The never-ending cycle of Violence in the Mideast

Hang out, sip some ice tea, and shoot the breeze with TR regulars.

Moderators: emkubed, Captain Ned

Postposted on Thu Mar 14, 2002 11:42 am

The region had some 1200+ years of relative peace until the Zionists walked in and tried to take land that wasn't theirs. Calling the Palestinians "at least equally wrong" is nothing more than a poor attempt to blame them for trying to defend the territories stolen from them by the Israelis. I have no idea where you live (and really don't care), but wouldn't you defend the land you live on if some outside party came in and said "we own it now" based on some declaration made by a fourth party who was never sovereign over the land on which you live?

I believe that I've made it abundantly clear that the Israeli plan was, from day 1, to evict Arabs/Palestinians from any territory the Israelis considered theirs, regardless of their legal rights to it (and that's stretching "legality" a bit, as UN 181 did), yet you continue to hold the Palestinians more responsible that the Israelis. That's the part in this whole discussion I find indefensible and, as yet, unexplained.
Life is hard; but it's harder if you're stupid. Big Al.
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 20636
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Postposted on Thu Mar 14, 2002 1:56 pm

Captain Ned, do you believe that the British were part of the Zionist

The region had some 1200+ years of relative peace until the Zionists walked in and tried to take land that wasn't theirs. Calling the Palestinians "at least equally wrong" is nothing more than a poor attempt to blame them for trying to defend the territories stolen from them by the Israelis.


Do you believe that the British were part of this Zionist group that you refer to?

wouldn't you defend the land you live on if some outside party came in and said "we own it now" based on some declaration made by a fourth party who was never sovereign over the land on which you live


Again, it all depends on how it came about. It is clear that the land wasn’t a sovereign Nation after WW1. An international tribunal gave the land to the Israelis (very generalized, I know), this is different than some force coming in (with no international authority of any kind) and saying this is now mine.

I believe that I've made it abundantly clear that the Israeli plan was, from day 1, to evict Arabs/Palestinians from any territory the Israelis considered theirs, regardless of their legal rights to it (and that's stretching "legality" a bit, as UN 181 did), yet you continue to hold the Palestinians more responsible that the Israelis. That's the part in this whole discussion I find indefensible and, as yet, unexplained.


I don’t think your argument is clear at all. It all depends on your POV. I look at it more like this. Look at what happened to the Jews in WW2. This situation (mainly the holocaust) could have been avoided if ONE nation had of helped them. They were turned away, denied entry into almost every country, and thus, could not escape the hell called Nazism. Millions of Jews were slaughtered, for no more reason than, that they were Jews. This racially motivated form of genocide was almost complete, with very little help from “civilized” countries. Western nations, (probably out of their guilt) after WW2 knew that the Jews needed a homeland so that they could continue to exist and be sovereign. Do you actually think that they would have a high regard for the rest of humanity? It doesn’t fully excuse that Israel was a little harsh in the dealings with yet anther group that hated them because of who they were. You can’t sit there, and honestly deny any sense of compassion for their plight, and state that Zionism is the root cause of the troubles for Palestine.

I hold that the Palestinians more at fault for the continuation of violence, there is a difference. I do believe that it is defensible.
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Thu Mar 14, 2002 2:19 pm

So, because the Holocaust happened to the Jews (let's get one thing straight, I'm not a Holocaust disbeliever or revisionist historian of any stripe), this trumps the rights of the Palestinian Arabs to their land. By that same analogy, we should find some poor sots we can dispossess to find homes for the Armenians, Tutsis, Bosnian Muslims, Kosovar Muslims, Native Americans, Mayas, Incas, Aztecs, Chinese famine victims, Russians who fell afoul of Stalin, or any other ethnic group that suffered at the hands of another (and I'm leaving out many). In several of these incidents, the goal was to exterminate the other group. Why is it that the Holocaust makes Jews special and distinct from these other groups and deserving of the "right" to expropriate land from others. Nothing, other than the ability to use the world's collective guilt to get what they want.
Life is hard; but it's harder if you're stupid. Big Al.
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 20636
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Postposted on Thu Mar 14, 2002 2:41 pm

So, because the Holocaust happened to the Jews (let's get one thing straight, I'm not a Holocaust disbeliever or revisionist historian of any stripe), this trumps the rights of the Palestinian Arabs to their land.


