So it's not like the Jews invaded using force, they immigrated while the nation was already under foreign rule. And what was Britain supposed to do?

"Nope, no immigrants allowed"? Were the Jews supposed to stop seekinh a haven from mass opression, which eventually lead to genocide?

[CapelDodger]

From DM:
OK Israel didn't just invade the region. It's not like if Mexican immigrants claimed california.
What if the descendants of Mexicans who were there when the Yankees took over claim it? Just a thought, quite off-thread really. I'd love to see it, though.
Jews(many of which were Zionist) migrated into the region to establish their own state in the 19th century
Actually the early Zionists, who started bringing families and settling (rather than retiring to the Holy Land), expressed no interest in establishing a state. They were people used to living amongst different people. Nationalism wasn't part of their culture; living in the Holy Land was what mattered, not ruling it. It was a small nationalist clique that eventually overwhelmed that idea, with the results we see today.