Really, it wasn’t their land in the first place if you’re talking about the creation of Israel. If you’re talking about the WB and Gaza, then we might have something to discuss.

By that same analogy, we should find some poor sots we can dispossess to find homes for the Armenians, Tutsis, Bosnian Muslims, Kosovar Muslims, Native Americans, Mayas, Incas, Aztecs, Chinese famine victims, Russians who fell afoul of Stalin, or any other ethnic group that suffered at the hands of another (and I'm leaving out many). In several of these incidents, the goal was to exterminate the other group


Not really the same analogy because the creation of Israel was already in the works before its DOI in ’48, the atrocious actions they endured in WW2 just accelerated the process. These other groups that you mention don’t have the same parallel.

. Why is it that the Holocaust makes Jews special and distinct from these other groups and deserving of the "right" to expropriate land from others.


Before I discuss this, I need to know what land we’re talking about here. Israel in general or the WB and Gaza.

Nothing, other than the ability to use the world's collective guilt to get what they want.


The issue is whether or not the world should be guilty. I believe it should be, humanitarian concerns should be a priority.
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Thu Mar 14, 2002 2:50 pm

Jaraxle:

Is Israel in compliance with UN Resolution 181 as to territory? Yes or No.

_________________
As soon as you idiot-proof something, the world just makes a better idiot.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Captain Ned on 2002-03-14 13:55 ]</font>
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 20636
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Postposted on Thu Mar 14, 2002 3:00 pm

Resolution 181, I would have to say, no.

If I am wrong, please point out to me where.
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Thu Mar 14, 2002 3:21 pm

Ok, we've agreed that Israel is in possession of territory not granted it in UN 181, territory intended to be the site of a Arab/Palestinian state.

Next question: What justifies Israel's continued occupation of this territory, in violation of UN 181's intent that this be sovereign Palestinian/Arab territory?
Life is hard; but it's harder if you're stupid. Big Al.
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 20636
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Postposted on Thu Mar 14, 2002 3:38 pm

Next question: What justifies Israel's continued occupation of this territory, in violation of UN 181's intent that this be sovereign Palestinian/Arab territory?


The annexation of land due to the ’67 war. I wouldn’t state it is in violation, but more of like what you just said.
Israel is in possession of territory not granted it in UN 181


I view it differently than a violation. And before you start screaming about the compliance question before, it’s not the land issue that I view as unfulfilled.
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Thu Mar 14, 2002 3:41 pm

I can answer that question Ned, and it´s a HUGE NOOOOOOOOO.

Jaraxle; Are you aware of the FACT that the number of Palestinians killed are many times higher than Israelis. When asked about the Israelis landthievery you talk about wars.... perhaps you need to be reminded that the Israelis are weekly demolishing houses owned by Palestinians, sometimes owned for CENTURIES back in their families, and SURPRISE!, just a few weeks later the same spots are suddenly an Israeli "settlement", often surrounded by 2-3m high walls or fences and guarded by soldiers and/or tanks.

Have you also noticed the fact that when something happens that kills or wounds a few Israelis, it´s bigtime news, when Palestinians dies, the news mostly just states "X Palestinians died yesterday" if even that; only when the Israelis does something really stupid like last week or so, hitting a car with the wife and children of the leader of an Palestinian organisation, only then does it become bigtime news.

The Israelis talk about selfdefense, well the earlier reference to WWII is that Germany claimed that Poland had attacked it first, after having sent people themselves disguised as as poles to attack a German borderpost. Killing civillians(most of whom are unarmed) and expanding your territory are not selfdefense.

Israel are calling nearly all Palestinians terrorists, nice, by that definition the much praised resistance movements in WWII, like those in France and Holland would have been terrorists as well.

The Israelis demand a total stop of violence to even start to talk peace with the Palestinians, THAT IS STUPID, why?... because they thereby give the extremist minorities on BOTH sides a veto(sp?), allowing them to crash any such possibilities.

Sofar, there have been no deal whatsoever offered to the Palestinians that have had anything to do with fairness. Usually because Israel wants to keep most or all of its "settlements"; do you know why?, because the land Israel have stolen by way of "settling" it, is more often than not the most useful parts of Palestine, water sources/arable land etc. If the Palestinians had accepted tha latest "offering" they would have given more than 70% of the arable lands on WB/Gaza to the Israelis.

Perhaps you should also know that Sharon is a man personally responsible for what is nowadays called warcrimes. Would you trust a man that once ordered a massaker on civilians?

I hope you do know that the "accepted" borders of Israel today is nowhere near the borders that was supposed to be, the borders that might be called legal. And before you start babbling about the ground taken in the wars with Syria/Egypt ...etc. , the borders I mean are the ones that defined the Palestinian areas.

You say the Israelis have a right to a country.... well so does the Palestinians.
DIREWOLF75
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Sweden

Postposted on Thu Mar 14, 2002 3:46 pm

Well, there's the problem. The land issue is the whole problem. Since Israel did not allow the Palestinian Arabs to form the state promised them by UN 181 (by first occupying territory in 1948, then "legally stealing" it in 1967), I view the problem as Israel holding on to land to which it has no right. Call it what you want, a war of liberation or self-defence against an occupying aggressor, but the Palestinians aren't going to stop fighting (if ever, but that's a whole 'nother thread) until such time as Israel vacates the land promised to the Palestinians. Given these realities, how do you propose to return to the Palestinians that land promised them under UN 181?
Life is hard; but it's harder if you're stupid. Big Al.
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 20636
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Postposted on Thu Mar 14, 2002 5:01 pm

DIREWOLF75
Jaraxle; Are you aware of the FACT that the number of Palestinians killed are many times higher than Israelis.


Of course. What is your reasoning for stating this?

When asked about the Israelis landthievery you talk about wars


I could talk about something completely irrelevant about the situation as you did here:

.... perhaps you need to be reminded that the Israelis are weekly demolishing houses owned by Palestinians, sometimes owned for CENTURIES back in their families, and SURPRISE!, just a few weeks later the same spots are suddenly an Israeli "settlement", often surrounded by 2-3m high walls or fences and guarded by soldiers and/or tanks.


Can you link some specifics in this case, so I know what your argument is here.

Have you also noticed the fact that when something happens that kills or wounds a few Israelis, it´s bigtime news, when Palestinians dies, the news mostly just states "X Palestinians died yesterday" if even that; only when the Israelis does something really stupid like last week or so, hitting a car with the wife and children of the leader of an Palestinian organisation, only then does it become bigtime news.


So the Israelis are getting the blame for American media coverage as well? I assume that the media is doing this because it's what the average American (or western for that matter) people want to hear. What about the Palestinian Mahmoud Salah, seems to me that this is big-time news. I don't take what I hear on the media uncritically, but that is me.

Israel are calling nearly all Palestinians terrorists,


Gross generalizations are absolutely wrong, but Israel is not the only guilty party with this arror.

The Israelis demand a total stop of violence to even start to talk peace with the Palestinians, THAT IS STUPID, why?... because they thereby give the extremist minorities on BOTH sides a veto(sp?), allowing them to crash any such possibilities.


I think it's reasonable. The last time I heard it was only for 7 days of non-violence. 7 days, is it that much too ask. Put yourself in Israel's shoes, the Palestinians are not known for their peace negotiation enthusiasm.

Sofar, there have been no deal whatsoever offered to the Palestinians that have had anything to do with fairness.


I disagree, check out the Camp David agreements

Usually because Israel wants to keep most or all of its "settlements"; do you know why?, because the land Israel have stolen by way of "settling" it, is more often than not the most useful parts of Palestine, water sources/arable land etc. If the Palestinians had accepted tha latest "offering" they would have given more than 70% of the arable lands on WB/Gaza to the Israelis.


You are somewhat incorrect here, Palestine would get ~ 95% of the WB and Gaza back after something like 7 yrs of peace with ~ 90% back almost immediately. Find a taba map and check it out.

Perhaps you should also know that Sharon is a man personally responsible for what is nowadays called warcrimes. Would you trust a man that once ordered a massaker on civilians?


I have already stated that Sharon should be removed (in my very first thread). Comprehension is your friend. Sharon as far as I am concerned is a terrorist himself. The populace didn't vote him in for his peacemaking skills, this is one thing that repulses me about Israel.

I hope you do know that the "accepted" borders of Israel today is nowhere near the borders that was supposed to be, the borders that might be called legal.


Yup, but the territory annexed by the defeat of the Arabs in the 6 day war, is legal, albeit beyond what the intentions of 181 were. How much of the worlds borders were brought into being or changed by annexation of war? It's ok for the rest of the world, and not for Israel, meh, OK then.

And before you start babbling about the ground taken in the wars with Syria/Egypt ...etc. , the borders I mean are the ones that defined the Palestinian areas.


I am referring to the Palestinian areas. I have not mentioned the golan heights.

ou say the Israelis have a right to a country.... well so does the Palestinians.


Agreed 100%, (and have already stated as much!!)


Captain Ned

Since Israel did not allow the Palestinian Arabs to form the state promised them by UN 181


:???: This is Israel's fault how?

(by first occupying territory in 1948, then "legally stealing" it in 1967)


So you don't think that they should have granted a DOI at all then?? And it also appears that you admit the land annexed is legal. :wink:

Call it what you want, a war of liberation or self-defence against an occupying aggressor, but the Palestinians aren't going to stop fighting (if ever, but that's a whole 'nother thread) until such time as Israel vacates the land promised to the Palestinians. Given these realities, how do you propose to return to the Palestinians that land promised them under UN 181?


They did for ~ 7yrs '94 - '00 IIRC. As I have expressed before, why during this time was no Palestinian state issued. (or even from 48 till the present)
The Camp Davis summit gave the Palestinians most of land back and Israel would be downsized to the pre '67 size. It was halted and unaccepted by the Palestinians (Arafat).
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Thu Mar 14, 2002 11:41 pm

On 2002-03-14 16:01, Jaraxle wrote:
Captain Ned

Since Israel did not allow the Palestinian Arabs to form the state promised them by UN 181


:???: This is Israel's fault how?

(by first occupying territory in 1948, then "legally stealing" it in 1967)


So you don't think that they should have granted a DOI at all then?? And it also appears that you admit the land annexed is legal. :wink:

Call it what you want, a war of liberation or self-defence against an occupying aggressor, but the Palestinians aren't going to stop fighting (if ever, but that's a whole 'nother thread) until such time as Israel vacates the land promised to the Palestinians. Given these realities, how do you propose to return to the Palestinians that land promised them under UN 181?


They did for ~ 7yrs '94 - '00 IIRC. As I have expressed before, why during this time was no Palestinian state issued. (or even from 48 till the present)
The Camp Davis summit gave the Palestinians most of land back and Israel would be downsized to the pre '67 size. It was halted and unaccepted by the Palestinians (Arafat).



Jaraxle:

This is what Barak offered: http://www.orienthouse.org/dept/images/ ... lo.eng.pdf

This is what UN 181 promised: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0dt70

I don't know how you see it, but there's just a little bit of difference between the two maps.

As for Israel and it's Declaration of Independence: If said declaration only included those lands assigned to Israel in UN 181, I have no complaint. As for the post-1967 seizures, I hope you understand sarcasm.
_________________
As soon as you idiot-proof something, the world just makes a better idiot.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Captain Ned on 2002-03-14 22:43 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Captain Ned on 2002-03-14 22:58 ]</font>
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 20636
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Postposted on Fri Mar 15, 2002 8:00 am

I don't know how you see it, but there's just a little bit of difference between the two maps.

As for Israel and it's Declaration of Independence: If said declaration only included those lands assigned to Israel in UN 181, I have no complaint. As for the post-1967 seizures, I hope you understand sarcasm.


There is a bit of a difference; I don’t dispute this claim. My lack of understanding is this, why was the plan totally rejected? It gave the Palestinians land that they currently don’t have. (legality issues aside) The Palestinians never even countered the plan, it was plainly rejected. It was at least a start, a position that could be enhanced. That action seems to speak volumes about the control Arafat really has, and that the Palestinians want all the land back. Including that which was granted in 181. Within the confines of their single-mindedness, they have chosen their own path.

The fact that Israel even offered this land, appears to say that they are committed to finding a reasonable solution. In history, how many conquered Nations received land back annexed by the victors? Not many.

p.s. Another map. Has a historical comparison that is displays the difference.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jaraxle on 2002-03-15 07:01 ]</font>
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Fri Mar 15, 2002 8:41 pm

Jaraxle"Of course. What is your reasoning for stating this?"

Someone acting in selfdefense normally don´t kill civilians outside of their own territory, it also shows that Israel doesn´t care any more about killing than the Palestinians.

>"Can you link some specifics in this case, so I know what your argument is here"<

It´s IRRELEVANT that Israel is stealing the best parts of the Palestinian lands?
Now you are getting stupid in the extreme.

>"Gross generalizations are absolutely wrong, but Israel is not the only guilty party with this arror."<

No but they seem to be the only side that you have listened to.

>"I think it's reasonable. The last time I heard it was only for 7 days of non-violence. 7 days, is it that much too ask. Put yourself in Israel's shoes, the Palestinians are not known for their peace negotiation enthusiasm."<

You don´t get the point, every time they DO TRY to make things more peacful there is always some hotheaded Israeli soldier, fanatic Palestinian, fanatic Israeli "settler"(occupant), or in some cases PURE accidents that makes something explode or a few shots fired; and since Sharon took over, any such happening instantly makes the Israeli army go back to "shoot anyone on sight", which i would say isn´t anything to talk proudly of as "vigilance" or "restrictive targeting".
The fact is that this "policy" will guarantee there will never be any peace; because as i ALREADY SAID, you give the fanatics the power to veto any attempts.

Meanwhile, the Israelis complain about how the Palestinians should restrain their fanatics, then go about attacking the little in way of police forces that the Palestinians does have. That is utterly stupid. You don´t demand someone to sit up straight just after you killed them.
The Israelis in the current government don´t want any negotiations at all; heard the recent proposal of building wall around all the palestinian areas? Yea that sure sounds like someone wanting to talk peace....

>"I disagree, check out the Camp David agreements"<

Most of what was stated in media about that was not true, ask one of the Palestinians what they WERE offered, the answer wont be what the news said they were offered.

Also, even if it had been 100% true, Israel would still have kept most of the arable lands INSIDE the palestinian areas due to their "settlers".

>"You are somewhat incorrect here, Palestine would get ~ 95% of the WB and Gaza back after something like 7 yrs of peace with ~ 90% back almost immediately. Find a taba map and check it out."<

What you don´t understand here is that those 5% represents that 70 or so % arable land; that is what is a BIG thing, the Israelis want to keep the small pieces of good land while giving the Palestinians the parts less useful.
VERY FAIR, isn´t it?

It´s the same thing as if Kuwait would have been told to accept a peacedeal with Iraq that gave them 95% of their land but Iraq still get to keep 70% of the oilfields in Kuwait.

>"Yup, but the territory annexed by the defeat of the Arabs in the 6 day war, is legal, albeit beyond what the intentions of 181 were. How much of the worlds borders were brought into being or changed by annexation of war? It's ok for the rest of the world, and not for Israel, meh, OK then."<

As I SAID!!!!!!, I wasn´t talking about land taken in the wars!!!!! READ THE DAMN LINES YOUR REPLYING TO.
DIREWOLF75
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Sweden

Postposted on Sat Mar 16, 2002 1:49 am

On 2002-03-15 19:41, DIREWOLF75 wrote:

No but they seem to be the only side that you have listened to.

Nail, head, hit! Man, you drove that one home. I couldn't have said it better.
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 8:40 pm

Someone acting in selfdefense normally don´t kill civilians outside of their own territory, it also shows that Israel doesn´t care any more about killing than the Palestinians.


This has to be the most ignorant statement I have ever heard in regards to this situation. Suicide bombing, armed gunman attacking children's birthday parties, blatant attacks against civilians or other forms of terrorism is not a normal act that you can defend yourself against.
Let's see what some of the US leaders have to say about this situation;

Donald H. Rumsfeld - I think that any time people are doing suicide bombings and blowing up your people at bus stops and in restaurants, you certainly cannot sit there and tolerate that.

Colin L. Powell - I think when you are attacked by a terrorist and you know who the terrorist is, and you can fingerprint back to the cause of the terror, you should respond.

Condoleezza Rice - The violence against innocent civilians is really senseless and it just shouldn't continue and were working every day with the parties to try and lower the level of violence.

Dick Cheney - If you've got an organization that has plotted or is plotting some kind of suicide bomber attack, for example, and they have hard evidence of who it is and where they're located, I think there's some justification in their trying to protect themselves by preempting.

If you knew that someone was going to make an attempt at your families lives, you are telling me that you would do nothing. :roll:

>"Can you link some specifics in this case, so I know what your argument is here"<

It´s IRRELEVANT that Israel is stealing the best parts of the Palestinian lands?
Now you are getting stupid in the extreme.


I was asking for a clear argument in relation to the half-assed comments you had previously blurted out.
Two things;
1 - I asked for linkage, I received a totally pointless, asinine comment. Your originality is inspiring.
2 - You appear to state that Israel should only take land that has no meaning to the Palestinians. Again I will ask for linkage to backup your original claim that Israel is still annexing Palestinian lands, (recently) rather than just bulldozing houses.

No but they seem to be the only side that you have listened to


How trite, by employing your logic then, I would guess that you are listening only to the Palestine side. Make a list of the attacks against civilians by those in Palestine and Israel. I can guarantee that the list is much longer in the Palestine section. I have already stated (numerous times) that Israel is not the only guilty party in this matter, but if you continue to push your Palestinian apologetics I will respond in like mind for the Israeli side.

You don´t get the point, every time they DO TRY to make things more peacful there is always some hotheaded Israeli soldier, fanatic Palestinian, fanatic Israeli "settler"(occupant), or in some cases PURE accidents that makes something explode or a few shots fired


How often does Israel bulldoze Palestinian homes, "pre-emptive assassinate", kill civilians or some other atrocity without provocation? Not very often, it has happened, yes, but it is in the minority of Israeli actions. How often do the Palestinians (fanatics if you will) like the PLO, HAMAS, PFLP or any of the other known terrorist factions within the Arab community, commit atrocious actions? The Palestinians are even repulsive enough to train their children to kill Jews. So to answer you question, I do get the point, it's just a shame that you're blinded by your own ignorance, and as a result, you yourself fail to get the point.


and since Sharon took over, any such happening instantly makes the Israeli army go back to "shoot anyone on sight",


Can you link an official statement from Israel or even a Humanitarian website that declares that Israel has a shoot on sight policy against Arabs? I am unaware of such a policy.

Meanwhile, the Israelis complain about how the Palestinians should restrain their fanatics, then go about attacking the little in way of police forces that the Palestinians does have. That is utterly stupid. You don´t demand someone to sit up straight just after you killed them.


What purpose do these police stations actually serve? It is fairly common place for the Palestinians to release terrorists shortly after they have been arrested. In light of these practices, along with the fact that the police have done nothing against the known terrorist factions, one would wonder about the usage of these places themselves.

The Israelis in the current government don´t want any negotiations at all; heard the recent proposal of building wall around all the palestinian areas? Yea that sure sounds like someone wanting to talk peace....


If the Israeli government didn't want peace, I would suspect that there would be very few Palestinians around to complain. Israel would have eliminated the threat a long time ago. Instead they restrain themselves from the barbaric acts of aggression that the Palestinians have resorted to. From day one it has been the same thing, "we don't want you here".

Most of what was stated in media about that was not true, ask one of the Palestinians what they WERE offered, the answer wont be what the news said they were offered


Huh??, You honestly think that the average Palestinian knows what they were offered, I doubt it. Judging by what you say, I have my doubts about what you know about the peace plan.
Here are a couple of quotes:
The results of the Camp David summit posed a serious problem for Yasser Arafat. Barak's conditional acceptance of the Clinton proposals juxtaposed against Arafat's total rejection of the American plan created a strong impression in the international community that the Palestinians were responsible for the failure of Camp David. As a result, as Arafat, after Camp David, sought international support for a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, he discovered that major powers in the international system, including France, were not prepared to assure him that they would recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. Realizing the need to reverse international sympathy away from Israel, back to the Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority began preparing for a renewal of violence against Israel, which would put supposedly unarmed civilians against armed Israeli soldiers - like the Intifada of 1987.

Neither Israel nor the Palestinians fully accepted the Clinton Plan; indeed, the Palestinian position was closer to outright rejection.

Despite the unprecedented concessions offered by Prime Minister Ehud Barak regarding Jerusalem, especially in comparison with every preceding Israeli prime minister since 1967, the PLO did not offer any corresponding readiness to compromise on territorial matters. Generally, Yasser Arafat insisted on receiving 100 percent of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip.


From here

Also, even if it had been 100% true, Israel would still have kept most of the arable lands INSIDE the palestinian areas due to their "settlers".

What you don´t understand here is that those 5% represents that 70 or so % arable land; that is what is a BIG thing, the Israelis want to keep the small pieces of good land while giving the Palestinians the parts less useful.
VERY FAIR, isn´t it?


*sigh* Again, because you like to randomly pull facts out of your ass, please give some linkage to back your claim(s) up.

As I SAID!!!!!!, I wasn´t talking about land taken in the wars!!!!! READ THE DAMN LINES YOUR REPLYING TO.


Israel has not made it a habit to annex land whenever it feels like it. (please include links if you are asserting otherwise :wink:) Israel is now larger than resolution 181 called for, why? Israel is now larger than they were in 67, why?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jaraxle on 2002-03-17 19:42 ]</font>
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 10:22 pm

There's no use talking to someone with a closed mind. What might work would be to shanghai Jaraxle and drop him in the middle if Jerusalem and let him find out the hard way. If we dress him up in clothes covered with the stars & stripes, he could also discover that our "allies" there hate us too.
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Mon Mar 18, 2002 10:27 am

There's no use talking to someone with a closed mind. What might work would be to shanghai Jaraxle and drop him in the middle if Jerusalem and let him find out the hard way.


w00t!!! Free trip, always wanted to go see the Holy Land. :lol:



On a more serious note, I really don’t think I have a closed mind. I will concede that, since the start of the Al-Aksa Intifada, I have narrowed my view some. The straw that really broke the camels’ back so-to-say was when Arafat actually places Ahmed Yassin, the Hamas leader under house arrest. This results in a Palestinian riot against the Palestinians. When under international pressure to reduce the acts of terrorism, Arafat finally responds only to have his own people rebel against him. This to me spoke volumes about the temperament of the Palestinians.

Other pieces of information that have contributed to my condemnation of the Palestinians plight, are after I did some digging, was that the Al-Aksa Intifada was not initiated by Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount. It was caused by the Palestinians. After the failure of the Camp David summit, (from the same link; “President Clinton placed full responsibility for the failure on PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat”) the Palestinians needed to create political empathy from the international community to gain support for a “Palestinian unilateral declaration of an independent state.” They would try to achieve this by starting the intifada, hoping the violence would garner political support. As of yet, is has failed, but it has increased the public support for the Palestinian cause. Mainly because, people can’t (or deny) see the real issues behind the violence, and side themselves with the Palestinian cause from a lack of clarity. Combine all this with the blatant attacks on Israeli civilians, and it results in an increased sense of apathy for the Palestinians.

If we dress him up in clothes covered with the stars & stripes, he could also discover that our "allies" there hate us too


:roll:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jaraxle on 2002-03-18 09:32 ]</font>
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Mon Mar 18, 2002 11:27 pm

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, revisionist history != truth.
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Mon Mar 18, 2002 11:38 pm

On 2002-03-18 22:27, Speed wrote:
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, revisionist history != truth.


I've pounded my head against the wall of Jaraxle's irrationality so many times that I've finally come to the conclusion that it feels so much better when I stop. I only wonder how much the Israeli Ministry of Disinformation is paying this guy.
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 20636
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Postposted on Mon Mar 18, 2002 11:51 pm

I hear you, Captain Ned. Jaraxle would make a first-rate Macolyte. Just read the script, and pay no attention to the fact that every one of your talking points has been thoroughly debunked. :roll:

Say, didn't I read somewhere that your handle was a reference to an old SNL sketch? I've been meaning to ask you about that. I remember <i>Sailor</i> Ned from WKRP. When Venus Flytrap worked in TV, he played that character in a kid's show. :smile:

Mine refers to the 70s cult movie "Mother, Jugs and Speed" Guess which one I am? :lol:

EDIT: I have no idea why I ended every paragraph with smilies... :???:
_________________
Stick a fork() in it!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Speed on 2002-03-18 22:53 ]</font>
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Tue Mar 19, 2002 12:56 am

Yes, Speed, my nick does come from an old SNL skit, The Adventures of Miles Cowperthwait. This skit covered several episodes, all when Michael Palin of Monty Python fame was guest host. In these skits, John Belushi played Captain Ned, captain of the S.S. Raging Queen. While at college in the early 80s, a bunch of us were gathered around the tube and this skit came on. Since I bore (at that time) a distinct resemblance to Belushi, I was immediately named. I've worn it with pride ever since.

As for Jaraxle, another SNL recurring skit comes to mind: "Jaraxle, you ignorant slut."
Life is hard; but it's harder if you're stupid. Big Al.
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 20636
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Postposted on Tue Mar 19, 2002 8:10 am

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, revisionist history != truth.

wall of Jaraxle's irrationality

that every one of your talking points has been thoroughly debunked.

As for Jaraxle, another SNL recurring skit comes to mind: "Jaraxle, you ignorant slut."


I have presented an argument in defense of the Israeli position. You fail to rebut, and at most times even address most of the statements that were presented. I made references to most of my points & have used credible sources and credible individuals when doing so. You claim “revisionist history” but show not where, you claim “irrationality” and then resort to name-calling, your maturity level is awe-inspiring! Your argument is one of intellectual prowess, based off of assumptions, opinions and ad-hominem attacks. When you can actually debate your position in a logical manner, I invite you to come back and make an attempt to form a sensible discussion.
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Tue Mar 19, 2002 5:46 pm

Jaraxle, we only need to rebut once. You're the one beating the dead horse.
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Tue Mar 19, 2002 6:47 pm

Jaraxle, are you Jew?
kyaku00x
Gerbil First Class
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm

Postposted on Tue Mar 19, 2002 9:23 pm

Jaraxle, we only need to rebut once. You're the one beating the dead horse.


What horse, I don't see no dead horse :wink:

This is your intellectual rebuttal to my position? Meh OK then, whatever.


Jaraxle, are you Jew?


:grin:

Not quite, but what possible difference would it make if it was?
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Previous

Return to The Back Porch

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jihadjoe, Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests