The Battle for Gaza has begun! [Archive] - Page 4

takeo

01-22-2009, 03:23 AM

Reffo

Once again, show me where I advocate/d ethnic cleansing?

maybe you didn't, but you remain quiet when others do.

I too advocate a two state solution but I expect the Arabs to be willing to demonstrate that they have given up their previous aspirations to eradicate Israel.

of course, this will be part of any genuine peace-deal. But if you want it to happen you can't expect Arabs to unilaterally change their position for nothing in return.

You on the other hand expect Israel to give up strategic assets (land) for empty promises only. That's why I argue with you only.

Not for empty promises. For real peace. If you want this to happen however, it's not good to demand unilateral demands before even starting the talks.

The fact that I don't argue with others in this forum (which in fact I do at times) does not mean that I agree with everyone and everything that some say. But one thing that I do agree with them is their support of/for Israel.

So if they support Israel, they can propagate ethnic cleansing? I think by allowing this kind of opinions to prosper unanswered, you give at least the impression to be on the same side, and to share those toughts.
Abbas has condamned Hamas' policy and suicide bombings. If anyone on this forum advocates the destruction of Israel I will criticise him or her. Because I'm 100% sure I'll be put in the same category.

On the other hand, I argue with you because I feel that people with your views represent a major threat to the very existence of Israel which is the only state that the Jewish people have.

Why? All I demand is a two-state solution, apparently like you as well.

Jews like me? You claimed that I advocate ethnic cleansing but you don't seem to be able to substentiate your claim. That's not a blood libel?

At least you seem to be on the same side as people who call for ethnic cleansing. You don't distanciate yourself from their views. If I were in a demonstration and some people shout "death to all Jews" I would leave the demonstration or ask the security service of the demonstration to remove those people.

Most Israelis don't! But you asked me to tell you why I consider you to be a hater of Israel and I told you above why I do. Can you deny that you do nothing else on this forum but repeat the views that I attribute to you above, ad nauseum?

Well, since anyone else is already defending Israel it 's nonsensical to do the same on this forum. I point out the mistakes and crimes Israel committed (what most people on this forum simply deny, for them the reason for the current conflict is 100% due to the Arabs) and I say what I believe should change to achieve peace. And I hardly criticise the hawks and extremists who don't want peace, which are abound on this forum. On other fora I sometimes defend Israel, say that the Israeli Jews can't go anywhere, that the end of Israel is not a viable option, etc.

But OK, I'll respond to you anyway. Israel's problem with the 2002 Arab peace proposal is that it includes the "Right of Return" demand. And until they drop that demand, Israel cannot accept such a proposal. I've told you that before...

Equally so, Palestinians can't accept some parts of the Barak-proposal. So they need to sit together and find common grounds. The war in Gaza however will make it much more difficult to do so.

So tell me: What would someone like you expect Israel to do that it hasn't already done?

Invite both Hamas and Fatah and Arab countries, start serious unconditional talks, and offer the end of occupation (minus some minor border exchanges), a compromise for the refugees (like Abbas said: some can return to Israel, others to Palestine, others can be compensated and start a new life in the West, etc.) in return for recognition, peace and security garantees.

See? That is why I call you an Israel hater! Because you are so ready to talk about "Israel's crimes" but you seem to be very very quiet about Palestinian Arab crimes.

I said BOTH sides!

You want a South african style Truth-Commission? Yes, I for one would be all for that as long as I could be sure that the Arabs too could be made to face their wrong doings and crimes. Or even better, not "made to" but would willingly do so! In fact, if such a process would come about in a genuine way, without turning it into a circus of Israel bashing only, that's when I would feel optimistic that peace may be coming. My fear though is that the likes of you would turn the whole process into a farce and would use it as a forum to smear Israel and Israelis with blood libels in a one sided way!

No, both sides should appear before this commission. And once peace is signed I'm sure the international campaigns and blood libels against Israel will almost cease to exist. As it happened (shortly) after 1993, untill it became clear Oslo was a farce.

You are lying through your teeth again Takeo. Clinton pressured Ehud Barak big time! That's why he made concessions that previous Israeli leaders would have been afraid to contemplate.

Clinton and Barak talked trough their proposal before presenting it to the Palestinians. That's not the way to mediate or negociate.

codedvirus

01-22-2009, 03:39 AM

So if they support Israel, they can propagate ethnic cleansing? I think by allowing this kind of opinions to prosper unanswered, you give at least the impression to be on the same side, and to share those toughts.

Neither I or bheeshma talked about ethnic cleansing that's what i was trying to tell you. You changed the words what beeshma had stated.

If anyone on this forum advocates the destruction of Israel I will criticise him or her.

Do you even know that Iran out there is preparing Nuclear Warheads.

ItsMyJewty

01-22-2009, 06:29 AM

Takeo, if I can just say something here... Since you seem to be so interested in the Palestinians, why don't you actually do something to help them instead of spending your time writing posts in here? You could work for the UN, for instance. I'm sure they'd be grateful for your help in the reconstruction process.

There are other issues to address in the Arab world, such as the appalling human rights abuses and the complete absence of democracy. Do you think you could do anything about that?

Israel's alright, you see. In just sixty years, the Jews have turned a strip of desert land into a mini superpower.

I just think you're on the wrong forum, that's all. You need to join a forum that's more... Arab orientated. I'm sure they'd love to benefit from all your in-depth knowledge and your keen interest in their affairs.

Madeline

01-22-2009, 06:32 AM

bararallu

01-22-2009, 06:33 AM

Do you even know that Iran out there is preparing Nuclear Warheads.

He is hypocrite. There is nothing he will say that he wont potentially contradict in order to protect his ideological or ethno-political (Russian, French and Muslim Arab/Iranian) commitments. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth, like Arafat. Eg. through out this forum he condemns Jewish self determination (his absurd denials not withstanding), and supports Palestinian self determination blindly. He then says he supports universal self determination which whitewashes the whole affair in his mind. Then when called on it, by being asked if he supports self determination among the historically prosecuted minorities of France, Russia, Iran, etc, he's dead silent.

He accuses Jews of ethnic cleansing (idiotically he even ubiquitously equates ethnic cleansing with genocide, even though 400k Palestinians were thrown out of Kuwait in a day, 99.999% alive to talk about it- although apparently no one asked them).Then he denies that ethnic cleansing was undertaken against Jews in the ME, including Iraq, where it is a historical fact. He even tries to shift the burden of proof. Pull up some old threads especially with Reffo, who uncovers his hypocrisy like a surgeon, with all the flailing gore of the ideologically warped being inverted inside out, that one would expect :).

He's what I think some would refer to as a granfalloon, an ideological poser who comes here to see if anything he throws out sticks, and consequently that raises his puny ego. Preaching to Arabs is below him.

Mediocrates

01-22-2009, 06:46 AM

Multiple reports coming out now that Hamas inflated casualties by 2x or as much as 3x. No more than 500-600 died in the fighting and most of them were young men, not women and children, who were pushed into fighting by Hamas commanders.

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Gaza_Doctor_Says_Death_Toll_Inflated.asp

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3660423,00.html

What really is behind the numbers reported on the number of civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip? Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera reported Thursday that a doctor working in Gaza's Shifa Hospital claimed that Hamas (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3377113,00.html) has intentionally inflated the number of casualties resulting from Israel's Operation Cast Lead (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3646673,00.html).

"The number of deceased stands at no more than 500 to 600. Most of them are youths between the ages of 17 to 23 who were recruited to the ranks of Hamas, who sent them to the slaughter," according to the newspaper article.

The doctor wished to remain unidentified, out of fear for his life.

A senior Palestinian Health Ministry official later denied the claims, and the Israel Defense Forces' estimate on the number of casualties in Gaza has also remained unchanged.

Despite the claims, the IDF stood behind its estimate that between 1,100 to 1,200 people were killed in the Strip during the fighting, more than two-thirds of them Hamas members.

The army initially believed that the number of civilian casualties was higher, as many Hamas men walked outside their houses dressed in civilian clothes, leaving their weapons at home.

Dr. Moaiya Hassanain, who is in change of the emergency department at the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza, denied the figures presented by the Italian paper.

Hassanain told Ynet that the Palestinian figures were issued cautiously, without any political considerations, and that several casualties may not have been reported as their bodies are still under the rubble or have not been handed over to the rescue forces and authorized medical officials.

'Mostly armed teenagers'

A Tal al-Hawa resident told the newspaper's reporter, "Armed Hamas men sought out a good position for provoking the Israelis. There were mostly teenagers, aged 16 or 17, and armed. They couldn't do a thing against a tank or a jet. They knew they are much weaker, but they fired at our houses so that they could blame Israel for war crimes."

The reporter for the Italian newspaper also quoted reporters in the Strip who told of Hamas' exaggerated figures, "We have already said to Hamas commanders â€“ why do you insist on inflating the number of victims?"

These same reporters mentioned that the truth that will come out is likely to be similar to what occurred in Operation Defensive Shield in Jenin. "Then, there was first talk of 1,500 deaths. But then it turned out that there were only 54, 45 of which were armed men," the Palestinian reporters told the Italian newspaper.

These new figures must be treated with caution especially in light of the fact that various official sources in the Gaza Strip, including United Nations and Red Cross officials, have reported that more than 1,300 people were killed and some 5,000 wounded during the three weeks of fighting in the coastal strip. Palestinian sources claim that three-quarters of the dead were unarmed civilians.

Hamas, while boasting on having Israeli soldiers by the dozens, a number that has proven to be exaggerated, claimed (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3658541,00.html) that no more than 48 of its members were killed during the Israeli offensive. According to IDF figures, Hamas lost hundreds of fighters from its ranks.

The UN's humanitarian chief began a tour of the Gaza Strip on Thursday to examine the extent of the devastation left behind by the Israeli offensive.

John Holmes said the number of casualties is "extremely shocking." He also urged Israel (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3284752,00.html) to conduct a thorough investigation into shelling attacks that damaged UN buildings in Gaza.

Holmes said he was thinking about immediate humanitarian needs and longer-term reconstruction. He said the biggest concerns are providing clean water, sanitation, electricity and shelter.

Holmes added that Gaza's border crossings would have to be opened to allow reconstruction materials into the area.
Nir Magal, Ali Waked, Hanan Greenberg and The Associated Press contributed to this report

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292938156&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

'Maximum 600 Palestinians died in Gaza'
Jan. 22, 2009
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
The number of Palestinians killed in Operation Cast Lead did not exceed five or six hundred, Lorenzo Cremonesi, a correspondent for Italy's Corriere della sera reported on Thursday.

Cremonesi based his report on tours of hospitals in the Gaza Strip and on interviews with families of casualties. He also assessed the number of wounded to be far lower than 5,000, the number quoted by Hamas and repeated by the UN and the Red Cross in Gaza.

"It is sufficient to visit several hospitals [in the Gaza Strip] to understand that the numbers don't add up," he wrote.

In the European hospital in Rafah, one of the facilities which would presumably be filled with wounded from the "war of the tunnels," many beds were empty, according to Cremonesi. A similar situation was noted in the Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, and in the privately-run Amal Hospital Cremonesi reported that only five out 150 beds were occupied.

Cremonesi interviewed Gazans who echoed Israel's insistence of how Hamas gunmen used civilians as human shields. One Gazan recalled civilians in Gaza shouting at Hamas and Islamic Jihad men, "Go away, go away from here! Do you want the Israelis to kill us all? Do you want our children to die under their bombs? Take your guns and missiles with you."

"Traitors, collaborators with Israel, spies of Fatah, cowards! The soldiers of the holy war will punish you. And in any case you will all die, like us. Fighting the Zionist Jews we are all destined for paradise. Do you not wish to die with us?" the religious fanatics of Hamas reportedly responded.

Other Palestinians told Cremonesi of Hamas operatives donning paramedic uniforms and commandeering ambulances. A woman identified as Um Abdullah, 48, spoke of Hamas using UN buildings as launch pads for rockets.

Cremonesi reported that he had difficultly gathering evidence as the local population was terrified of Hamas.

Mediocrates

01-22-2009, 06:48 AM

January 22, 2009: Gaza is turning into another Somalia. That's because Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group that runs the place, is turning a humanitarian disaster into a business. This has been a growing trend over the past two years, since Hamas won an election that put them in charge of the Palestinian government. For decades, much of the Gaza population has been dependant on aid agencies and food relief to get by. Gaza is, technically, a Palestinian refugee camp. Hamas is, technically, an international terrorist organization (that makes no secret of its goal of killing Jews and destroying Israel.) As a result, European nations cut back on their economic aid to Gaza (which amounts to $700 million a year.)
Hamas responded by imposing its own "taxes." Not quite as bad as Somalia, where, for example, the trucks carrying food to starving Somalis, have to pay "taxes" to the warlords whose territory they pass through. Currently there are nearly 300 roadblocks in southern Somalia. The gunmen charge $20-$500 per truck, depending on what they think the driver can afford.

Hamas does tax, as much as possible, Palestinians working for aid agencies. Also lucrative are the "taxes" imposed on businesses. Even busses and individual cars must pay. Another major source of Hamas revenue is the taxes on the smuggling through the tunnels under the border with Egypt. Most of these tunnels were destroyed during the recent Israeli bombing campaign. In response, Hamas has begun hijacking trucks carrying food and other aid. This will either be used for Hamas members (and their families) or sold in the markets to raise more cash.

What the "aid community" has lost sight of is the fact that the idea that the UN was supposed to be "impartial" was not part of the original UN concept. The original idea was that the Great Powers (the West) would use the UN to maintain order. But since the Great Powers couldn't get along, the UN evolved its own ways. The aid community, and all those NGOs that appeared in the last half century, through they were above politics. Now they have received a reality check, and they don't like it at all. In places like Somalia, the aid organizations plead, unsuccessfully in Somalia, for peacekeepers to protect the aid workers and their supplies. In Gaza, the same appeal is being made. But even Israel does not want to return to controlling Gaza (which they did until 2005). Thus a growing portion of the aid coming in will be forcibly diverted to Hamas, who is desperate to raise cash to pay its key followers (most of them armed) and stay in power.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htun/articles/20090122.aspx

Soon Gaza will look like Somalia. Of course the UN, EU, all the Arab states and western bloggers will blame Israel.

Mediocrates

01-22-2009, 06:52 AM

U.S. Army War College Publishes Apologia for Hamas

The Investigative Project on Terrorism - IPT News
Steven Emerson, Executive Director January 21, 2009
www.investigativeproject.org/article/979 (http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/979)

The U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) published a monograph last month by Sherifa Zuhur entitled, "Hamas and Israel: Conflicting Strategies of Group-Based Politics," a fairly bland heading that only hints at its deeply disturbing content. This monograph is more accurately described as an apologia for Hamas, a violent Islamist organization dedicated to jihad and the destruction of the State of Israel. Hamas was first designated by the United States (U.S.) government as a terrorist organization in 1995 by a presidential executive order and then again as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) in 1997. Hamas has remained on the FTO list ever since. The essay also consistently demonizes Israel and its legitimate defense of national sovereignty under international law.

The U.S. Army War College is an official educational facility of the Department of Defense, and is accredited by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. The mission of the Carlisle, Pennsylvania-based War College is to prepare its students for strategic leadership positions in the U.S. military and senior levels of civilian policymaking. American taxpayers fund the War College and its Strategic Studies Institute.

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=42433

Y. Shulamith

01-22-2009, 07:35 AM

As a matter of fact, eastern European Jews were run off their land by pogroms and Cossacks paid by the Romanov's. Looking at that, shouldn't all the Jews who were run off of their properties in eastern Europe, i.e., Belarus, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, shouldn't all the Jews who have settled elsewhere be allowed to return to the respective countries that their grandparents and great-grandparents were forced to evacuate, be allowed to return and given property rights back? Things were such at the turn of the 1900's, that Jews were forced to leave in droves to all parts of the world. I guess that since back then, even Poland's boundaries changed say, every other day, or so. Perhaps since on my father's side, the folks came from Bialystock, maybe I am entitled to property and citizenship in Poland. How would that square with the Polish? Think they'd be giving me much for my demands? How would that work.....all the displaced descendents of Poland, be given back their houses and such?

What if we, all the descendents, wanted our rightful property and to be given full citizenship of these countries? Isn't it our right, as displaced persons, to be able to get back what was robbed from our forefathers before WWI?

Fair is fair, after all....

varian

01-22-2009, 07:47 AM

Gazan doctor says death toll inflated

Physician at Gaza's Shifa Hospital tells Italian newspaper number of dead in Israeli offensive 'stands at no more than 500 or 600, most of them youths recruited to Hamas' ranks'. ...

... 'Mostly armed teenagers'

A Tal al-Hawa resident told the newspaper's reporter, "Armed Hamas men sought out a good position for provoking the Israelis. There were mostly teenagers, aged 16 or 17, and armed. They couldn't do a thing against a tank or a jet. They knew they are much weaker, but they fired at our houses so that they could blame Israel for war crimes."

The reporter for the Italian newspaper also quoted reporters in the Strip who told of Hamas' exaggerated figures, "We have already said to Hamas commanders – why do you insist on inflating the number of victims?"

These same reporters mentioned that the truth that will come out is likely to be similar to what occurred in Operation Defensive Shield in Jenin. "Then, there was first talk of 1,500 deaths. But then it turned out that there were only 54, 45 of which were armed men," the Palestinian reporters told the Italian newspaper. ...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3660423,00.html

Oops, sorry. I didn't see that Medio already covered this in #758.

Y. Shulamith

01-22-2009, 07:50 AM

I saw the above in the cybernews this morning. Why am I NOT shocked?

Sharona

01-22-2009, 07:52 AM

.
Islamisation is one way to express disconfort and hate against the current regime in Egypt. In Palestine people supported Hamas because Fatah was corrupted and they hated Israel. Now this support will even grow stronger.

And herein lies the problem, Takeo.

Some followers of Islam, sadly, appear to express discomfort and hate against whatever country they are in, regardless of the actual comfort, freedom of speech, rights and benefits they enjoy.

The young men who became suicide bombers in July 05 were British. They blew up carriages on British trains and a British bus. And yet they had received an education, healthcare, freedom of speech, homes - and well, everything they could possibly want within the UK. Following the tsunami in Indonesia and the earthquake in Pakistan, the UK was abuzz with fund-raising efforts to support the victims. Still - it is never enough.

Before you tell me the reasons why they chose to kill and maim others - let's be clear on one thing; they were not ill-treated or repressed in any way. Indeed, the UK appears to bend over backwards - and then some - to accommodate its muslim citizens - the support they receive greatly exceeds that of any other group in the UK today. And yet no matter what, some still hate, some still wish to maim and kill those amongst whom they live.

When they took to the streets over the infamous cartoon, it wasn't peacefully. Placards declared their hate for the West. Clerics preach hate in some of our mosques, a Western muslim teacher left a Saudi-funded school because its books referred to Jews and Christians as 'apes' and 'pigs'.

In the UK, many are radicalised at Universities - it's no accident that the majority of suicide bombers and protesters on the streets around the world are young men. They are of an age in which experience and wordliness has not had a chance to make its mark; they foolishly believe they are victims that deserve to be heroes; 'martyrdom', in my view is a bizarre equivalent of winning some kind of Pop Idol-type show. And yet the opportunities to make it to the top in the UK are as open to them as to anyone else, so I say again - their actions have absolutely nothing to do with repression or ill-treatment. They have no excuse.

To what extent does their behaviour portray their willingness and ability to live amongst ANY of us in peace, regardless of where we are in the world and the freedom to exist that we provide?

I have watched a few discussions on TV involving various western intellectuals and those who have 'jihad' as their goal. The intellectuals posed questions they clearly felt were logical - such as 'If you hate the UK so much, why do you stay here?' and 'You do realise that the freedom of speech you have here would not apply to us in your country?' and similar remarks. The fundamentalist responded to nearly all questions by stating - in various ways - that the UK did not belong to the Brits, but to Allah, and therefore, their laws, customs and culture was meaningless. He had the right - as granted by Allah - to impose his culture, views and jihad-orientated aims.

Such people are not doing anything whatsoever to promote cohesion amongst the people of this - or any other - country. Their goal appears to be the complete opposite.

I'm not addressing this post to you, Takeo. You don't need to take it as a personal response. I just found your quote rather telling.

Y. Shulamith

01-22-2009, 08:02 AM

Marth Luther King stated something like that "In order to have something to live for, one must have something worth dying for", however, I do not believe that he meant it in a literal sense, as he was a strong proponent of non-violence. I do, however, believe that the Islamic/Muslim Jihadists believe this sentiment in a very, very literal way. (no metaphors please).

Toadstool46

01-22-2009, 08:48 AM

The world has had many great epidemics or pandemics or plagues or what ever you would like to call them. We had the black plague ( Bubonic plague ) and the killer flu at the turn of the century to name two big ones.

The world has suffered through killer sicknesses and is preparing for more. Aides, bird flu, mad cow etc are always a threat to the mass of humans on this planet.

Can I be as bold to suggest that the radicals of Islam may be the next infection. Not a virus of physical symptoms but one pertaining to mental derangement.

These people do everything based on their religion and nothing is too horendous.
They kill themselves... this used to be a sign of insanity.
They kill innocent people that they don't even know.... This is cold blooded murder.
They send their children to be used as human bombs and are proud....This is insane.
They use their elderly, infants, children and women as human shields..This is cowardly and inhumane.
They bite the hand that feeds them,... a sign of rabies??
They make deals for ceasfire but never obey them.... this is the actions of a traitor.
They try to make everyone think the way they do ... this is control.
They condem people how resist them and their violence with violence... this is hypocrysy.
They shout peace, peace but really want to wipe the Jews from the face of the earth... they are liers.

They do all this based on a book that was written on the basis of the rants of one man.
They call this their religion. This has permiated their mind, justifies everything and if it doesn't they will change it so that it does.

That is a disease. They are a disease to this planet of peaceful humans.

ItsMyJewty

01-22-2009, 09:20 AM

Toadstool:
These people do everything based on their religion and nothing is too horendous.
They kill themselves... this used to be a sign of insanity.
They kill innocent people that they don't even know.... This is cold blooded murder.
They send their children to be used as human bombs and are proud....This is insane.
They use their elderly, infants, children and women as human shields..This is cowardly and inhumane.
They bite the hand that feeds them,... a sign of rabies??
They make deals for ceasfire but never obey them.... this is the actions of a traitor.
They try to make everyone think the way they do ... this is control.
They condem people how resist them and their violence with violence... this is hypocrysy.
They shout peace, peace but really want to wipe the Jews from the face of the earth... they are liers.

To sum up, the Warabs are morally deranged, hypocrits, and liers. They're too busy to be a nuisance now, though. :)

Reffo

01-22-2009, 12:15 PM

Once again, show me where I advocate/d ethnic cleansing?

maybe you didn't, but you remain quiet when others do.Maybe if the likes of you wouldn't keep the likes of me so busy defending Israel from your blood libels, I would have more time to look elsewhere ...

I too advocate a two state solution but I expect the Arabs to be willing to demonstrate that they have given up their previous aspirations to eradicate Israel.

of course, this will be part of any genuine peace-deal. But if you want it to happen you can't expect Arabs to unilaterally change their position for nothing in return.I can't expect them to unilaterally change their aspirations to destroy Israel?

For Nothing in return? The offer has always been land for peace. Are you saying that land is nothing?

You on the other hand expect Israel to give up strategic assets (land) for empty promises only. That's why I argue with you only.

promises. For real peace. If you want this to happen however, it's not good to demand unilateral demands before even starting the talks.Before starting the talks? Are you saying that Israel and Fatah have not been talking? :scratch:

The fact that I don't argue with others in this forum (which in fact I do at times) does not mean that I agree with everyone and everything that some say. But one thing that I do agree with them is their support of/for Israel.

So if they support Israel, they can propagate ethnic cleansing?No! Did I say that?

I think by allowing this kind of opinions to prosper unanswered, you give at least the impression to be on the same side, and to share those toughts.And by denying and/or minimising historic Arab intentions to "Drive the Jews into the sea", you give the impression that you are in favour of that.

If anyone on this forum advocates the destruction of Israel I will criticise him or her. Because I'm 100% sure I'll be put in the same category.Some visitors have and I didn't see you jumping in and repudiating them.

On the other hand, I argue with you because I feel that people with your views represent a major threat to the very existence of Israel which is the only state that the Jewish people have.

Why? All I demand is a two-state solution, apparently like you as well.You advocate that Israel should place it's major population centres into the same predicament that Sderot has been in for the last 7 years without ANY REAL guarantees that the Palestinian Arabs will not subject them to the same thing [as Sderot endured] down the track.

Jews like me? You claimed that I advocate ethnic cleansing but you don't seem to be able to substentiate your claim. That's not a blood libel?

At least you seem to be on the same side as people who call for ethnic cleansing. You don't distanciate yourself from their views.Most Israelis don't support ethnic cleansing and I have distanced myself from the ones who do, both before and NOW!

But let's take a look at YOU now: By your own logic, you side with the Palestinians, many of whom want to destroy Israel, so you support the destruction of Israel!

If I were in a demonstration and some people shout "death to all Jews" I would leave the demonstration or ask the security service of the demonstration to remove those people.I am glad you brought that up because in the past, I asked you to show me links (on OTHER FORUMS) where you spoke up against anti Israel extremists and what a surprise: You never responded :scratch:

Most Israelis don't! But you asked me to tell you why I consider you to be a hater of Israel and I told you above why I do. Can you deny that you do nothing else on this forum but repeat the views that I attribute to you above, ad nauseum?

Well, since anyone else is already defending Israel it 's nonsensical to do the same on this forum. I point out the mistakes and crimes Israel committed (what most people on this forum simply deny, for them the reason for the current conflict is 100% due to the Arabs) and I say what I believe should change to achieve peace. And I hardly criticise the hawks and extremists who don't want peace, which are abound on this forum. On other fora I sometimes defend Israel, say that the Israeli Jews can't go anywhere, that the end of Israel is not a viable option, etc.What IS nonsensical is to go to the other EXTREME of making up lies or exaggerating Israel's wrong doings AND at the same time DENY the crimes and wrong doings of Israel's enemies. And what is EXTREMELY NONSENSICAL is to suggest dangerous solutions that would jeopardize Israel's future!

To be continued..

Reffo

01-22-2009, 12:51 PM

But OK, I'll respond to you anyway. Israel's problem with the 2002 Arab peace proposal is that it includes the "Right of Return" demand. And until they drop that demand, Israel cannot accept such a proposal. I've told you that before...

Equally so, Palestinians can't accept some parts of the Barak-proposal. So they need to sit together and find common grounds.Did I say that they don't need to sit together and find common ground?

The war in Gaza however will make it much more difficult to do so.Yep, it sure will! Seven years of rocket bombardments onto the heads of up to 1 million Israelis in the south of Israel ... it's likely to harden the hearts and negotiating position of Israelis.

So tell me: What would someone like you expect Israel to do that it hasn't already done?

Invite both HamasCut the crap Takeo! I have already responded to this three times before but you suddenly got shy and forgot to respond in return. Now here is what I had to say again:

Hamas does not recognize Israel and therefore IT HAS NOT BEEN WILLING to have direct talks with Israelis. It has ONLY been willing to negotiate via intermediaries and only about what they want from Israel and the ONLY thing that they have been willing to offer in return is a temporary stop of violence until they feel stronger to start a new wave of violence. To sum up, Hamas has not been willing to negotiate, they are ONLY willing to EXTORT!

and Fatah and Arab countries, start serious unconditional talks, and offer the end of occupation (minus some minor border exchanges), That is exactly what has been going on but it seems that there is some kind of impasse. Why are you blaming Israel for that impasse?

a compromise for the refugees (like Abbas said: some can return to Israel, others to Palestine, others can be compensated and start a new life in the West, etc.) in return for recognition, peace and security garantees.I've asked you this before but you got shy with your response! Did Abass say HOW MANY refugees he expects Israel to allow into Israel? And please don't just make it up as you go along give me an exact quote and a link to back up your answer.

You want a South african style Truth-Commission? Yes, I for one would be all for that as long as I could be sure that the Arabs too could be made to face their wrong doings and crimes. Or even better, not "made to" but would willingly do so! In fact, if such a process would come about in a genuine way, without turning it into a circus of Israel bashing only, that's when I would feel optimistic that peace may be coming. My fear though is that the likes of you would turn the whole process into a farce and would use it as a forum to smear Israel and Israelis with blood libels in a one sided way!

No, both sides should appear before this commission. And once peace is signed I'm sure the international campaigns and blood libels against Israel will almost cease to exist. As it happened (shortly) after 1993, untill it became clear Oslo was a farce. You are "sure"? There you go again with your unlimited faith .... are you sure that you are not secretly religious? :D It wouldn't by any chance be turned into the same farce as the conference on racism which was held in South Africa in 2001?

You are lying through your teeth again Takeo. Clinton pressured Ehud Barak big time! That's why he made concessions that previous Israeli leaders would have been afraid to contemplate.

Clinton and Barak talked trough their proposal before presenting it to the Palestinians. That's not the way to mediate or negociate. They sure did! And that's when Clinton cajoled and applied pressure on Barak to make concessions.

So I take it you have not read the book by Dennis Ross, "The Missing Peace"? That book outlines what went on, not just at the Camp David the peace negotiations but the negotiations under various other administrations, it's an eye opener. Have you read it Takeo? Yes or no? It is a simple question, why is it so difficult for you to answer it?

Reffo

01-22-2009, 01:10 PM

But I said the US, which started this war which led to the persecution of christians, is at least co-responsible!

If so, then are you prepared to say this too? ....

the Palestinian Arabs, who started this war against the Jews in 1947/48 which led to the refugee problem, are at least co-responsible?

For starting the war, yes. But of course Israel too is responsible for the ethnic cleansing. And yes, the groups which carry out persecution against christians in Iraq are responsible AS WELL.What does this mean?

Your phrase: "Only for starting the war" suggests that you don't hold them [the Palestinian arabs] co-responsible for the refugee problem. If so, then why do you hold the US co-responsible for the persecution of Christians in Iraq? Could it be due to your hypocrisy, Takeo?

Your phrase: "...Israel too...." on the other hand would suggest that you do hold the Palestinian Arabs co-responsible for the refugee problem. In which case my question to you is this: Why do you expect only Israel to wear the consequences? Why shouldn't the Palestinians be willing to renounce the so called right of return demand in return for an appropriate compensation package for the refugees?

Why are you being so ambiguous and evasive with your answer Takeo?:scratch:

ItsMyJewty

01-23-2009, 04:20 AM

Reffo: Why are you being so ambiguous and evasive with your answer Takeo?

The silence speaks volumes... I think it's time for takeo to actually do something instead of "answering" posts in here. You know, show that he really cares... the Pals are in desperate need of help. They could do with someone like him - someone who truly believes in their cause and really wants to help.

Madeline

01-23-2009, 06:02 AM

The silence speaks volumes... I think it's time for takeo to actually do something instead of "answering" posts in here. You know, show that he really cares... the Pals are in desperate need of help. They could do with someone like him - someone who truly believes in their cause and really wants to help.

Well, takeo has to talk this over with his 'intellectual friends' first. He will get back with us once they made a battle plan.:cool:

Reffo

01-23-2009, 11:36 AM

varian

01-23-2009, 12:43 PM

Testimonies of some Pals about Hamas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoH19b1TrZo

Last update - 20:28 08/01/2009
Hamas executes collaborators and restricts Fatah movement
By Amira Hass

... "Hamas rules with an iron fist even now," said one resident. A political activist who says he supports neither Hamas nor Fatah said that given the difficult conditions created by the ongoing shelling and ground invasion, Hamas is likely to try to prevent collaborators or those suspected to be from working with Israel. ...

... Estimates of the number of suspects executed range from 40 to 80, but amid the prevailing conditions shelling, fear of walking the streets and media blackouts it is virtually impossible to verify the numbers or identities of the dead.

Executions are carried out secretly. In Rafah, for example, at least some of the victims were killed in a caravan erected in the area formerly occupied by the Rafiah Yam settlement, and the victims' relatives were invited to take away the bodies. ...

... Fatah members say Hamas is following a policy dictated from its leadership and directed against Fatah as a whole. An official in the Hamas-run Interior Ministry told Haaretz that the steps were taken only against Fatah members who expressed "happiness" at the aerial attack and
even "distributed candy" in the streets as it began. An independent source corroborated Hamas' account. ...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053825.html

You just knew these wankers would be back at it!!! Pals will be used as cannon fodder again!!!

Madeline

01-23-2009, 02:02 PM

January 23, 2009

"Unmitigated Gall"

That's the gall of the new administration, and the new Middle East envoy George Mitchell. Everything has a solution, he says. And he will find "our" solution. He's coming here as quickly as he can to take care of things. Just as he took care of things in Ireland.

Never mind that we're headed into an election. Or that Abbas -- who heads a party that still calls for Israel's destruction in its charter -- is not really president of the PA any longer but is pretending to be. Or that Hamas is still in control in Gaza. Or that the majority of the PA legislature IS Hamas. Or that Hamas will never, ever negotiate with Israel.

Hey! He's coming to fix things.

In due course I'll have more to say about Mr. Mitchell.

~~~~~~~~~~

Obama says he intends to work "aggressively" towards finding peace. Bad choice of word or a sign of what's to come?

~~~~~~~~~~

Earlier this week, an Israeli man, Moshe Avitan, suffered a critical gunshot wound in the head when his car was shot at from a passing car, as he was driving near Kochav Hashachar, not far from Ramallah. He was rushed to the hospital, where he underwent surgery.

Yisrael Medad points out in his blog [My Right Word] that Condoleezza Rice is indirectly responsible for this. Last April, she was here and pushing hard for concessions to "strengthen" Abbas. One of these concessions was the removal of the Rimonim checkpoint near Kochav Hashachar. Security officials at the time warned that this presented a danger, as it would permit Palestinians access to roads from which they had been blocked and increase the risk of drive-by shootings.

This was the result of the unmitigated gall of Rice, in demanding this when it put our innocents at risk. And now we're going to have to cope with someone else pushing for more of the same.

What we need is leadership strong enough to say NO to the Americans with unmitigated gall.

~~~~~~~~~~

There has been some controversy regarding the selection by Obama of Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America, to speak at a prayer service for post-inauguration festivities yesterday at the National Cathedral. Allow me then to share her own words:

"The American government has not criticized sufficiently the brutality of the Israeli government, believing that it needs to be 'supportive' of the Jewish state. The result is that oppression, left unchecked, can increase to immense proportions, until the oppressed are smothered with hopelessness and rage."

This was from the Center for Security Policy and was called to my attention by Judith Nusbaum.

~~~~~~~~~~

The article I cited from the Besa Center about smuggling that had no URL yet has now shown up on the Post site and you can access it here:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292929609&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

~~~~~~~~~~

Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, former national security advisor, in an interview in the Post has said the following with regard to Egypt stopping smuggling:

"To be polite, the Egyptians are telling us stories and we are deluding ourselves."

As to the agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) Livni signed with Rice:

"...well, without being rude, it's not serious and it's not significant."

We desperately need a change of government, as soon as yesterday, actually.

~~~~~~~~~~

According to Yaakov Katz in the Post, Hamas has now taken over all tunnels operating under the border (yes, there are tunnels operating), tunnels normally run by local Palestinians. Apparently this is to solidify their control over Gaza.

This week they took over a humanitarian supply truck so they could be seen as the ones distributing aid.

They've also placed strict curfews on areas that are heavily Fatah; they shoot anyone out after hours. Fatah is lamenting that we didn't take out Hamas completely.

Madeline

01-23-2009, 02:07 PM

This, at least, brings a smile: Hamas says with regard to the situation here, Obama does not represent change and is going to make the same mistakes Bush did. The Obama demand that Hamas stop firing rockets and recognize Israel is, they say, going to make Mitchell's mission very difficult. They were anticipating an Obama embrace, apparently.

I don't know what they're complaining about, actually, because Obama is also in favor of opening all the crossing.

~~~~~~~~~~

This too presents a bit of a challenge to Obama and Mitchell: The Saudis, who apparently didn't notice that Obama was offering them his hand, say that their relationship with the US and the "peace process" are at risk if the Americans don't stop Palestinian suffering.

This is obviously a bid to get Obama to tilt away from Israel. How much backbone will Obama have, challenged thus?

~~~~~~~~~~

Ultimately Rice fell on her face trying to "make peace" here. May Mitchell do the same.

~~~~~~~~~~

I apologize for this heavy tone before Shabbat, but what must be said must be said. There will be more after Shabbat....
This is from ArlenefromIsrael's website. Some of you may be familiar with it.

Y. Shulamith

01-23-2009, 02:23 PM

I saw a photo someplace and it showed Hamas nitwit lording over a bunch of equally nitwit Pals who were scrambling like rats to get a tunnel open.

takeo

01-24-2009, 03:41 AM

Reffo

Maybe if the likes of you wouldn't keep the likes of me so busy defending Israel from your blood libels, I would have more time to look elsewhere ...

You seem to be more worried by my posts than by the ones proposing ethnic cleansing.

I can't expect them to unilaterally change their aspirations to destroy Israel?

Not BEFORE the negociations start, of course once a deal is agreed up, they have to change these aspirations, both in words and in deeds. It will be part of the deal.

For Nothing in return? The offer has always been land for peace. Are you saying that land is nothing?

But Israel doesn't seem to have any intention to withdraw. They still enlarge settlements.

No! Did I say that?

By not replying you give the impression to agree with it.

And by denying and/or minimising historic Arab intentions to "Drive the Jews into the sea", you give the impression that you are in favour of that.

I'm not agreeing or minimising that! I always openly said I'm against that "solution", also and especially when I'm talking with Arabs. Besides you seem to think that that's the general opinion of most Arabs. It's not, maybe 60 years ago, but not any longer. Yesterday I even read a column of Lybian president Khadafi. He is not radical or anti-semitic at all, and said Jews can't go anywhere, can't go back to countries where they are hated and have been persecuted, and that everyone in the Arab world needs to realise that. He also said that the greatest danger to the Arab world is not Israel or the US but the extremists among themselves. Syrian president Assad said similar things during his interview on BBC, altough he stressed that Israel needs to talk to Hamas, and Hamas needs to talk to Israel.

Some visitors have and I didn't see you jumping in and repudiating them.

Any example? Whenever anyone propagates such things I will not let it pass unanswered.

You advocate that Israel should place it's major population centres into the same predicament that Sderot has been in for the last 7 years without ANY REAL guarantees that the Palestinian Arabs will not subject them to the same thing [as Sderot endured] down the track.

of course there should be garantees. That's why I don't favor a unilateral withdrawel, as some propose.

Most Israelis don't support ethnic cleansing and I have distanced myself from the ones who do, both before and NOW!

Now you did, for the first time. But you never directly confront them with the consequences of their ideas. In that way visitors of this forum get the impression that most Israel-defenders tolerate or support such ideas.

But let's take a look at YOU now: By your own logic, you side with the Palestinians, many of whom want to destroy Israel, so you support the destruction of Israel!

I side with Palestinians, like you defend Israel. You have the right to defend Israel, I have the right to side with the Palestinian cause. But it doesn't mean I support the destruction of Israel (nor do most Palestinians or Arabs), on the contrary, I will (and did) speak out against it. But you rarily speak out against people who advocate ethnic cleansing (or even slaughtering christian missionaries which your Indian friends on this forum supported repeatedly on this thread, what do you think about that?).

I am glad you brought that up because in the past, I asked you to show me links (on OTHER FORUMS) where you spoke up against anti Israel extremists and what a surprise: You never responded :scratch:

On other forums? I prefere not to reveal my identity on other forums, because of privacy concerns. Besides I don't only participate in English-language forums, but equally French, Russian and even a Spanish one. Now it's all a bit less since I don't have a lot of time, most of my free time goes to travelling.

I didn't deny any crimes or wrongdoings of the Arabs. All I said is that these are no excuse for Israel's crimes and wrongdoings. (which you deny)

And what is EXTREMELY NONSENSICAL is to suggest dangerous solutions that would jeopardize Israel's future!

The solution I suggest is equally the solution Obama, the UN, Abbas and many others want.

takeo

01-24-2009, 03:49 AM

Well, takeo has to talk this over with his 'intellectual friends' first. He will get back with us once they made a battle plan.:cool:

I once gave them a link to this forum. They told me I'm loosing my time with these nutheads. But I told them that people with this kind of ideas are very influencial and powerful, both in Israel and the US, so it's interesting to confront them.

takeo

01-24-2009, 04:13 AM

Reffo

Did I say that they don't need to sit together and find common ground?

You said they had to accept the unilateral Barab-Clinton proposal.

Yep, it sure will! Seven years of rocket bombardments onto the heads of up to 1 million Israelis in the south of Israel ... it's likely to harden the hearts and negotiating position of Israelis.

And killing000 people, most of them civilians, will equally harden the Palestinian hearts and negociating positions. This war will make a solution more difficult.

Cut the crap Takeo! I have already responded to this three times before but you suddenly got shy and forgot to respond in return. Now here is what I had to say again:

Hamas does not recognize Israel and therefore IT HAS NOT BEEN WILLING to have direct talks with Israelis. It has ONLY been willing to negotiate via intermediaries and only about what they want from Israel and the ONLY thing that they have been willing to offer in return is a temporary stop of violence until they feel stronger to start a new wave of violence. To sum up, Hamas has not been willing to negotiate, they are ONLY willing to EXTORT!

But Israel has never extended a hand to Hamas, on the contrary by blocking Gaza they did the inverse. I think that if Israel is willing to have direct talks with Hamas leaders, they will follow suit.

That is exactly what has been going on but it seems that there is some kind of impasse. Why are you blaming Israel for that impasse?

atleast partially. Problem is that some parties which support the Israeli government don't want any compromise, don't want to end settlements in Westbank, don't want to talk about Jerusalem, etc. Another problem is that elections are looming in Israel, which radicals like Netanyahu are most likely going to win. Netanyahu doesn't want withdrawel, wants to further expand settlements, doesn't want to talk about Jersualem, etc. So what's the point to negociate when Netanyahu will reverse everything? And than there's the war, now Abbas will not sit on the same table of the people who killed over 1000 Palestinians, at least for a while, that would not be accepted by Palestinian public opinion. The same goes for Syria, altough talks with syriawill most likely resume, according to Assad himself. But Turkey is no longer willing to mediate as a result of the war in Gaza.

I've asked you this before but you got shy with your response! Did Abass say HOW MANY refugees he expects Israel to allow into Israel? And please don't just make it up as you go along give me an exact quote and a link to back up your answer.

I've already quoted Abbas, using your own link, on this same thread, remember? He didn't say how many, but, like Arafat, he said he's willing to compromise, holding Israel's demographic concerns in mind, and he said Israel should have a Jewish majority. Exact numbers will be negociated upon on the negociating table. Don't forget what a major concession that is: it means Palestinians no longer demand the full implementation of the UN-resolution, for the sake of peace.

You are "sure"? There you go again with your unlimited faith .... are you sure that you are not secretly religious? :D It wouldn't by any chance be turned into the same farce as the conference on racism which was held in South Africa in 2001?

In 2001 Israel was busy destroying what was left of the Palestinian Autority, and destroying Jenin and other Palestinian camps and cities. The mood during that time was hostile to Israel, for logical reasons.

They sure did! And that's when Clinton cajoled and applied pressure on Barak to make concessions.

perhaps, but certainly not openly. Any American or Israeli proposal was talked trough before presenting it to the Palestinians, who were openly pressured.

So I take it you have not read the book by Dennis Ross, "The Missing Peace"? That book outlines what went on, not just at the Camp David the peace negotiations but the negotiations under various other administrations, it's an eye opener. Have you read it Takeo? Yes or no? It is a simple question, why is it so difficult for you to answer it?

I didn't yet, but I'm sure I will, I've already located the book in the university library of UCL.
Of course this is just the opinion of Ross. I already quoted other negociators, and you refused to reply to that.

takeo

01-24-2009, 04:26 AM

Reffo

What does this mean?

Your phrase: "Only for starting the war" suggests that you don't hold them [the Palestinian arabs] co-responsible for the refugee problem. If so, then why do you hold the US co-responsible for the persecution of Christians in Iraq? Could it be due to your hypocrisy, Takeo?

Well, yes they're partly responsible. But the ethnic cleansing was not a necessary part of the war, it was a deliberate choice of Israel. A result of the war, but still a deliberate and strategical choice.
In Iraq, the persecution of christians wasn't a necessary result of the war started by the US. But by starting this war, the US is co-responsible for the persecution of christians. However, the US is directly responsible for the rise of extremism in Iraq. Everyone predicted that it would be the outcome of an American intervention, they still went trough. Arabs didn't know that Israel would start a massive ethnic cleansing as a result of the war.

Your phrase: "...Israel too...." on the other hand would suggest that you do hold the Palestinian Arabs co-responsible for the refugee problem. In which case my question to you is this: Why do you expect only Israel to wear the consequences? Why shouldn't the Palestinians be willing to renounce the so called right of return demand in return for an appropriate compensation package for the refugees?

They are co-responsible by starting the war. But it weren't the Arabs who committed ethnic cleansing, it was Israel. And apart from the question who's responsible, according to the conventions of Geneva carrying out ethnic cleansing is forbidden, and there's a UN-resolution calling for the return of the refugees as soon as possible.
So the fact that Arabs started the war (in 1948) is not any justification for Israel to deny any responsability.

takeo

01-24-2009, 04:30 AM

CanDo

01-24-2009, 04:32 AM

... Problem is that some parties which support the Israeli government don't want any compromise, don't want to end settlements in Westbank, don't want to talk about Jerusalem, etc.

If the backward, uncivilized, racist, religiously intolerant Arabs/Muslims throughout the Middle East EVER showed any desire to live in peace with other races or religions, then there could be a chance for a peaceful compromise with the miserable, backward Arab/Muslim cultures.

Very obviously, when dealing with a culture of hate and ignorance, similiar to yours, which is pervasive throughout the Muslim/Arab Middle East, there can NEVER be peace with the hateful, venomous Muslims/Arabs.

Israel will NEVER have peace as long as there are Arabs/Muslims within Israel, Gaza or the West Bank. With that in mind, the ONLY solution is to drive ALL Arabs/Muslims out of "Greater" Israel, creating a land of peace, science and civilization, that is benefical for the entire world, instead of a violent, backward, Palestinian welfare state of ignorance, hatred and religious intolerance.

Which do we want, a civilized democracy, created by Jews, or a hateful, racist, backward, violent and religiously intolerant dictatorship, which is so typical of the Arab/Muslim world? To me, the answer is obvious. To you, whose mind festers on hate and intolerance, you prefer the uncivilized dictatorships.

takeo

01-24-2009, 04:37 AM

takeo

01-24-2009, 04:42 AM

If the backward, uncivilized, racist, religiously intolerant Arabs/Muslims throughout the Middle East EVER showed any desire to live in peace with other races or religions, then there could be a chance for a peaceful compromise with the miserable, backward Arab/Muslim cultures.

Very obviously, when dealing with a culture of hate and ignorance, similiar to yours, which is pervasive throughout the Muslim/Arab Middle East, there can NEVER be peace with the hateful, venomous Muslims/Arabs.

Israel will NEVER have peace as long as there are Arabs/Muslims within Israel, Gaza or the West Bank. With that in mind, the ONLY solution is to drive ALL Arabs/Muslims out of "Greater" Israel, creating a land of peace, science and civilization, that is benefical for the entire world, instead of a violent, backward, Palestinian welfare state of ignorance, hatred and religious intolerance.

Which do we want, a civilized democracy, created by Jews, or a hateful, racist, backward, violent and religiously intolerant dictatorship, which is so typical of the Arab/Muslim world? To me, the answer is obvious. To you, whose mind festers on hate and intolerance, you prefer the uncivilized dictatorships.

Every word you write exposes which a hateful, intolerant and racist person you are, not civilised and ignorant about Palestinians. They are people like any other people who want to live normal life. Problem is that they live in very difficult circumstances, which affected them. But I bet you've never visited a Palestinian city or had a talk with a Palestinian which didn't involve shouting and cursing.

CanDo

01-24-2009, 05:11 AM

Every word you write exposes which a hateful, intolerant and racist person you are,

Those words better fit you. You are not stupid, but you applaud the 60+ years of hatred and violence coming every day from the Muslims of Gaza and the West Bank, and think that 60+ years of hatred, religious intolerance and terrorism should be rewarded with a state of their own? How much more of a hateful, intolerant and IGNORANT of a racist can you be?

... not civilised and ignorant about Palestinians.

This is not literate, in any sense. Is your brain more confused and jumbled than normal this morning? :rolleyes:

They are people like any other people who want to live normal life.

Yeh, sure. What a joke. They want to live a normal life of strapping bombs on their kids, so that their kids can blow up someone else's kids?! They want to live a normal life of shooting little Jewish children in the head and then passing out candy and celebrating afterwoods?! They want to live a normal life of teaching hatred towards others in their schools and mosques?!

Any other culture, Hindu, Jewish, Kurd, Buddhist, etc., would have sought peace with the Jews of Israel a long time ago. Peace with the Jews of Israel would have been so simple, if not for violent, racist, hateful, religiously intolerant and backward nature of the Muslim/Arab mentality.

Problem is that they live in very difficult circumstances, which affected them.

Yeh, the Arabs/Muslims have build hostile, racist, religiously intolerant, backward, uncivilized dictatorships throughout the Middle East. Arabs/Muslims seem to enjoy wallowing in misery and hate, similar to yourself, huh?

takeo

01-24-2009, 05:16 AM

Sharona

And herein lies the problem, Takeo.

Some followers of Islam, sadly, appear to express discomfort and hate against whatever country they are in, regardless of the actual comfort, freedom of speech, rights and benefits they enjoy.

That's not true. There are many muslims in France, I know many muslims, and most absolutely respect French law and society. They are very happy to live in France or Belgium, and would never think about returning to Algeria for example, and even respect and understand the ban on the veil in schools and public buildings, altough they wear them in the streets.(by the way, not all religious muslims wear this). Of course there's a minority which is hatefull and resents France, Europe and everything it stands for. Most of them are jobless youths, male and marginalised. They don't represent the majority of muslims in anyway. I also met many muslims in non-muslim countries around the world, such as in East-Africa, or ex-Soviet Central-Asia, Russia, and people of different religions get along quite well in these regions. There are no or little religious tensions.

The young men who became suicide bombers in July 05 were British. They blew up carriages on British trains and a British bus. And yet they had received an education, healthcare, freedom of speech, homes - and well, everything they could possibly want within the UK. Following the tsunami in Indonesia and the earthquake in Pakistan, the UK was abuzz with fund-raising efforts to support the victims. Still - it is never enough.

Those people exist, but are a small minority which in no way represent the muslim community in GB. There are extremists among Jews as well.

Before you tell me the reasons why they chose to kill and maim others - let's be clear on one thing; they were not ill-treated or repressed in any way. Indeed, the UK appears to bend over backwards - and then some - to accommodate its muslim citizens - the support they receive greatly exceeds that of any other group in the UK today. And yet no matter what, some still hate, some still wish to maim and kill those amongst whom they live.

You are right, there will always be extremists, nutcases and unreasonable people. But if people live in violent or unjust conditions, or udner occupation, such as in Iraq or Palestine, or when they live under a foreign-supported dictator who does nothing for his people, such as in Egypt, radical ideas are more popular and reach more people.
Especially in Egypt there's the problem that religious fundamentalists seem to be the only ones able to defeat the Faraoh...

When they took to the streets over the infamous cartoon, it wasn't peacefully. Placards declared their hate for the West. Clerics preach hate in some of our mosques, a Western muslim teacher left a Saudi-funded school because its books referred to Jews and Christians as 'apes' and 'pigs'.

This whole cartoon-thing was exaggerated of course (altough I don't think ridiculisation of ANY religion should be tolerated, there should be mutuel respect), but you don't see the many muslims, the silent majority, who didn't took to the streets and didn't care.
Most muslims will agree with me that Saudi-Arabians are a^%holes, selffish to the core, that their country is a creation of colonialism, and that they only use religion to hide their hideous and hypocrit regime.

In the UK, many are radicalised at Universities - it's no accident that the majority of suicide bombers and protesters on the streets around the world are young men. They are of an age in which experience and wordliness has not had a chance to make its mark; they foolishly believe they are victims that deserve to be heroes; 'martyrdom', in my view is a bizarre equivalent of winning some kind of Pop Idol-type show. And yet the opportunities to make it to the top in the UK are as open to them as to anyone else, so I say again - their actions have absolutely nothing to do with repression or ill-treatment. They have no excuse.

You are right, at universities people are exposed to new ideas, some good, some bad. But you can't say that all muslims get radicalised at the university. On the contrary I think. Many become totally westernised during that period, both in conduct of life as in ideas. However what you tend to see as well, is that university students, the large majority, get to know how much the ideals of a society differ from reality. Students are always the first to adres unjustice. This is what happened in 1967, especially in France, during the Vietnam-war in the US, in Latin-America, Greece, in Burma, or anywhere on earth. The first thing oppressive regimes usually do after a revolt is shutting down universities. When I was in Iran I didn't meet a single university student who didn't dislike the regime. And they are surprisingly open about their ideas, in their publications they constantly challenge the censors and autorities, to see how far they can go. College girls challenge the autorities in another way, they hold hands with thier lovers in public, wear make-up and reveal as much hair as possible. (off-topic, but this country is so civilised, this regime so backwards and stupid, I can't just imagine someone not braindead would invade Iran, and turn it into another Iraq full of violence and hate; because, as much as they dislike the regime, everyone told me they would fight anyone aggressing their country)

To what extent does their behaviour portray their willingness and ability to live amongst ANY of us in peace, regardless of where we are in the world and the freedom to exist that we provide?

The behavior of a small minority can't be generalised.

I have watched a few discussions on TV involving various western intellectuals and those who have 'jihad' as their goal.

It's difficult to debate with extremists, as on this forum as well, they don't use rational arguments.

Such people are not doing anything whatsoever to promote cohesion amongst the people of this - or any other - country. Their goal appears to be the complete opposite.

of course

takeo

01-24-2009, 05:39 AM

CanDo

Those words better fit you. You are not stupid, but you applaud the 60+ years of hatred and violence coming every day from the Muslims of Gaza and the West Bank, and think that 60+ years of hatred, religious intolerance and terrorism should be rewarded with a state of their own? How much more of a hateful, intolerant and IGNORANT of a racist can you be?

This 60+ years of violence is not only due to the Arabs, but due to Israel as well. Israel ethnically cleansed, occupied, colonised, etc. ignores dozens of UN-resolutions, etc. In fact initially it's a result of zionism, which choose an area where another people already lived. Perhaps zionists should have choosen an area which was uninhabited. But now it's too late for that, Israel exists, and Palestinians exist as well, both will stay. So, both peoples have to find a deal and make peace and forget all the injustices, wars, violence, etc. That's the only solution. It worked in Ireland and other parts of the world.

Yeh, sure. What a joke. They want to live a normal life of strapping bombs on their kids, so that their kids can blow up someone else's kids?! They want to live a normal life of shooting little Jewish children in the head and then passing out candy and celebrating afterwoods?! They want to live a normal life of teaching hatred towards others in their schools and mosques?!

People who have been ethnically cleansed and lived their entire life under foreign occupation get violent, you see it everywhere, not only in Palestine.
If Israel makes peace, stops killing Palestinians, respect them and give them their own land, the violence will stop.
I think considering their situation, Palestinians remain relatively calm. In Westbank, despite the war in gaza, despite colonisation going on and walls being build in their backyards separating them from their neighbours and their jobs, people stay calm. Of course if nothing changes they won't stay calm forever, nor should they.

Any other culture, Hindu, Jewish, Kurd, Buddhist, etc., would have sought peace with the Jews of Israel a long time ago.

Really? You think Indians would have accepted it if zionists came to colonise a part of India? They are even slaughtering innocent christian missionaries!
You think Kurds are peaceful? Ask any Arab Iraqi or Turk what he thinks about the Kurds. They too lived under oppression, they too turned violent.

Yeh, the Arabs/Muslims have build hostile, racist, religiously intolerant, backward, uncivilized dictatorships throughout the Middle East. Arabs/Muslims seem to enjoy wallowing in misery and hate, similar to yourself, huh?

Dictatorships are everywhere, not only in the Arab world. And certainly not all Arab or muslim countries are intolerant or uncivilised. In most Arab countries (except Iraq since 2003) christians are tolerated and live their life. Noone is proposing to "transfer" or kill them, except a few extremists.
And you can walk anywhere in Cairo at night without problem, if you ask directions people will help you and invite you over, no matter if you are Jewish, muslim or christian. I don't think that's the case in Florida, or in France. And you won't find kinder people than Iranians. Moroccans and algerians have a very bad reputation, but that's not because they are muslim.

ItsMyJewty

01-24-2009, 06:18 AM

Takeo, I have asked you a question in this thread (on two occasions) and I'd like an answer please.

PS. I think it is a little hypocritical of you to say that CanDo is full of hate when you so liberally accuse people - wrongly - of advocating ethnic cleansing and genocide. CanDo's words are, in any case, borne out by fact (facts you do not wish to confront) and reflect majority opinion.

CanDo

01-24-2009, 06:23 AM

CanDo

This 60+ years of violence is not only due to the Arabs, but due to Israel as well.

Nonsense. If Israel's neighbors were Hindus, Buddhists, Kurds, etc., there not only would not have been war over the past 60+ years, Jews would be still living peacefully within those more civilized non-Muslim/Arab nations of the Middle East. Unfortunately, most of the Middle East has been conquered by hostile, backward Muslims/Arabs.

But...... seeing that ALL Muslim/Arab nations teach hatred of others in the schools and mosques, what else could be expected?

Is it any wonder why almost all of the terrorism, throughout this world, comes from the hateful, backward, violent, racist, religiously intolerant, uncivilized Muslim/Arab world?

The Muslim/Arab world has clearly shown that no civilized, peaceful minority can ever live peacefully within the tentacles of hatred, bigotry and barbarism of Muslims/Arabs. No chance in HELL, of any civilized society peacefully co-existing with the Muslim/Arab culture of hate.

No, my friend........ the only path to a just peace, is to rid "Greater" Israel of all Muslims/Arabs FOREVER! Jews must take back the Judeo-Christian towns of Bethlehem and Jericho, etc. Then, after peace breaks out for good, and only then, will you see Christians coming back home, rather than being driven out by the barbaric Muslims/Arabs of those previously Judeo-Christian towns.

CanDo

01-24-2009, 07:45 AM

... CanDo's words are, in any case, borne out by fact (facts you do not wish to confront) and reflect majority opinion.

Hmmmmm!? I wonder how many agree, that "asking" the Pals to leave "Greater Israel", (including Gaza, West Bank) is feasible? It would have to be done quickly, taking no more than a week. Is that possible? There would be much violence. Possibly a lot of shelling from Hezbollah, but I am not sure that they would come to the rescue. They didn't this time.

The world would be outraged. Israel would have no friends. It would probably be a good idea to leak out that Israel was readying it's nuclear arsenal, prior to "inviting" the Pals to leave. Israel, of course, would deny that anything was going on.

I wonder if it is even possible?

Could you imagine an Israel that would be much safer within it's own borders? Sure, there would be threats from outside of Israel's borders, but those would be State threats, something that would require a war, not just daily terrorist attacks.

What do you think?

Y. Shulamith

01-24-2009, 10:05 AM

One group is going to stay and the other is going to be not there anymore. I don't know when it will come, or how, or who does what, but like the situation with Native Americans, there is going to be one winner and one loser, because that is the nature of this problem. I do not ever see appeasement working in the situation with Israel and the Arabs.

All the spinning the wheels is just that and someday, it will come to a very bad end in one way or another.

CanDo

01-24-2009, 10:40 AM

One group is going to stay and the other is going to be not there anymore. I don't know when it will come, or how, or who does what, ...

The ONLY way for one group to leave is for all Jews to voluntarily leave Israel, which is never going to happen, or if Israel forcefully is able to evacuate the Arabs/Muslims from Gaza, West Bank, and from Israel.

I do not ever see appeasement working in the situation with Israel and the Arabs.

I agree with you. But, this being the case, has Israel any other choice than to force out ALL of the Arabs/Muslims (with a few exceptions)? If not, the Jews of Israel are going to be in for an eternal, nasty struggle against violent, crazed barbarians.

All the spinning the wheels is just that and someday, it will come to a very bad end in one way or another.

I agree.

What do you feel about my suggestion, that Israel drive ALL Muslims/Arabs out of "Greater" Israel, similar to the way that the Muslims/Arabs drove ALL Jews out of the rest of the Middle East, but in a more humane manner? Is it at all possible?

ItsMyJewty

01-24-2009, 12:28 PM

CanDo: Hmmmmm!? I wonder how many agree, that "asking" the Pals to leave "Greater Israel", (including Gaza, West Bank) is feasible? It would have to be done quickly, taking no more than a week. Is that possible? There would be much violence. Possibly a lot of shelling from Hezbollah, but I am not sure that they would come to the rescue. They didn't this time.

The world would be outraged. Israel would have no friends. It would probably be a good idea to leak out that Israel was readying it's nuclear arsenal, prior to "inviting" the Pals to leave. Israel, of course, would deny that anything was going on.

I wonder if it is even possible?

Could you imagine an Israel that would be much safer within it's own borders? Sure, there would be threats from outside of Israel's borders, but those would be State threats, something that would require a war, not just daily terrorist attacks.

What do you think?

Hi CanDo,

I was referring to your views in general - nothing specific. As for the above, I don't know whether it's possible. I am, however, against giving away the West Bank to the Pals. Gaza's enough and look at the trouble that's caused. Sure you'll agree.

Y. Shulamith

01-24-2009, 01:04 PM

I don't know any answers.....I had a chance to ask an orthodox rabbi in my town when there would be peace in the middle east and he said "there will be peace in the middle east when the moschiach comes" so I guess some maybe there will be a peacemaker, that as yet, hasn't shown up yet, some charismatic personality, and then, just maybe, there would be peace, eh?????

CanDo

01-24-2009, 01:12 PM

... I am, however, against giving away the West Bank to the Pals. Gaza's enough and look at the trouble that's caused. Sure you'll agree.

The Arabs/Muslims are going to continue their terrorist ways, and thwart any efforts towards peace, until they get their goal of the destruction of Israel. If anything, Jewish settlements in the West Bank MUST increase and spread!

CanDo

01-24-2009, 01:15 PM

... I had a chance to ask an orthodox rabbi in my town when there would be peace in the middle east and he said "there will be peace in the middle east when the moschiach comes" ...

Your post just reminded me that it was time to renew my membership to the International Atheist Society. ;)

Reffo

01-24-2009, 01:54 PM

Maybe if the likes of you wouldn't keep the likes of me so busy defending Israel from your blood libels, I would have more time to look elsewhere ...

You seem to be more worried by my posts than by the ones proposing ethnic cleansing. I worry about you because you support those who want to ethnically cleanse Israel of Jews.

I can't expect them to unilaterally change their aspirations to destroy Israel?

Not BEFORE the negociations start, of course once a deal is agreed up, they have to change these aspirations, both in words and in deeds. It will be part of the deal.OK then, you should give the same answer below ...

But Israel doesn't seem to have any intention to withdraw. They still enlarge settlements....why should Israel do anything before "negociations start"? Why Takeo? Double standards maybe?

No! Did I say that?

By not replying you give the impression to agree with it.But I did reply.

And by denying and/or minimising historic Arab intentions to "Drive the Jews into the sea", you give the impression that you are in favour of that.

I'm not agreeing or minimising that! I always openly said I'm against that "solution", also and especially when I'm talking with Arabs. Besides you seem to think that that's the general opinion of most Arabs. It's not, maybe 60 years ago, but not any longer.1967 was not 60 years ago and Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are openly saying so even today. And many more, silently or not so silently aspire for it still. Remember, in the last elections, the majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas.

Some visitors have and I didn't see you jumping in and repudiating them.

Any example? Whenever anyone propagates such things I will not let it pass unanswered.Let's try it the other way: Perhaps you could produce even one link where you repudiated an Israel hater who came to this forum and promised the destruction of Israel. Give me just ONE such link where you stood up and defended Israel's right to exist against a hater of Israel!

You advocate that Israel should place it's major population centres into the same predicament that Sderot has been in for the last 7 years without ANY REAL guarantees that the Palestinian Arabs will not subject them to the same thing [as Sderot endured] down the track.

of course there should be garantees. That's why I don't favor a unilateral withdrawel, as some propose.But you don't insist that the Arabs should formally repudiate their previous pretexts for war.

Most Israelis don't support ethnic cleansing and I have distanced myself from the ones who do, both before and NOW!

Now you did, for the first time. But you never directly confront them with the consequences of their ideas. In that way visitors of this forum get the impression that most Israel-defenders tolerate or support such ideas.Not for the first time. Here is a link where I disagreed with Kettlewhistle's approach:

Click Here

But let's take a look at YOU now: By your own logic, you side with the Palestinians, many of whom want to destroy Israel, so you support the destruction of Israel!

I side with Palestinians, like you defend Israel. You have the right to defend Israel, I have the right to side with the Palestinian cause. But it doesn't mean I support the destruction of Israel (nor do most Palestinians or Arabs), on the contrary, I will (and did) speak out against it. But you rarily speak out against people who advocate ethnic cleansing (or even slaughtering christian missionaries which your Indian friends on this forum supported repeatedly on this thread, what do you think about that?).I just used YOUR OWN LOGIC against you but that's NOT why I DO believe that you work for Israel's destruction. I believe it because of what you actually SAY against Israel: The lies, the exaggerations, the blood libels and the self destructive solutions that you expect of Israel.

I am glad you brought that up because in the past, I asked you to show me links (on OTHER FORUMS) where you spoke up against anti Israel extremists and what a surprise: You never responded

On other forums? I prefere not to reveal my identity on other forums, because of privacy concerns. Besides I don't only participate in English-language forums, but equally French, Russian and even a Spanish one. Now it's all a bit less since I don't have a lot of time, most of my free time goes to travelling.I didn't know that you use your real identity in other forums. Nice excuse though Takeo but I don't buy it ...:lol:

I didn't deny any crimes or wrongdoings of the Arabs. All I said is that these are no excuse for Israel's crimes and wrongdoings. (which you deny)You may eventually own up to it, under heavy duress (very heavy), but you certainly deny the significance of Arab wrongdoings and you expect Israel to act as if they have no meaning!:mad:

And what is EXTREMELY NONSENSICAL is to suggest dangerous solutions that would jeopardize Israel's future!

The solution I suggest is equally the solution Obama, the UN, Abbas and many others want. We don't really know yet what Obama proposes but I hope that he will be a lot more demanding on the Arabs too than you are. I hope that he will expect them to formally renounce their past pretexts for war in return for Israel giving up land. And I previously explained to you what I meant by "Formally".

Reffo

01-24-2009, 02:33 PM

Did I say that they don't need to sit together and find common ground?

You said they had to accept the unilateral Barab-Clinton proposal.I didn't say they had to, I said that had they accepted it, there would have been a two state solution by now..

Yep, it sure will! Seven years of rocket bombardments onto the heads of up to 1 million Israelis in the south of Israel ... it's likely to harden the hearts and negotiating position of Israelis.

And killing000 people, most of them civilians, will equally harden the Palestinian hearts and negociating positions. This war will make a solution more difficult.Yep, sad but true. And it could have been so different if only there would not have been Seven years of rocket bombardments onto the heads of up to 1 million Israelis in the south of Israel ..

Cut the crap Takeo! I have already responded to this three times before but you suddenly got shy and forgot to respond in return. Now here is what I had to say again:

Hamas does not recognize Israel and therefore IT HAS NOT BEEN WILLING to have direct talks with Israelis. It has ONLY been willing to negotiate via intermediaries and only about what they want from Israel and the ONLY thing that they have been willing to offer in return is a temporary stop of violence until they feel stronger to start a new wave of violence. To sum up, Hamas has not been willing to negotiate, they are ONLY willing to EXTORT!

But Israel has never extended a hand to Hamas, on the contrary by blocking Gaza they did the inverse. I think that if Israel is willing to have direct talks with Hamas leaders, they will follow suit.Show me where Hamas said that "they would follow suit", quote and link please!

On the other hand, all you need to do is look at the Hamas charter which clearly says that they don't recognize Israel and that their aim is to destroy Israel. Maybe Hamas should extended a hand to Israel instead?

To be continued...

Reffo

01-24-2009, 05:09 PM

That is exactly what has been going on but it seems that there is some kind of impasse. Why are you blaming Israel for that impasse?

atleast partially. Problem is that some parties which support the Israeli government don't want any compromise, don't want to end settlements in Westbank, don't want to talk about Jerusalem, etc. Another problem is that elections are looming in Israel, which radicals like Netanyahu are most likely going to win. Netanyahu doesn't want withdrawel, wants to further expand settlements, doesn't want to talk about Jersualem, etc. So what's the point to negociate when Netanyahu will reverse everything? And than there's the war, now Abbas will not sit on the same table of the people who killed over 1000 Palestinians, at least for a while, that would not be accepted by Palestinian public opinion. The same goes for Syria, altough talks with syriawill most likely resume, according to Assad himself. But Turkey is no longer willing to mediate as a result of the war in Gaza.We get it already Takeo, stop repeating yourself. Arabs use violence and make war, Israel responds with violence and it is Israel's fault, repeat ad nauseum!

Israel makes specific peace offers, Arabs say it's not enough without making a counter offer that Israel can accept and it is Israel's fault, repeat ad nauseum.

As Medio says, we get it already Takeo, stop repeating yourself pullllleeeeeze :banghead: :banghead::banghead:

I've asked you this before but you got shy with your response! Did Abass say HOW MANY refugees he expects Israel to allow into Israel? And please don't just make it up as you go along give me an exact quote and a link to back up your answer.

I've already quoted Abbas, using your own link, on this same thread, remember? He didn't say how many, but, like Arafat, he said he's willing to compromise, holding Israel's demographic concerns in mind, and he said Israel should have a Jewish majority. Exact numbers will be negociated upon on the negociating table. Don't forget what a major concession that is: it means Palestinians no longer demand the full implementation of the UN-resolution, for the sake of peace.Again, we get it Takeo! Barak made a specific offer to accept a small number of refugees and compensate the rest (without asking for compensation for Jewish refugees). Arafat said, it's not enough but didn't say how many would be enough. But somehow in your warped mentality it is Israel who is at fault, right Takeo?

You are "sure"? There you go again with your unlimited faith .... are you sure that you are not secretly religious? It wouldn't by any chance be turned into the same farce as the conference on racism which was held in South Africa in 2001?

In 2001 Israel was busy destroying what was left of the Palestinian Autority, and destroying Jenin and other Palestinian camps and cities. The mood during that time was hostile to Israel, for logical reasons.Yep, Takeo, and prior to that the "poor Arabs" were just minding their own business. Or did they? My recollection is that they initiated the Intifada and a bloody campaign of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians in response to Barak's peace offer.

They sure did! And that's when Clinton cajoled and applied pressure on Barak to make concessions.

perhaps, but certainly not openly. Any American or Israeli proposal was talked trough before presenting it to the Palestinians, who were openly pressured.OK, again we get it: Israel has to be openly pressured, it isn't good enough to secretly pressure Israel to make major concessions because if it is done in secret then whoever pressures Israel, toes the Israeli line and they are the same as Israel, we get it already Takeo :banghead:

Then again, I wonder how openly pressuring Israel helped in the past? In 1956, Israel was openly pressured by America to unconditionally give Sinai back to Egypt, instead of making it conditional on Egypt to recognize Israel's right to exist in return (as Israel asked). So, Sinai was returned unconditionally but peace didn't follow. What a surprise!

So I take it you have not read the book by Dennis Ross, "The Missing Peace"? That book outlines what went on, not just at the Camp David the peace negotiations but the negotiations under various other administrations, it's an eye opener. Have you read it Takeo? Yes or no? It is a simple question, why is it so difficult for you to answer it?

I didn't yet, but I'm sure I will, I've already located the book in the university library of UCL.
Of course this is just the opinion of Ross. I already quoted other negociators, and you refused to reply to that. Yep, just his opinion of the US Chief Middle East negotiator who was at every meeting and constantly talked to both parties for years. Just his opinion ... what is that worth as against the opinions of people in the peripheries (at best) of the negotiation process, right Takeo? :scratch:

Reffo

01-24-2009, 05:30 PM

Well, yes they're partly responsible. But the ethnic cleansing was not a necessary part of the war, it was a deliberate choice of Israel. A result of the war, but still a deliberate and strategical choice.OK, we are getting somewhere at long last! How long did it take me to get you to this point of admitting that the Palestinian Arabs were at least co-responsible for the refugee problem? And let us not forget that they were co-responsible for at least an equal number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries!

And as far as your "ethnic cleansing" canard against Israel: This is what one of the more honest Arab leaders said about it:

Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees... while it is we who made them leave.... We brought disaster upon ... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave.... We have rendered them dispossessed.... We have accustomed them to begging.... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level.... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon ... men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes ....
-- Khaled Al-Azm, Syria's Prime Minister after the 1948 war

But even if the Arabs are just co-responsible rather than responsible, why dou you expect only Israel to make the concessions? Why don't you expect the Palestinian Arabs too to make concessions for peace?

ItsMyJewty

01-25-2009, 04:14 AM

CanDo: The Arabs/Muslims are going to continue their terrorist ways, and thwart any efforts towards peace, until they get their goal of the destruction of Israel. If anything, Jewish settlements in the West Bank MUST increase and spread!

In full agreement with you there!

Meanwhile, it would appear that takeo, who's privately seething with rage that Israel even exists, has once again run off with his tail between his legs. The poor fellow is obviously unable to engage in meaningful discussion or face the truth.

Madeline

01-25-2009, 04:27 AM

In full agreement with you there!

Meanwhile, it would appear that takeo, who's privately seething with rage that Israel even exists, has once again run off with his tail between his legs. The poor fellow is obviously unable to engage in meaningful discussion or face the truth.
I don't know about everyone else, but I am getting so tired of his same-old, day in, day out. He is so predictable...and I just got here.

CanDo

01-25-2009, 04:39 AM

... Meanwhile, it would appear that takeo, who's privately seething with rage that Israel even exists, has once again run off with his tail between his legs.

Takeo will be back. He's got very thick skin.

The poor fellow is obviously unable to engage in meaningful discussion or face the truth.

Takeo is part of the world-wide antiSemitic, anti-Christian, anti-Hindu Muslim movement. The cancer and hatred of Islam is spreading throughout this world. There are these dreadful mosques springing up all over the place, like weeds.

Slugs like takeo won't be happy until the Jewish State of Israel is replaced with another demented, racist, violent, uncivilized Muslim State. That is his truth.

Mediocrates

01-25-2009, 07:11 AM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1232643736968

Y. Shulamith

01-25-2009, 07:20 AM

Your post just reminded me that it was time to renew my membership to the International Atheist Society. ;)

:rofl:Yeah, but it's as good a guess as any, eh?

maven

01-25-2009, 08:47 AM

How many Gazans does it take to fit a light bulb?
None, the mamzeyrim have no electricity! Boom!

Kal-El

01-25-2009, 11:22 AM

Kal-El

01-25-2009, 01:12 PM

This is the Unseen Gaza documentary on YouTube.

Is what has been presented on our screens and in our papers a true reflection of events on the ground in Gaza? And how do these reports differ to those aired in other countries?

With reporters unable to enter Gaza, attempted media manipulation from both sides and strict regulations governing what images that can be shown on British TV, Jon Snow asks a range of journalists from at home and abroad about the challenges of getting the full story.

Featuring images that haven't before been aired on mainstream television, Jon also examines the difference between the coverage at home and that in the US, Europe and the Middle East. He compares the coverage available on terrestrial channels with satellite TV and the internet and investigates the extent to which some British Muslims are by-passing the mainstream British media and looking elsewhere for their information.

To what extent does the choice of news outlet affect opinion of the conflict?

Watch (http://uk.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=376555338355A912&playnext=1)

Reffo

01-25-2009, 01:23 PM

Meanwhile, it would appear that takeo, who's privately seething with rage that Israel even exists, has once again run off with his tail between his legs. The poor fellow is obviously unable to engage in meaningful discussion or face the truth.If he keeps on tying himself up in knots at this rate, even Houdini will not be able to free him ...

I can't wait to see how he will respond next (I guess I agree with CanDo who says that Takeo will be back...). I am beginning to find him amusing :lol: How perverse of me :(

Aviva

01-25-2009, 01:26 PM

Hi,

I'm a new member (as you can tell) whose wanted to gather the opinions and views of a particular documentary aired in the UK last week. It actually heavily relates to the BBC decision that's caused controversy here over the past few days. I can't make a thread yet, I've tried to contact someone via PM but there's a 10minute limit. I'm wondering if anyone could create a thread and discuss this documentary?

Thanks

Hello Kal-El

Why do you want to gather opinions about this documentary? For what purpose? It was on TV, so it's already in the public domain. I'm in the UK and I decided not to watch it when it aired.

Kal-El

01-25-2009, 01:29 PM

Hello Ka-El

Why do you want to gather opinions about this documentary? For what purpose?

Hi Aviva,

Because interestingly, both sides (even on forums) claim bias from the media. This is even highlighted in the documentary where an Arab family and Jewish family are interviewed. However I am curious to hear the opinions of primarily Israel supporters, or Israeli themselves because so far I've only managed to reach Muslims and a group of students whose opinions greatly vary. I tried to create a thread, tried to PM others to create one for me based on this but no luck so far :(

Reffo

01-25-2009, 01:30 PM

I'm a new member (as you can tell) whose wanted to gather the opinions and views of a particular documentary aired in the UK last week. It actually heavily relates to the BBC decision that's caused controversy here over the past few days. I can't make a thread yet, I've tried to contact someone via PM but there's a 10minute limit. I'm wondering if anyone could create a thread and discuss this documentary?
Welcome. My suggestion is that you should post your posts on your topic on the following thread until you'll clock up sufficient number of posts (I think it's 10 but I am not sure).

BBC crisis over refusal to broadcast Gaza appeal (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=15052)

Good Luck.

Yala

01-25-2009, 01:34 PM

Hi Aviva,

Because interestingly, both sides (even on forums) claim bias from the media. This is even highlighted in the documentary where an Arab family and Jewish family are interviewed. However I am curious to hear the opinions of primarily Israel supporters, or Israeli themselves because so far I've only managed to reach Muslims and a group of students whose opinions greatly vary. I tried to create a thread, tried to PM others to create one for me based on this but no luck so far :(

Well in the first 2 minutes alone you can see they only showed gruesome pictures of dead Palestinian babies so why are they pretending they want to show both sides? I know Israelis don't allow their dead to be filmed, b/c it is disgusting and immoral to exploit the dead, but the director could at least show some rockets and their results. Britain is just incapable of giving Israel a fair shot, but we Jews are over it already. There is a reason the British Jewish community is 200k and dwindling every year. I know a few Brits who moved to Israel and the US myself in recent years.

Aviva

01-25-2009, 01:35 PM

Hi Aviva,

Because interestingly, both sides (even on forums) claim bias from the media. This is even highlighted in the documentary where an Arab family and Jewish family are interviewed. However I am curious to hear the opinions of primarily Israel supporters, or Israeli themselves because so far I've only managed to reach Muslims and a group of students whose opinions greatly vary. I tried to create a thread, tried to PM others to create one for me based on this but no luck so far :(

As suggested, you could put it in this thread as it relates to the same subject:
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=15045

I didn't watch that documentary on C4 because I assumed it would be pro-Palestinian propaganda. The very title 'Unseen Gaza' put me off.

Madeline

01-25-2009, 01:36 PM

Well in the first 2 minutes alone you can see they only showed gruesome pictures of dead Palestinian babies so why are they pretending they want to show both sides? I know Israelis don't allow their dead to be filmed, b/c it is disgusting and immoral to exploit the dead, but the director could at least show some rockets and their results. Britain is just incapable of giving Israel a fair shot, but we Jews are over it already. There is a reason the British Jewish community is 200k and dwindling every year. I know a few Brits who moved to Israel and the US myself in recent years.
Propaganda, and the wrong kind. No thanks

Kal-El

01-25-2009, 01:38 PM

Kal-El

01-25-2009, 01:41 PM

As suggested, you could put it in this thread as it relates to the same subject:
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=15045

I didn't watch that documentary on C4 because I assumed it would be pro-Palestinian propaganda. The very title 'Unseen Gaza' put me off.

I understand. I see it alot. People accuse Sky of being anti-Arab, and BBC being anti-Israel. The documentary itself talks to people of both sides, especially in the media here. I'll be honest, they're quite critical of Israel but not on what you'd expect. They hate the idea of Gaza being blocked from the media, I feel that this grows suspicion on the minds of the media. Several times in the documentary, you hear them talk about this.

But the counter argument is made, of the fact that if the media were allowed into Gaza, Hamas would use it as their own propaganda. It leaves the question for the viewer, should everything be open to the TV camera's.

Thanks for the replies.

Yala

01-25-2009, 01:45 PM

Hi Yala,

If you watch the documentary, you see they cover destruction caused by the rockets in Israel. But do you feel the media here are bias against Israel?

I'll watch the whole thing and tell you what I think. The first 3 minutes of the introduction just showed the Palestinian side as I mentioned. I'm up to minute 8 and I see they just showed the rockets that Israel displayed at the place where journalists check in in Israel. Showing these and holding up pamphlets on Hamas that Israel gave, the journalist Jon Snow called it "propaganda." Real balanced!

Kal-El

01-25-2009, 01:47 PM

I'll watch the whole thing and tell you what I think. The first 3 minutes of the introduction just showed the Palestinian side as I mentioned. I'm up to minute 8 and I see they just showed the rockets that Israel displayed at the place where journalists check in in Israel. Showing these and holding up pamphlets on Hamas that Israel gave, the journalist Jon Snow called it "propaganda." Real balanced!

Please watch it all as you will find they talk of propaganda that Hamas portray as well.

Aviva

01-25-2009, 01:48 PM

But do you feel the media here are bias against Israel?

Yes, the UK media nearly always takes the Palestinian point of view. But then, the Palestinians are fully aware of this and exploit every opportunity to show their dead and exaggerate civilian casualty figures. If you are genuinely interested in bias, then notice how Israelis never show gruesome pictures and never manipulate that kind of response from the public.

For example, there was a news story a few months ago of the Palestinian government meeting in candle-light, to draw attention to their electricity shortage and yet the camera showed that it daylight outside. The whole thing was a staged manipulation, which is very typical of Palestinian propaganda.

The BBC has been accused many times of bias, even though the Palestinians kidnapped their journalist Alan Johnson a couple of years ago and they were lucky to get him back alive. During the siege on Gaza they still asked on their website for Gazans to send pictures to them, so they were basically asking for Palestinian propaganda images to broadcast.

There are 1.75 million Muslims in the UK and only 300,000 Jews. The UK's media definitely concentrates on showing the Muslim point of view, for obvious reasons.

Kal-El

01-25-2009, 01:50 PM

Yes, the UK media nearly always takes the Palestinian point of view. But then, the Palestinians are fully aware of this and exploit every opportunity to show their dead and exaggerate civilian casualty figures. If you are genuinely interested in bias, then notice how Israelis never show gruesome pictures and never manipulate that kind of response from the public.

For example, there was a news story a few months ago of the Palestinian government meeting in candle-light, to draw attention to their electricity shortage and yet the camera showed that it daylight outside. The whole thing was a staged manipulation, which is very typical of Palestinian propaganda.

The BBC has been accused many times of bias, even though the Palestinians kidnapped their journalist Alan Johnson a couple of years ago and they were lucky to get him back alive. During the siege on Gaza they still asked on their website for Gazans to send pictures to them, so they were basically asking for Palestinian propaganda images to broadcast.

There are 1.75 million Muslims in the UK and only 300,000 Jews. The UK's media definitely concentrates on showing the Muslim point of view, for obvious reasons.

Interesting points. There seems to be a real divide in the media here in Europe compared to in America for example. Polar opposites

Aviva

01-25-2009, 01:51 PM

But the counter argument is made, of the fact that if the media were allowed into Gaza, Hamas would use it as their own propaganda. It leaves the question for the viewer, should everything be open to the TV camera's.

Yes, this is true.

Also, the Palestinians would try hard to ensure casualties even deaths amongst the media if they were allowed into Gaza. They achieved hits on UN buildings by firing rockets from them. I believe they would try to achieve attacks on foreign journalists in exactly the same way. It's exactly how groups like Hamas operate.

Yala

01-25-2009, 01:54 PM

13 minutes in was the first shot of what happened when a kassam lands in Israel...still watching...

Yala

01-25-2009, 01:56 PM

Yes, this is true.

Also, the Palestinians would try hard to ensure casualties even deaths amongst the media if they were allowed into Gaza. They achieved hits on UN buildings by firing rockets from them. I believe they would try to achieve attacks on foreign journalists in exactly the same way. It's exactly how groups like Hamas operate.

Exactly Aviva. They would try and have the IDF shoot a foreign journalist, which is why Israel kept them out.

Kal-El

01-25-2009, 02:00 PM

Aviva

01-25-2009, 02:03 PM

13 minutes in was the first shot of what happened when a kassam lands in Israel...still watching...

This is a good point because, Kal-El, this is exactly what's lacking in the UK media's presentation of this crisis. They're not showing historical context in their headlines about what's happening. They're just trying to appease the liberals and the Muslims.

Gaza is in a terrible state of destruction because it freely elected terrorists to govern it. All those terrorists have done since they got into power is attack their neighbour, so their neighbour has to keep a very tight security check on them. They've fired rockets at Israel for literally years.

The territory of Gaza was given to the Palestinians in 2005 in return for peace. This is the worst part of this saga: this entire situation has occurred because Israel gave up land for peace.

But you'll rarely see these basic facts of comprehension on UK TV. It makes me sick, it really does.

Kal-El

01-25-2009, 02:05 PM

13 minutes in was the first shot of what happened when a kassam lands in Israel...still watching...

Yala, although it shows attacks on Israel as reference to show the context of this conflict, you won't see e.g. 50% showing clips of damages to Israel and 50% damages in Gaza as the documentary is based on the media presentation of Gaza itself, in the eyes of Israelis, journalists and Arabs so the majority of the footage will be Gaza related naturally,

I'm sorry if this isn't what you expected. I should have explained in more detail

Kal-El

01-25-2009, 02:07 PM

This is a good point because, Kal-El, this is exactly what's lacking in the UK media's presentation of this crisis. They're not showing historical context in their headlines about what's happening. They're just trying to appease the liberals and the Muslims.

Gaza is in a terrible state of destruction because it freely elected terrorists to govern it. All those terrorists have done since they got into power is attack their neighbour, so their neighbour has to keep a very tight security check on them. They've fired rockets at Israel for literally years.

The territory of Gaza was given to the Palestinians in 2005 in return for peace. This is the worst part of this sags: this entire situation has occurred because Israel gave up land for peace.

But you'll rarely see these basic facts of comprehension on UK TV. It makes me sick, it really does.

This is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post about my opinion. But like I said, if you focus on the issue between Hamas and Israel - you are providing context to the overall conflict. But that will trigger calls of bias because the humanitarian consequence would be overshadowed. And vice versa.

Yala

01-25-2009, 02:10 PM

20 min in, part 3. British Muslims were interviewed and upset that British media did not show the charred body of an infant...

Aviva

01-25-2009, 02:12 PM

This is my opinion.

It seems to me that there are three groups in this conflict in the media. Hamas, Israel and the people of Gaza. When the story is focusing between Israel and Hamas, people complain that the humanitarian issue is being ignored and thus the media is bias to Israel.

When the pictures are dominated, however, by dead Palestinians and the story becomes entirely the humanitarian issue, people feel that this sways public perception for sympathy for Palestinians alone and not Israelis hence claims of bias against Israel.

But how do you balance reporting each of these groups fairly? In my opinion, pictures of dead people on the TV, will almost always out shadow destroyed buildings and cars (in Israel). In the documentary, a Jewish family complains about this because it's considered bias against Israel. It seems both sides feel that focusing sympathy for one group, means you lack sympathy for the other group.

This is the main problem - the perception that Hamas and the Palestinians are separate. I believe the majority of Palestinians are Hamas supporters and the orchestration of this humanitarian crisis is very much part of their media hijack. They are appealing to the world to help them against their enemy and they really don't care how many people suffer and die to achieve that end. Everyone is to be a martyr for their overall cause.

For that reason, I think the BBC is right not to involve itself in their humanitarian appeal.

Why aren't the rich Arab states helping them? Did you know that the Palestinians receive the most aid per capita than any other group in the world? Where does all that money go?

Yala

01-25-2009, 02:18 PM

Yala

01-25-2009, 02:22 PM

22 min in Reuters editor actually states that the medic holding up the charred body and crowds around it screaming Allah Akbar "was part of a propaganda exercise."

Yala

01-25-2009, 02:24 PM

25 min in British Muslims watching the exploitation of dead bodies on Arab news reports with bizarre grins on their faces.

Aviva

01-25-2009, 02:25 PM

But this is not correct. If they are going to show the humanitarian side of Gaza, then they should've been showing the humanitarian side of Sderot and other Israeli towns battered by rocket fire for the last 8 years. They were absent for 8 years then show day and night Israel attacking Gaza. People have no sense of the conflict, they don't know the context. The media has been very irresponsible and one-sided in Britain.

Besides, why are Europeans infantilizing Palestinians? They elected Hamas so why are they separating the people of Gaza from Hamas? They freely elected terrorists to rule them.

I agree.

Both sides terrorised each other but the difference in the humanitarian approaches is that Israel did everything it possibly could do to protect it's civilians and soldiers from harm. The Palestinians did everything they could possibly do to ensure they could present the world with maximum civilian casualties to gain maximum sympathy from it.

The world then demonises Israel because the Palestinians do all they can to get themselves hurt.

It's terrorist propaganda that works. It's like a mass suicide bombing. You get yourselves killed but you make sure you take your enemy's reputation with you.

Yala

01-25-2009, 02:26 PM

Yala, although it shows attacks on Israel as reference to show the context of this conflict, you won't see e.g. 50% showing clips of damages to Israel and 50% damages in Gaza as the documentary is based on the media presentation of Gaza itself, in the eyes of Israelis, journalists and Arabs so the majority of the footage will be Gaza related naturally,

I'm sorry if this isn't what you expected. I should have explained in more detail

The problem is they are not reporting anything of substance from Israel. As I stated in my earlier post, where have they been for 8 years?

They always report the Palestinian side, or the Palestinian humanitarian side as you have called it. Even this special revolves around the Palestinians, so there you have it.

CanDo

01-25-2009, 02:27 PM

... Besides, why are Europeans infantilizing Palestinians? They elected Hamas so why are they separating the people of Gaza from Hamas? They freely elected terrorists to rule them.

The Muslims/Arabs in Gaza openly support the violent cretins of Hamas. Gazans strap bomb-belts around their kids waists, in order to kill other people's families. As you stated, the Muslims/Arabs of Gaza freely elected the Hamas goons, so the Gazans deserve the misery that Hamas has wrought upon them. A fitting punishment for years of uncivilized, racist, religiously intolerant behavior!

If the Muslims/Arabs in Gaza behave like beasts, they should be treated like beasts.

Mediocrates

01-25-2009, 02:30 PM

Having completed numerous combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I watched the television footage of Israeli soldiers deploying on Operation Cast Lead with a jolt of familiarity. I saw the emotions that I have felt in the past. I was eager to do my job properly, I had confidence in my abilities and those of my comrades, but I was also apprehensive. That apprehension was not just the fear of what harm may have come to me or my mates, but also the worry that my judgement would fail if I was called upon to make the snap decision to take anotherâ€™s life. The pressure of these conflicting emotions coupled with the stress of battle is immense. The majority of us called upon to withstand them are young men, some as young as 18.

That is why the casual bandying around of terms like â€˜war crimesâ€™ so enraged me when I heard it directed at British soldiers during protest in London. I feel no different when it is levelled at Israeli soldiers. I accept that soldiers enjoy no immunity from the law and that our actions must be scrutinised but that judgement must be a measured weighing of factors, not a knee jerk emotive statement such as that made by Ban Ki-Moon nor a trial by media. I believe that I and other soldiers understand the stress, friction and confusion that combat brings in a way that media commentators and UN bureaucrats never can.

Urban warfare is complicated, disorientating and utterly confusing even in conventional operations. When an enemy, such as Hamas, is willing to dress in civilian clothing, attack from legally protected sites and use civilians as human shields it becomes fiendishly difficult.

The destruction of the UN School, cited by Ban Ki-Moon, is a case in point. The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) maintains that its soldiers came under fire from that position. They returned fire; that is what soldiers under contact do. It would appear that light artillery guns or mortars were used. These are emphatically not the â€˜smartâ€™ weapons that civilians fondly imagine all war to be fought with. It is commonplace fact of war that such munitions do not always land were they are supposed to.

The urban environment can seriously hinder even the most sophisticated of radio communications, leading to command and control becoming fractured. The assertion by the UN that they provided the IDF with the grid references of their locations is valid. However, it is a fact that often information is not always passed down the chain of command, this is more likely to occur due to the fog of war rather than any malicious intent.

The IDF have also faced accusations that they have attacked ambulances. Again, I cannot speak for the veracity of these claims nor do I seek to diminish the serious nature of such attacks. The British Armyâ€™s enemy in Iraq, Jaish Al Mahdi routinely used vehicles marked as ambulances to transport arms, ammunition and fighters around Basra. Like Hamas, Jaish Al Mahdi received training and equipment from Iran.

During the course of Israeli operations in Gaza the whole of the media seems to have become expert in the use of white phosphorous. Most commentators either do not know, or have refused to acknowledge, that the use of white phosphorous is not illegal. The Geneva conventions do restrict the use of white phosphorous in certain circumstances, but it is used almost daily by British forces in Afghanistan.

The IDF have stated that, during this operation, they fired a total of 200 shells containing phosphorous. 20 of these shells were fired in urban areas and the use of those 20 is being investigated in line with these restrictions.
White phosphorous is used because it provides an instant smokescreen, other munitions can provide a smokescreen but the effect is not instant.

Faced with overwhelming enemy fire and wounded comrades, every commander would choose to screen his men instantly, to do otherwise would be negligent.

Much has been made of Israelâ€™s â€˜disproportionate and excessiveâ€™ use of force in Gaza. Footage of Gaza released today does show devastating damage to individual buildings, but this is no Stalingrad. A fact often unappreciated by those with no military experience is that the selective use of overwhelming force, aimed at key targets, actually shortens conflict and saves lives. In Basra in 2003 the USA and the UK chose to use extreme force against locations that had been fortified by the Baâ€™ath Party, in order to spare our troops and the people of Basra the horror of a drawn-out street battle. It appears that the IDF made the same choice in Gaza.

I do not argue that any soldier should be outside of the law, any army that allows such a thing is not worthy of the name. I do believe, however, that the least the world can do for young men returning from combat is to offer them the basic right to have their actions considered on the basis of events and the context in which they occurred.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3286561/a-british-soldiers-view-of-operation-cast-lead.thtml

Y. Shulamith

01-25-2009, 02:32 PM

25 min in British Muslims watching the exploitation of dead bodies on Arab news reports with bizarre grins on their faces.

Thank you for watching it and reporting it's contents. I had just had dinner and didn't want to spoil the contents thereof by heaving.:D

Hamas - Fatah - Gaza - Palestinians = Iran.

Madeline

01-25-2009, 02:39 PM

What a well written article. Very educational.

Sharona

01-25-2009, 02:44 PM

The timelines, strategies and responsibilities need to be highlighted.

The Israeli's pull their citizens out of Gaza - land for peace.

Hamas retaliates to that 'land for peace' by firing rockets into Israel for years.
A deliberate act of provocation.

Israel doesn't retaliate. It builds shelters for its people - hence few casualties. But why not consider the psychological impact on people - and let's not forget the children - of having 15secs to run to shelters, day and night, day in, day out for years.

Hamas do not agree to re-sign the peace deal. Rockets continue.

Israel retaliates. The world screams blue murder at them.

Hamas has a CLEAR responsibility here that no one in the media seems to be focusing on.......

They were provoking a retaliation - and completely aware of the might of the IDF.

They had overseas financial support which they chose to use to buy arms - probably supplied by Iran - rather than welfare and education for their people. They delibertely chose not to build shelters and to fight in civilian areas thereby hoping to maximise the casualties because of the propaganda factor. The outcome of this war, in my view, is EXACTLY what Hamas wanted and planned for when they began firing those rockets. The world crying shame on Israel. The protests, the riots - these are Hamas' main weapons. Hamas has links to other organisations and countries. They are not self-delusional people, unaware of the military abilities of the IDF.

In short - they are pulling the world's chain.

As far as the PLO, Fatah, Hamas and others like them go, Israel is damned if it does, and dead if it doesn't.

Yes, of course I feel for the innocents - who wouldn't? But for pity's sake - put a bit of the blame onto the dangerous terrorist group who have staged this for the world's viewing.

Sharona

01-25-2009, 02:49 PM

Sorry, in my haste to bash the above post out I called the ceasefire a 'peace deal'. My mistake. I'm in a rush at the moment.

Yala

01-25-2009, 03:53 PM

Ok, watched the whole thing. In the last 5 minutes, they attempt to show some balance and interview a British Jewish family who actually make some good points. They point out how Al Qaeda and Hamas are both listed as terrorist organizations by the British gov't yet the BBC refer to AQ as terrorists and Hamas as militants.

Anyway, Aviva was right not to watch this piece. It's a pro-Palestinian broadcast, no different from the rest in the UK. Most of the piece revolved around the question, "should we show more of the bloodshed from Gaza?" Basically the UK journalist is asking if they should be more like Al Jazeerah. The British Muslims they interviewed agreed that they should.

Yala

01-25-2009, 03:55 PM

Please watch it all as you will find they talk of propaganda that Hamas portray as well.

When? Give me the link when they mention Hamas and propaganda in the same sentence.

takeo

01-25-2009, 04:13 PM

Takeo will be back. He's got very thick skin.

Takeo is part of the world-wide antiSemitic, anti-Christian, anti-Hindu Muslim movement. The cancer and hatred of Islam is spreading throughout this world. There are these dreadful mosques springing up all over the place, like weeds.

Slugs like takeo won't be happy until the Jewish State of Israel is replaced with another demented, racist, violent, uncivilized Muslim State. That is his truth.

LOL :rofl:
I've been called a nazi, antisemite, payed by the Arabs, KGB, but anti-christian and anti-Hindu are new. Of course the people on this very same thread calling for the slaughter of christians aren't anti-christian, I am :rofl:
And of course, without any argument or quote.

And now we're talking about predictability, I didn't yet read any post of yours which didn't include the combination of "Arab", "Muslim", "hatred", "dreadful", "racist", "uncivilised" and "violent"... :rolleyes:

takeo

01-25-2009, 04:28 PM

Reffo

OK, we are getting somewhere at long last! How long did it take me to get you to this point of admitting that the Palestinian Arabs were at least co-responsible for the refugee problem? And let us not forget that they were co-responsible for at least an equal number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries!

I never denied that. Sometimes it seems you think you can read my mind, but you can't. You seem to think I'm anti-semitic, wants the destruction of Israel yadayada but I never said so. But you can't, you're very wrong.
I said in 1948 Arabs had other, better, choices than to start a war against the new state. Now it's your turn to admit that Israel also had other choices than to ethnically cleanse most Palestinians from Israel. But I presume you're not ready to do so. Correct me if I'm wrong please...

Whereas I admit Arabs made mistakes too, you deny Israel ever made any mistake or harmed the Palestinian civilians unnecessary. That's means I'm balanced, I don't think in terms of "good" and "evil", but you do, you're biased, you can't admit any Israeli wrongdoings.

And as far as your "ethnic cleansing" canard against Israel: This is what one of the more honest Arab leaders said about it:

Some Israeli Jews blame Israel, and only Israel for everything. The large majority in the Arab world, and in the world, think Israel is at least coresponsible for the refugee problem.

But even if the Arabs are just co-responsible rather than responsible, why dou you expect only Israel to make the concessions? Why don't you expect the Palestinian Arabs too to make concessions for peace?

They made major concessions. They gave up their original homeland in return for Gaza, Westbank and Eastern Jerusalem, and they want to negociate about the refugees, eventough there is a UN-resolution calling for the return of the refugees.
Israel has its own country, but many, if not most, Israeli, are not willing even to negociate about the refugees or to end the occupation of Westban, Gaza and Eastern Jerusalem.

takeo

01-25-2009, 04:54 PM

Reffo

We get it already Takeo, stop repeating yourself. Arabs use violence and make war, Israel responds with violence and it is Israel's fault, repeat ad nauseum!

I didn't say that, don't twist my words.

Israel makes specific peace offers, Arabs say it's not enough without making a counter offer that Israel can accept and it is Israel's fault, repeat ad nauseum.

Israel didn't want to negociate, and its unilateral proposals were not acceptable to the Palestinians, just like the Saudi proposal is not acceptable to Israel. In the meanwhile they continued expanding the settlements rapidly, hoping to create a demographical fact on the ground. Palestinians lost hope in negociations and Oslo, they felt that while Israeli were talking about peace, the reality was that ever more Palestinian ground was being turned in settlements. Of course Netanyahu AND hamas were responsible for deraling Oslo, both did undermine the Oslo requirements. But Barak too didn't want to negociate.

As Medio says, we get it already Takeo, stop repeating yourself pullllleeeeeze :banghead: :banghead::banghead:

I can say the same to you.

Again, we get it Takeo! Barak made a specific offer to accept a small number of refugees and compensate the rest (without asking for compensation for Jewish refugees). Arafat said, it's not enough but didn't say how many would be enough. But somehow in your warped mentality it is Israel who is at fault, right Takeo?

why didn't Barak want to negociate about it? Negociations don't happen in the press or publicity, but behind closed doors. Arafat, and now Abbas, are ready to negociate. Barak wanted at most 0,1% of the refugees to return to Israel. That's ridiculous, and wouldn't be acceptable for any Palestinian. There were other concerns as well, such as the borders and the Jordan river valley.
Nowadays Hamas wants international monitoring of the border-posts as a condition for any cease-fire. Palestinians are very sensitive about Israel using closures as a tool to pressure and punish entire Palestinian populations, as it did during the past decades. They don't want Israel to controll all their borders.

Yep, Takeo, and prior to that the "poor Arabs" were just minding their own business. Or did they? My recollection is that they initiated the Intifada and a bloody campaign of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians in response to Barak's peace offer.

At first, it was an Intifadeh like the first one, and very few Israeli civilians got involved, it was clearly aimed at the occupation force and the illegal colonists, but than Israel killed an awful lot of Palestinians in a few weeks, and even some peaceful Israeli Arab demonstrators, and the situation escalated, than ordinary Israeli civilians got targetted as well. Which i don't support, never did, it harmed the Palestinian cause. (of course Israel targetted and still targets ordinary civilians as well, which I condamn as well).

OK, again we get it: Israel has to be openly pressured, it isn't good enough to secretly pressure Israel to make major concessions because if it is done in secret then whoever pressures Israel, toes the Israeli line and they are the same as Israel, we get it already Takeo :banghead:

Well, you want Obama to openly pressure the Arab side, so that only applies for the Arab side, not for the Israeli side, according to you?
I think open pressure is necessary whenever Israel is unwilling to make major concessions in return for Palestinian major concessions. When Netanyahu gets elected, open pressure will be necessary, and I think, will occure.

Then again, I wonder how openly pressuring Israel helped in the past? In 1956, Israel was openly pressured by America to unconditionally give Sinai back to Egypt, instead of making it conditional on Egypt to recognize Israel's right to exist in return (as Israel asked). So, Sinai was returned unconditionally but peace didn't follow. What a surprise!

There wasn't any war between 1956 and 1967, when Israel invaded Egypt.
In 1973, as a result of the 1967-war and the continuing occupation, the Arab world attacked Israel, and Israel almost lost. So yes, the Americans were very wise to pressure Israel into giving up Sinai, both in 1956 and in the 70's. (Camp David was a result of not-so-subtle American pressure on Israel by the carter-administration. Carter was one of the first ex-presidents to support Obama).

Yep, just his opinion of the US Chief Middle East negotiator who was at every meeting and constantly talked to both parties for years. Just his opinion ...

Sometimes people with less responsability, but who were involved as well, can speak more openly and more honestly about what really happened.
I don't expect Bush, Rumsfeld or Cheney to recognise they were lying and manipulating the public opinion. But others, with minor positions who were involved as well but have less to loose, did.

Y. Shulamith

01-25-2009, 05:09 PM

Just because the Palestinians have done "wrong" doesn't mean that Israel has done the same in kind, as much of or because it is tit-for-tat. Israel, like the USA has safeguards against abuses and are called on the carpet for wrongdoings because that is part of the belief system of wrong and right.

Terrorists don't have a belief system of wrong or right. They do what they do for their own devise and their own means to an end; power and money to be used over those who are weaker. Please don't even try to equate a so-called "righteous terrorists" with the military or police of the USA or Israel or of any country that is ruled by the rules of law. Terrorists are out-laws in every sense. Terrorists are murderous thugs, and nothing more and never will be anything more.

takeo

01-25-2009, 05:11 PM

Reffo

I didn't say they had to, I said that had they accepted it, there would have been a two state solution by now..

If israel accepted the Saudi proposal, there would have been a two state solution by now as well. Palestinians want a two-state solution, but they also want to controll their own international borders (if not it's not even a real state but a Bantustan or some Swiss cheese), solutions for the refugees that most Palestinians can accept, etc. Israel too can make its priorities clear, cfr. concerning security, demilitarised zones, etc. That's why negociations are necessary, not unilateral demands.

Yep, sad but true. And it could have been so different if only there would not have been Seven years of rocket bombardments onto the heads of up to 1 million Israelis in the south of Israel ..

Israel had the right to react, but not in this way, totally out of proportion (the Geneva-conventions require all parties to respond proportionally).
Israel could have offered to end the closure of Gaza, in return for a cease-fire. Than this war would not have been necessary. Eventough even me, I'm not supporting Hamas, Israel has no right to interfere in internal Palestinian matters. They could have asked Egypt to interfere and end Hamas-rule, for example, and it would have been an Arab-on-Arab war, against extremism, but now it was a war of foreign ennemy aggressors against oppressed in the world's perception. They only made Hamas stronger.

Show me where Hamas said that "they would follow suit", quote and link please!

Than first you have to show me where and when Israel offered to have direct talks and negociations with Hamas. Quote and link please!

On the other hand, all you need to do is look at the Hamas charter which clearly says that they don't recognize Israel and that their aim is to destroy Israel. Maybe Hamas should extended a hand to Israel instead?

Officially Israel still includes Westbank, Gaza and Eastern Jerusalem, if you look at any official Israeli map. Hamas is only going to change this charter, as a result of a general peace-deal, which includes not only Fatah but Hamas as well. So either Hamas must be destroyed, but Israel can't do that, or it has to be included. There's no other way. Assad, the man financing and protecting Hamas, said so himself during the BBc-interview.(off-topic, he seems to be very reasonable, accepts the right of Israel to exist, and speaks fluently English)

takeo

01-25-2009, 05:18 PM

Y. Shulamith

Just because the Palestinians have done "wrong" doesn't mean that Israel has done the same in kind, as much of or because it is tit-for-tat. Israel, like the USA has safeguards against abuses and are called on the carpet for wrongdoings because that is part of the belief system of wrong and right.

So you think ethnic cleansing was the right thing to do? Occupation and colonisation were the right thing to do? Israel didn't commit any mistakes on the highest levels during the several wars in Lebanon? Etc.
Basically what you're saying is that Arabs are 100% guilty and Israel is 100% innocent. But that's childish propaganda and a fairytale, which even many Israeli themselves don't believe anymore.(let alone the rest of the world)
Even Olmert himself said that colonisation, for example, made a solution for the conflict harder. Thus implying that Israel made a mistake by starting this process.

Terrorists don't have a belief system of wrong or right. They do what they do for their own devise and their own means to an end;

They also believe in wrong or right. But they have other standards, for them killing civilians is OK. Israel too has other standards, which differ from international ones. Israel refused to implement different UN-resolutions, Geneva-conventions, they still use forfor-bombs, clusterbombs (which most civilised countries outlawed) etc. This, of course, is a complete disaster for the reputation of Israel in the world. (and it is also a disaster for al-Quaida, in the end, everyone will turn against them because of their total lack of respect for human life)

power and money to be used over those who are weaker.

The country with most power and money is the US.And they use it, at times, against the weaker.

Please don't even try to equate a so-called "righteous terrorists" with the military or police of the USA or Israel or of any country that is ruled by the rules of law.

Israel may be ruled by the rule of law, it doesn't respect international law itself. Nor does the US (Iraq). Iran, etc. have laws too. Even the Taliban has laws. That's not an argument.

Terrorists are out-laws in every sense. Terrorists are murderous thugs, and nothing more and never will be anything more.

But what do you mean by terrorists? The US supported several terrorist organisations in the past, such as the contra's in Nicaragua or the mujahedin in Afganistan. They called them freedom-fighters.
Kurdish independentists who had or have an armed struggle against oppression and for independence are called freedom-fighters in Iraq, and terrorists in Turkey. And what about the zionists who resisted Brittish rule in Palestine, were they terrorists?

Sharona

01-25-2009, 05:57 PM

In my view Hamas and others like them are career terrorists.

Here's one rationale for this statement: If Hamas is seeking a peace deal - which, Takeo, one can assume from the direction your posts appear to take is what they honestly want - then why does their educational system encourage hatred and violence? Why are there summer schools in which a 14yr old child (perhaps younger) can learn the joys of martyrdom and view those who have already walked that path as the heroes of their nation? If you are working towards and hoping for peace, this type of indoctrination would be hopelessly counter-productive.

Arafat said he had no real interest in Palestine per se; Zuheir Mohsen famously said that there were no such people as the Palestinians - they were merely a tool to be used against Zionists.

It is my opinion that Hamas doesn't really want any peace deal - what will they do if they get it? Their entire life's work will be over.

I have no reason to doubt Zuheir Mohsen or Arafat - Palestine serves its purpose as the largest propaganda weapon in their succesors toolbox. I feel extremely sorry for the ordinary people caught up in and infected by this madness.

Most ordinary people just want to get on with their lives - their leaders, however, have other plans.

takeo

01-25-2009, 06:14 PM

Reffo

I worry about you because you support those who want to ethnically cleanse Israel of Jews.

I don't. Please quote and link. If not apologise and admit you were wrong.

OK then, you should give the same answer below ...
...why should Israel do anything before "negociations start"? Why Takeo? Double standards maybe?

Both parties should refrain from making unilateral demands before the start of the negociations. Of course Israel building more settlements, and Palestinians firing rockets in Israel, will not benefit those negociations, I think that's just evident.

But I did reply.

Not on this thread. You didn't even reply when someone called for slaughtering christians! I think that's even illegal, it certainly would be, and he could be prosecuted, if this person is based in France. Calling for, or defending, the slaughter of innocent people is not a part of free speech according to me. But you, and all others on this thread except me (and one other poster, I think sharona, not sure) just let it pass unanswered. (and don't worry, I think the same about Arab radicals calling for murdering innocent Jews)

1967 was not 60 years ago and Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are openly saying so even today.

They didn't say they want to kill all Jews. But even calling for the destruction of Israel is wrong. That's why I don't support Hezbollah, Hamas, nor the Iranian regime (among other reasons). Also, it doesn't help the Palestinian cause. Israeli ennemies of peace, such as Netanyahu, can always refer to Hamas and Iran to end all peace-talks.

And many more, silently or not so silently aspire for it still.

Not most in my experience. Even Khadafi and Assad, not quite the best friends of Israel in the Arab world, recently said that Israel has the right to exist.

Remember, in the last elections, the majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas.

Because of Fatah-corruption, and because the Fatah-approach doesn't seem to work. Palestinians lost hope in peace, altough in 1993 they overwelmingly voted for peace, Oslo and for Fatah.
In Israel during upcoming elections the Israeli majority will probably vote for parties which don't want a Palestinian state.

Let's try it the other way: Perhaps you could produce even one link where you repudiated an Israel hater who came to this forum and promised the destruction of Israel. Give me just ONE such link where you stood up and defended Israel's right to exist against a hater of Israel!

Actually I never witnessed it on this forum as far as I can remember. But believe me, if it happens, and I'm active on the same thread, I will. And if it's on other threads, just pm me the post, and I will too. On other forums, and during conversations in real life, I do so regularly.

But you don't insist that the Arabs should formally repudiate their previous pretexts for war.

Which pretexts? The refugees are not a pretext but a very real problem that has to be resolved. Occupation and colonisation are no pretexts either.

I just used YOUR OWN LOGIC against you but that's NOT why I DO believe that you work for Israel's destruction. I believe it because of what you actually SAY against Israel: The lies, the exaggerations, the blood libels and the self destructive solutions that you expect of Israel.

Which lies? Which exaggerations, which blood libels? I only use words as ethnic cleansing in the propper context, the 1948 context. Not for this war against Gaza or the latest war in Jenin (as some do). What happened in 1948 was ethnic cleansing, even major Israeli historians recognise so.
And which seld destructive solutions? The two-state solution? According to radicals (most on this forum) all solutions not involving a mass- ethnic cleansing (and that's not a bloodlabel, but the right term for what those people, the majority on this forum, really want) are self destructive solutions. According to some people on this forum the murderer of Rabin is a hero because Rabin would have destroyed Israel, etc.

I didn't know that you use your real identity in other forums. Nice excuse though Takeo but I don't buy it ...:lol:

No, but I want to keep it separate, don't you? If not, what's your nickname on other forums? And on some forums I'm registered with my real name or there are people who know my real name. Eventough it's hard to imagine anyone will try to trace me down, there are enough nutcases on the net.

You may eventually own up to it, under heavy duress (very heavy), but you certainly deny the significance of Arab wrongdoings and you expect Israel to act as if they have no meaning!:mad:

I didn't deny the significance of those wrongdoings, and of course they have a meaning, but they are NO legitimation for many Israeli wrongdoings.

We don't really know yet what Obama proposes but I hope that he will be a lot more demanding on the Arabs too than you are. I hope that he will expect them to formally renounce their past pretexts for war in return for Israel giving up land. And I previously explained to you what I meant by "Formally".

You mean recognise Israel as a mainly Jewish state? Abbas already did so, by saying that Israel should have a Jewish majority. And indeed, a formal recognition of Israel as a mainly Jewish state can be a part of any peacedeal.

But I equally hope that Obama will be a lot more demanding on Israel than you are, or Bush was. That he forces Israel, whatever government it has, to give up occupied territories (minus some minor exchanges of territory), end the colonisation policy and Eretz Israel project, and be ready to compromise on the refugee and Jerusalem questions. In return for Arab recognition and security garantees. Netanyahu will be very unwilling to do so, but in the end he will have no choice either. Sometimes rightists, like Begin, can achieve more than leftists, because noone sees them as weak or as friend of the Arabs.

takeo

01-25-2009, 06:37 PM

Sharona

Here's one rationale for this statement: If Hamas is seeking a peace deal - which, Takeo, one can assume from the direction your posts appear to take is what they honestly want -

I don't think that's what they honestly want. But they are realistic enough to know that they can't defeat Israel, and that eternal war is not in the interest of the Palestinian people either. So in the end a peace-deal is the only way. That's also not what Netanyahu honestly want. But he too will have no other option but to go trough with it.

then why does their educational system encourage hatred and violence? Why are there summer schools in which a 14yr old child (perhaps younger) can learn the joys of martyrdom and view those who have already walked that path as the heroes of their nation? If you are working towards and hoping for peace, this type of indoctrination would be hopelessly counter-productive.

Because the war is still going on. And this kind of propaganda, depicting the ennemy as evil devils who should be destroyed, is part of any war. In Israel as well, Palestinians, even former president Arafat, are represented as evil devils and ennemies of Israel in Israeli schoolbooks. Perhaps a bit more subtle, but nevertheless it's the same principle.
When the war will be over, don't expect any lovesongs about the other side, there will still be hate, lack of trust and each side will teach its children their side of the truth, but at least it will be less than today. And, in a few generations, the hate may even disappear. That's what happened in Europe.

It is my opinion that Hamas doesn't really want any peace deal - what will they do if they get it? Their entire life's work will be over.

They want power in Palestine and install Islamic law. I hope they won't succeed, but that's an internal Palestinian question.

I have no reason to doubt Zuheir Mohsen or Arafat - Palestine serves its purpose as the largest propaganda weapon in their succesors toolbox. I feel extremely sorry for the ordinary people caught up in and infected by this madness.

Arafat never said that Palestinians don't matter. Palestinians may serve as a propaganda weapon (all oppressed people do, so did the Jews or Jugoslavs or Sudeten Germans during WWII) but that doesn't mean that they have not been really harmed and wronged by Israel. (ethnic cleansing, occupation, etc.)

Most ordinary people just want to get on with their lives - their leaders, however, have other plans.

But what ordinary Palestinians also really want is an own state, with East-Jerusalem as capital, and an end to Israeli occupation, settlements, checkpoints, walls and closures which make their life miserable. Israel can build all the walls it want between Israel and Palestine, but not INSIDE Palestinian territory. For Palestinians to go on with their lifes, there should be peace. And the current situation can't be sustained. There's no other solution, Israel can't incorporate those territories, because it would end the Jewish majority in Israel. So there's only one solution, a solution, according to polls (a bit outdated now, but nevertheless) supported by both the majority of Palestinians and Israeli.

Reffo

01-25-2009, 07:27 PM

OK, we are getting somewhere at long last! How long did it take me to get you to this point of admitting that the Palestinian Arabs were at least co-responsible for the refugee problem? And let us not forget that they were co-responsible for at least an equal number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries!

I never denied that...No, but you were sure doing everything in your power to avoid answering my question, I had to ask you three times before you answered.

I said in 1948 Arabs had other, better, choices than to start a war against the new state. Now it's your turn to admit that Israel also had other choices than to ethnically cleanse most Palestinians from Israel. But I presume you're not ready to do so. Correct me if I'm wrong please...But I already told you that I don't agree that the Jews were the ones responsible for MOST of the Arab refugees. Some, yes but not most!

Whereas I admit Arabs made mistakes too, you deny Israel ever made any mistake or harmed the Palestinian civilians unnecessary. That's means I'm balanced, I don't think in terms of "good" and "evil", but you do, you're biased, you can't admit any Israeli wrongdoings.Show me where did I deny that Israel made mistakes too. To the contrary, I admitted it before and I still admit it. Go on now, ask me for a link ;) I can give you links to that effect even though you seem most reluctant to give me links when I ask you to give links ...

And as far as your "ethnic cleansing" canard against Israel: This is what one of the more honest Arab leaders said about it:

Some Israeli Jews blame Israel, and only Israel for everything.And some (correction: many) people used to claim that the earth is flat, go figure :scratch:

But even if the Arabs are just co-responsible rather than responsible, why dou you expect only Israel to make the concessions? Why don't you expect the Palestinian Arabs too to make concessions for peace?

They made major concessions. They gave up their original homeland in return for Gaza, Westbank and Eastern Jerusalem,Here you go again, I answered this canard of yours before but here I go again:

In 1922 when Transjordan (Eastern Palestine which was 75% of overall Palestine) was stripped off Palestine and was given to Abdullah. but the Balfour declaration was made in 1917 and it promised the Jews of getting a share of Palestine. And in 1917 Transjordan was known as Eastern Palestine as is shown by the following survey document:

A Survey of Palestine Under the British Mandate, 1920-1948
“..The PEF extended it’s survey programme to Eastern Palestine, or Transjordan….”

Survey of Eastern Palestine (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=KBSDam2TDaEC&pg=PR17&lpg=PR17&dq=map+AND+%22eastern+palestine%22+AND+transjordan&source=web&ots=uJJSUbNIDZ&sig=zDM71ZTg8GhJZ-gSMwoslc6wsSU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result)

Now Takeo, try this quick experiment:

On any given Monday, show two kids a cake and promise them that you will share the cake between them on Wednesday..
On Tuesday, give the elder child three quarters of the cake and give nothing to the younger child..
On Wednesday, give a slightly bigger portion of the remaining quarter of the cake to the younger child..

Now, if the elder child (the Arabs) starts whining about being dudded, do you think you could convince the younger child (Israel) that he was privileged in the overall deal?

Get the point Takeo? The Arabs are the ones who would end up with about 78%of historic Palestine if they get most of the West Bank and all of Gaza. Israel would end up with only 12% of it. So where did you say is the Arab compromise in that again? :scratch:

and they want to negociate about the refugees, even tough there is a UN-resolution calling for the return of the refugees.
Israel has its own country, but many, if not most, Israeli, are not willing even to negociate about the refugees or to end the occupation of Westban, Gaza and Eastern Jerusalem.There you go again repeating your mantra: It's Israel's fault! It's Israel's fault! It's Israel's fault! It's Israel's fault! It's Israel's fault! .... But I told you that Barak offered to take in a small number of Arab refugees and have the rest compensated. And he didn't even ask for compensation for an equal number of Jewish refugees even though the Palestinian Arabs were at least co-responsible for their plight. That's not compromise for you by Israel?

Reffo

01-25-2009, 08:19 PM

We get it already Takeo, stop repeating yourself. Arabs use violence and make war, Israel responds with violence and it is Israel's fault, repeat ad nauseum!

I didn't say that, don't twist my words.Yes you did! You haven't stopped whining about Israel's latest response to 10,000 or so rockets, over 7 years onto the heads of nearly 1 million Israeli civilians in Southern Israel.

Israel makes specific peace offers, Arabs say it's not enough without making a counter offer that Israel can accept and it is Israel's fault, repeat ad nauseum.

Israel didn't want to negociate, and its unilateral proposals were not acceptable to the PalestiniansWhat do you mean they didn't want to negotiate? Israel made an offer and the Palestinians rejected that offer without even specifying what number of refugees would Israel have to allow to settle in Israel in order to make the offer acceptable (you admitted that, Takeo!). So who is the one who is not negotiating?

just like the Saudi proposal is not acceptable to Israel.But Israel told them exactly why not! Israel told them that they would expect the Paletinian Arabs to renounce their so called "Right of Return" as part of a peace deal. So, the Arabs know exactly what they have to do. Unlike your Palestinian Arabs, Israel is not making them guess... All the Arabs have to say in response is: YES IN PRINCIPLE (subject to an acceptable peace deal)!

In the meanwhile they continued expanding the settlements rapidly, hoping to create a demographical fact on the ground. Palestinians lost hope in negociations and Oslo, they felt that while Israeli were talking about peace, the reality was that ever more Palestinian ground was being turned in settlements. Of course Netanyahu AND hamas were responsible for deraling Oslo, both did undermine the Oslo requirements. But Barak too didn't want to negociate.But didn't you say this? ....

"Not BEFORE the negociations start, of course once a deal is agreed up, .... It will be part of the deal."

As Medio says, we get it already Takeo, stop repeating yourself :banghead::banghead::banghead:pullllleeeeeze

I can say the same to you.But I also told you that I am as patient as you and as long as you keep on coming here and keep on repeating your simplistic anti Israel narrative, I'll meet you head on!

Again, we get it Takeo! Barak made a specific offer to accept a small number of refugees and compensate the rest (without asking for compensation for Jewish refugees). Arafat said, it's not enough but didn't say how many would be enough. But somehow in your warped mentality it is Israel who is at fault, right Takeo?

why didn't Barak want to negociate about it? Negotiate about what? Arafat and now Abbas, have said nothing about the specific number of refugees that they expect Israel to let in!

Yep, Takeo, and prior to that the "poor Arabs" were just minding their own business. Or did they? My recollection is that they initiated the Intifada and a bloody campaign of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians in response to Barak's peace offer.

At first, it was an Intifadeh like the first one, and very few Israeli civilians got involved, it was clearly aimed at the occupation force and the illegal colonists, but than Israel killed an awful lot of Palestinians in a few weeks, and even some peaceful Israeli Arab demonstrators, and the situation escalated, than ordinary Israeli civilians got targetted as well. Which i don't support, never did, it harmed the Palestinian cause. (of course Israel targetted and still targets ordinary civilians as well, which I condamn as well).No! First there was a peace offer by Israel, the response to that was Arab violence which got out of hand.

OK, again we get it: Israel has to be openly pressured, it isn't good enough to secretly pressure Israel to make major concessions because if it is done in secret then whoever pressures Israel, toes the Israeli line and they are the same as Israel, we get it already Takeo :banghead:

Well, you want Obama to openly pressure the Arab side, so that only applies for the Arab side, not for the Israeli side, according to you?
I think open pressure is necessary whenever Israel is unwilling to make major concessions in return for Palestinian major concessions. When Netanyahu gets elected, open pressure will be necessary, and I think, will occure.Where did I say that I want Obama to pressure the Arab side? What I DID say was in response to your assertion that Obama WILL openly pressure Israel!

Then again, I wonder how openly pressuring Israel helped in the past? In 1956, Israel was openly pressured by America to unconditionally give Sinai back to Egypt, instead of making it conditional on Egypt to recognize Israel's right to exist in return (as Israel asked). So, Sinai was returned unconditionally but peace didn't follow. What a surprise!

There wasn't any war between 1956 and 1967, when Israel invaded Egypt.This is a perfect example of your SIMPLISTIC NARRATIVE! :mad: What really happened in 1967 was that Egypt's leader (Gamal abdul Nasser) unilaterally got rid of the UN peace keepers, he re-instituted acts of terrorism in Southern Israel, he blockaded the Straits of Tiran, he mobilised and deployed his army at Israel's borders and he promised that in the coming war which the Arabs would start, Israel's Jews would be "driven into the sea". But Israel didn't allow him to start the war at a time of his choosing. That was very nasty of Israel wasn't it Takeo? :rolleyes:

Yep, just his opinion of the US Chief Middle East negotiator who was at every meeting and constantly talked to both parties for years. Just his opinion ...

Sometimes people with less responsability, but who were involved as well, can speak more openly and more honestly about what really happened.Yes, and sometimes, people with less responsibility can be bribed, they may have personal agendas, prejudices and they might be just plain ignorant or they may even be crackpots.

I don't expect Bush, Rumsfeld or Cheney to recognise they were lying and manipulating the public opinion. But others, with minor positions who were involved as well but have less to loose, did.OK Takeo, we get it: Bill Clinton = George Bush and Dennis Ross = Dick Cheney Why? Because none of them tell the story that you and people like you want to hear :lol:

bararallu

01-25-2009, 08:28 PM

No, but you were sure doing everything in your power to avoid answering my question, I had to ask you three times before you answered.

I'm still waiting for his response to my questions, which I reposted 4 times now.

He dodges everything he can, and then some. Communism 101.

Reffo

01-25-2009, 08:57 PM

I didn't say they had to, I said that had they accepted it, there would have been a two state solution by now..

If israel accepted the Saudi proposal, there would have been a two state solution by now as well. Palestinians want a two-state solution Back up for a minute Takeo. This interchange started with your complaint about the "Occupation". And I proved to you that Israel showed willingness to end that. Now, what more do you want? :scratch:

but they also want to controll their own international bordersAnd they would, after a few years of peace and quiet in which they would demonstrate that they give up on their penchant for violence..

(if not it's not even a real state but a Bantustan or some Swiss cheese), solutions for the refugees that most Palestinians can accept, etc. Israel too can make its priorities clear, cfr. concerning security, demilitarised zones, etc. That's why negociations are necessary, not unilateral demandsYou are lying again Takeo :mad: How could 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank and the offer of other lands to offset the remaining 3%, result in Bantustahns? :scratch: Because that's what Barak offered in 2001!

Yep, sad but true. And it could have been so different if only there would not have been Seven years of rocket bombardments onto the heads of up to 1 million Israelis in the south of Israel ..

Israel had the right to react, but not in this way, totally out of proportion (the Geneva-conventions require all parties to respond proportionally).But Israel tried all sorts of low key responses, for 7 years, and none of that worked. The rockets kept on raining onto the heads of Israeli civilians. Wasn't that enough of a restraint by Israel for you?

Israel could have offered to end the closure of Gaza, in return for a cease-fire. Than this war would not have been necessary.So that Hamas would be able to import more sophisticated terror weapons to lob onto the heads of Israeli civilians? I don't think so!

Eventough even me, I'm not supporting HamasYes you are! Just listen to yourself: You support Hamas's extortion of Israel! Remember Hamas's openly declared objective to destroy Israel? You want Israel to facilitate that aim!

Israel has no right to interfere in internal Palestinian matters.But Israel has every right to defend itself and it's civilians.

They could have asked Egypt to interfere and end Hamas-ruleYep, and Egypt would have rushed in to attack Hamas if Israel would have asked it to do so.

Tell me Takeo, do you believe in flying pigs? :lol:

for example, and it would have been an Arab-on-Arab war, against extremism, but now it was a war of foreign ennemy aggressors against oppressed in the world's perception..Have you taken your medications? :D

Reffo

01-25-2009, 09:29 PM

Show me where Hamas said that "they would follow suit", quote and link please!

Than first you have to show me where and when Israel offered to have direct talks and negociations with Hamas. Quote and link please!This is from Haaretz 15/02/2006:

Hamas has rejected pressure from Egypt, the United States and Europe for it to recognize Israel, renounce violence and adopt peace deals with the Jewish state.Are you saying that Israel wouldn't negotiate with Hamas if they would agree to that?

On the other hand, all you need to do is look at the Hamas charter which clearly says that they don't recognize Israel and that their aim is to destroy Israel. Maybe Hamas should extended a hand to Israel instead?

Officially Israel still includes Westbank, GazaOnly in your imagination Takeo :rolleyes: They unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and they have been negotiating about the West Bank since Oslo.

and Eastern Jerusalem, if you look at any official Israeli map.Eastern Jerusalem is a separate matter. In 1948 the UN made it an international city but Jordan ignored that and occupied it. And since 1967 Israel controlled it but one of the most painful concessions forced on Barak in 2001, by Clinton and Dennis Ross, Barak agreed to share it as a joint capital between Israel and the Palestinians.

And it was painful indeed because of the 2000 year bond of the Jewish people to Jerusalem, not only historically and culturally but also physically because Jerusalem had a majority Jewish population for hundreds of years till 1948 when your Arabs ethnically cleansed the Jews of East Jerusalem!

Hamas is only going to change this charter, as a result of a general peace-deal, which includes not only Fatah but Hamas as well.Excuse me Takeo but when did Hamas say that they would change their charter in response to a peace deal? Quote and link please!

So either Hamas must be destroyed, but Israel can't do that, or it has to be included. There's no other way. There IS another way! Hamas will need to be persuaded (gently :D) that their violence will do nothing for the Palestinian people (except bring suffering) and that no matter how much violence they will use, Israel will never be destroyed! And if Hamas will not be persuaded by that, some of the saner Palestinian people might be and they might do something about Hamas, get my drift Takeo? :D It's a long shot but there are no other alternatives.

Assad, the man financing and protecting Hamas, said so himself during the BBc-interview.(off-topic, he seems to be very reasonable, accepts the right of Israel to exist, and speaks fluently English)Really? Quote and link please!

Reffo

01-25-2009, 09:38 PM

Reffo

01-25-2009, 10:00 PM

I worry about you because you support those who want to ethnically cleanse Israel of Jews.

I don't. Please quote and link. If not apologise and admit you were wrong.Have you apologised to me yet for accusing me of supporting ethnic cleansing? I said that I don't now and that I argued against it with KW before and I gave you a link to prove it as you asked. I am waiting for your apology for that!

But in any case, you won't be getting an apology from me because even in your last few posts you demonstrated that you expect everything from Israel and nothing from Hamas and that is as good as supporting them in my book! Maybe you could apologise for that too? Then again, pigs might fly right? :lol:

OK then, you should give the same answer below ...
...why should Israel do anything before "negociations start"? Why Takeo? Double standards maybe?

Both parties should refrain from making unilateral demands before the start of the negociations..OK then, you agree that Israel need not do anything about the settlements before negociations conclude and a peace package is agreed to by both parties?

But I did reply.

Not on this thread...Wash your mouth out with soap Takeo! :rolleyes: I specifically said on this thread that I am against ethnic cleansing, period! That covers ALL ethnic cleansing, even ethnic cleansings by Arabs.

1967 was not 60 years ago and Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are openly saying so even today.

They didn't say they want to kill all Jews..Actually, they did! Even reasonable Muslims admit it, did you watch the recent Doha debate? They admitted it there, go figure :scratch:

And many more, silently or not so silently aspire for it still.

Not most in my experience. Even Khadafi and Assad, not quite the best friends of Israel in the Arab world, recently said that Israel has the right to exist.I didn't say ALL, I said MANY! What was that based on? The election of Hamas by a majority of Palestinians!

Remember, in the last elections, the majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas.

Because of Fatah-corruption, and because the Fatah-approach doesn't seem to work. Palestinians lost hope in peace, altough in 1993 they overwelmingly voted for peace, Oslo and for Fatah.
In Israel during upcoming elections the Israeli majority will probably vote for parties which don't want a Palestinian state.Are you saying that they didn't know about Hamas's agenda regarding Israel?

Reffo

01-25-2009, 10:19 PM

Let's try it the other way: Perhaps you could produce even one link where you repudiated an Israel hater who came to this forum and promised the destruction of Israel. Give me just ONE such link where you stood up and defended Israel's right to exist against a hater of Israel!

Actually I never witnessed it on this forum as far as I can remember. But believe me, if it happens, and I'm active on the same thread, I will. And if it's on other threads, just pm me the post, and I will too. On other forums, and during conversations in real life, I do so regularly.But I thought that you said that you already challenged Israel haters who came here and believe me they DID!

But now you are saying that you will challenge them in the future. OK, we will see :unsure:

But you don't insist that the Arabs should formally repudiate their previous pretexts for war.

Which pretexts?..I told you the pretexts before, don't play dumb.

I just used YOUR OWN LOGIC against you but that's NOT why I DO believe that you work for Israel's destruction. I believe it because of what you actually SAY against Israel: The lies, the exaggerations, the blood libels and the self destructive solutions that you expect of Israel.

Which lies? Which exaggerations, which blood libels? I mentioned them before Takeo, don't play dumb.

I didn't know that you use your real identity in other forums. Nice excuse though Takeo but I don't buy it ... :lol:

No, but I want to keep it separate, don't you? If not, what's your nickname on other forums? And on some forums I'm registered with my real name or there are people who know my real name. Eventough it's hard to imagine anyone will try to trace me down, there are enough nutcases on the net.See above :lol:

You may eventually own up to it, under heavy duress (very heavy), but you certainly deny the significance of Arab wrongdoings and you expect Israel to act as if they have no meaning! :mad:

I didn't deny the significance of those wrongdoings, and of course they have a meaning, but they are NO legitimation for many Israeli wrongdoings.You denied and still seem to deny "cause" and "effect".

We don't really know yet what Obama proposes but I hope that he will be a lot more demanding on the Arabs too than you are. I hope that he will expect them to formally renounce their past pretexts for war in return for Israel giving up land. And I previously explained to you what I meant by "Formally".

You mean recognise Israel as a mainly Jewish state? Abbas already did so, by saying that Israel should have a Jewish majority. And indeed, a formal recognition of Israel as a mainly Jewish state can be a part of any peacedeal.Actually, he didn't and I gave you a Haaretz link to prove it. But let's hope that he will change his mind, huh Takeo? :)

CanDo

01-26-2009, 12:09 AM

maven

01-26-2009, 12:56 AM

~Whispering Campaign Against Hamas In Gaza~

SKY News reporter in Gaza has said that off-camera many Gazans are saying that they want rid of Hamas but Hamas has the guns and they dare say nothing.

Before foreign journalists were allowed in local Palestinian journalists like Ayeman Mohyadeen of Al Jazeera English with clearance from Hamas spun the story for Hamas.

Cracks began to appear in the picture of a triumphant Hamas with people "dancing in joy after a 'victory' over Israel" when one of the few non-Hamas doctors in the strip braved knee-capping by saying that casualty figures had been vastly over-inflated.

To make things worse for the terror group an Israeli intercept of an off-air out-take of an Al Arabya corrospondent who had been claiming that Hamas had not fired from buildings used by journalists, was clearly heard discussing a rocket which had just been fired from the basement under her office. The footage was released on YouTube.

Hamas also have lost face after their terms for the ceasefire were ignored by Israel and the crossings are still closed.

Mahmood Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are now clearly in the ascendent again especially after the reports of wide-scale torture of Fatah supporters in Gaza, some of who have had their eyes gouged out while others have been knee-capped.

Further weakening Hamas's position is the unity against them among the world community apart from Axis of evil terror States of Iran, Syria and Venezuela along with a worldwide Coalition of Islamists and Liberal and Leftist Neo-fascists united to destroy the State of Israel.

ItsMyJewty

01-26-2009, 02:44 AM

CanDo: Takeo is part of the world-wide antiSemitic, anti-Christian, anti-Hindu Muslim movement. The cancer and hatred of Islam is spreading throughout this world. There are these dreadful mosques springing up all over the place, like weeds.

Slugs like takeo won't be happy until the Jewish State of Israel is replaced with another demented, racist, violent, uncivilized Muslim State. That is his truth.

Some very interesting imagery there, CanDo. "Slug" is a good word for takeo, who's left a slimy trail of anti-Israeli propaganda in this thread and indeed throughout the whole forum. It also may explain the sluggishness with which he responds to logical well-reasoned argumentation. Slugs can of course be trodden on and squashed, but this is a special type of zombie slug that just keeps on coming back for more â€“ must be a masochistic streak in this one. I wonder when the slug will be back â€“ can't wait to slug the slug again!

And the word "weed" describes this worrying and very depressing phenomenon rather well. Fortunately, the weeds aren't really allowed to grow in the centre of cities and towns in France, and tend to be confined to the outskirts. Still very depressing, though â€“ I'd prefer not to have them here at all. Occasionally, weed killer is applied to these weeds and the weed lovers come out to complain about racism and intolerance â€“ something they know a lot about!

On a separate though not unrelated note, Israel forum could be likened to a virtual Israel, which must be defended at all costs from invasion. The forum's a sort of arena, into which is thrown live muzzy prey â€“ the occasional Pal from Jordan or our very own takeo â€“ for the hungry pack to eat. The victims can be seen queuing up as the guest audience take their seats, eager to watch the show. Most of them aren't admitted to the arena. Those that are admitted are devoured immediately or die a slow, agonizing death. Some of them can be heard shouting out anti-Semitic filth before their last gasps ... This is particularly entertaining. Takeo is a sort of re-usable Muzzy-loving prey â€“ a rag doll that can be repeatedly bitten and mauled. I wonder when the mods will feed us again. I'm getting hungry.

CanDo

01-26-2009, 03:27 AM

... "Slug" is a good word for takeo, who's left a slimy trail of anti-Israeli propaganda in this thread and indeed throughout the whole forum. ...

Well said! :clap:

Actually "Slug" is too good for takeo. A slug has an reasonable purpose, survival. takeo's purpose is to promote his religious intolerance, racist hatred and his support for vile, uncivilized Islamic expansionist goals.

Mediocrates

01-26-2009, 02:16 PM

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=42511

Mediocrates

01-26-2009, 02:17 PM

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,603203,00.html

In the Gaza Strip people are returning home -- or to the rubble that was once their home. Many are blaming Hamas for the destruction because the militants hid among civilians and attracted Israeli fire. Yet no one dares to speak out openly.

Mediocrates

01-26-2009, 02:18 PM

The Hamas lies are falling apart

http://ejpress.org/article/34141

BRUSSELS (EJP)---European, Foreign Minister on Monday condemned the shelling of a UNWRA building in Gaza during the Israeli military operation against Hamas but didn't name Israel and refrained from calling for an investigation into the incident.

Reffo

01-26-2009, 03:39 PM

takeo is not that stupid that ...Takeo is NOT stupid, period. He is just backing a cause that is frankly un-backable! That's why he has no choice but to act like a broken record. :tdown:

Mediocrates

01-28-2009, 05:36 AM

Here is the English translation of the Cremonesi article that Hamas casualities were vastly overstated.
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/01/28/cremonesi-article-in-english/

Doubts on the Number of Victims: Could be 600 rather than 1300 (http://www.corriere.it/esteri/09_gennaio_21/denuncia_hamas_cremonesi_ac41c6f4-e802-11dd-833f-00144f02aabc.shtml)
Lorenzo Cremonesi
Il Corriere della Sera
January 21, 2009
GAZA - â€œGet away! Get away from here! Do you want the Israelis to kill everyone? Do you want our children to die under the bombs? take your missiles and weapons away,â€ the inhabitants of the Gaza strip yelled at the Hamas militants and their allies in Islamic Jihad. The more courageous were organized and blocked the entrances to their courtyards and locked the doors to their buildings, barricading quickly and furiously the stairs to the highest rooftops.

But for all of that the guerrillas didnâ€™t listen to anyone. â€œTraitors, collaborators with Israel, spies of Fatah, cowards! The soldiers of the holy war will punish you. And in any case you will all die, like us. Fighting the Zionist Jews we are all destined for paradise. Do you not wish to die with us?â€ This is what they yelled furiously as they broke down doors and windows, hiding themselves on high floors, gardens, using ambulances and barricading themselves near the hospitals, schools and buildings of the UN.

In extreme cases the [Hamas militants] shot those who sought to block them from their streets and houses to save their own families, or they beat them savagely. â€œThe Hamas Militants looked for good places to provoke the Israelis. They were usually youths, 16 or 17 years old, armed with submachine guns. They couldnâ€™t do anything against a tank or jet. They knew they were much weaker. But they wanted the [Israelis] to shoot at the [the civiliansâ€™] houses so they could accuse them of more war crimesâ€ asserted Abu Issa, 42, resident of the Tel Awa neighborhood.

â€œPractically all of the tallest buildings in Gaza that were hit by Israeli bombs, like the Dogmoush, Andalous, Jawarah, Siussi, and many others, had rocket launching pads on their roofs, or were observation decks for the Hamas. They had also put them near the big UN warehouse, which went up in flames. The same goes for the villages in the valley along the border who were more devastated by the mad fury and punishment of the Zionist,â€ echoes his cousin Um Abdallah, 48. They use family nicknames, but they provide important circumstantial details. It was difficult to get these testimonials. In general, fear of Hamas prevails and the ideological alimentary taboos reign in this century of wars with the â€œZionist enemy.â€

Those who recount a different version than the story imposed by the â€œMuhamawaâ€ (the resistance) is automatically an â€œAmil,â€ a collaborator and is risking his life. However, the recent fratricidal collision between Hamas and Olp helps. If Israel or Egypt had allowed foreign journalists to enter immediately it would have been easier. These Locals are often threatened by Hamas.

â€œThis is not a new fact, in the Middle East, Arab societies are missing the cultural traditions of human rights. It happened during Arafatâ€™s regime that the press started being persecuted and censured. With Hamas it is even worse,â€ said Eyad Sarraj, a noted psychiatrist in Gaza City.

And there is another fact coming to light ever more obviously, visiting the hospitals, clinics and families of the victims of Israeli fire: In reality their numbers appear much lower than 1300 dead and another 5000 injured, as reported by the men of Hamas and repeated by the UN officials and the local Red Cross. â€œThe dead canâ€™t be more than 500 or 600. There are many youths between 17 and 23, recruited by Hamas, who sent them quite literally to the slaughter.â€ Said the doctor from the Shifah hospital who under no circumstances wanted to be quoted for he risked his life.

This data has been confirmed by the local journalist. â€œWe already pointed this out to the heads of Hamas. Why do they insist on inflating the number of victims? Its strange on the other hand that the NGOs, also the western ones, report them without and verification. In the end the truth may come to light. It could be like Jenin in 2002. Initially we spoke about 1500 dead. Then it came out that there were only 54, of whom at least 45 were militants who died in battle.â€

How do we arrive at this figure? â€œLets take the case of the Al Samoun family massacre in the Zeitun neighborhood. When the bomb landed on their houses they reported that they had 31 dead. And this is how they were registered with the officials of the Health department which is controlled by Hamas. But then, when the bodies were effectively recovered the sum total was doubled to 62 and this si how they are computed into the final balance,â€ explained Masoda Al Samoun, 24 years old.

And he added in an interesting detail: â€œTo create confusion there were the Israeli special squadrons. They were dressed up as Hamas militants with many green bandanas tied in front with the customary writing: there is no other God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. They slipped in to create chaos. We yelled at them to leave, fearing the retaliation but later we realized they were Israeli.â€

Its sufficient to visit a few hospitals to understand that the numbers donâ€™t add up. There are many empty beds in the European Hospital in Rafah, one of the [hospitals] that should be most involved with the victims of the Israeli â€œwar of the tunnels.â€ The same goes for the â€œNasserâ€ of Kahn Yunis. Only 5 out of the 150 beds in the private hospital of Al-Amal are occupied. In Gaza city the Wafa was evacuated, constructed with â€œcharitable Islamicâ€ donations from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Countries of the Gulf, and bombed by Israel at the end of December. The Institute is marked as being a stronghold of Hamas, this is where itâ€™s fighters came to recuperate after the civil war with Fatah in 2007. The others, however, stayed at Al Quds, which in turn was bombed the second half of the week in January.â€

Talking about this event, Magah al Rachmah, 25 inhabitant no less than ten meters from the four large buildings of the health complex, today seriously damaged. â€œHamasâ€™s Men hid themselves mostly in the building that houses the administrative officials of Al Quds. They used the ambulances and they forced ambulance drivers and paramedics to take off their uniforms with the symbols of paramedics on them so that they would be able to better confuse and escape the Israeli snipers.â€ All of this vastly reduced the number of beds available in the health institutions of Gaza. Also,

Shifah, the biggest hospital in the city, is very far from exhausting all of itâ€™s resources. It seems in fact that they are densely occupied with their underground tunnels. Hamas hid the emergency jails and the interrogation rooms for the prisoners of Fatah and the people who were evacuated from the bombarded prison of Saraja,â€ said the militants of the democratic front for the liberation of Palestine.

This [conflict] between Fatah and Hamas was a war within a war. The local humanitarian organizations, mainly controlled by the UN, tell of â€œdozens of executions, torture chambers, and kidnappings in the last three weeksâ€ committed by Hamas. One of the more notable cases is that of Achmad Shakhura, 47 years old, resident of the Khan Yunis and brother of Khaled, the right hand man of Mohammed Dahlan (the former head of Yasser Arafatâ€™s security services, now exiled) who was kidnapped by order of the head of Hamasâ€™s local secret police, Abu Abdullah Al Kidra, and subsequently tortured, his left eye ripped out and, in the end, killed on the 15th of January.

Yala

01-28-2009, 05:47 PM

Takeo is NOT stupid, period. He is just backing a cause that is frankly un-backable! That's why he has no choice but to act like a broken record. :tdown:

The war is over and he has nothing to cheer about. We'll see him next conflict.

Reffo

01-28-2009, 08:50 PM

Yala

I guess you are talking about the war of words with him :p because unfortunately I don't think that the real war is over. In any case, I for one won't miss him.

CanDo

01-29-2009, 01:04 AM

takeo

01-29-2009, 02:45 AM

takeo

01-29-2009, 02:47 AM

Yala

I guess you are talking about the war of words with him :p because unfortunately I don't think that the real war is over. In any case, I for one won't miss him.

I'll be back.

takeo

01-29-2009, 02:52 AM

Some very interesting imagery there, CanDo. "Slug" is a good word for takeo, who's left a slimy trail of anti-Israeli propaganda in this thread and indeed throughout the whole forum. It also may explain the sluggishness with which he responds to logical well-reasoned argumentation. Slugs can of course be trodden on and squashed, but this is a special type of zombie slug that just keeps on coming back for more â€“ must be a masochistic streak in this one. I wonder when the slug will be back â€“ can't wait to slug the slug again!

And the word "weed" describes this worrying and very depressing phenomenon rather well. Fortunately, the weeds aren't really allowed to grow in the centre of cities and towns in France, and tend to be confined to the outskirts. Still very depressing, though â€“ I'd prefer not to have them here at all. Occasionally, weed killer is applied to these weeds and the weed lovers come out to complain about racism and intolerance â€“ something they know a lot about!

On a separate though not unrelated note, Israel forum could be likened to a virtual Israel, which must be defended at all costs from invasion. The forum's a sort of arena, into which is thrown live muzzy prey â€“ the occasional Pal from Jordan or our very own takeo â€“ for the hungry pack to eat. The victims can be seen queuing up as the guest audience take their seats, eager to watch the show. Most of them aren't admitted to the arena. Those that are admitted are devoured immediately or die a slow, agonizing death. Some of them can be heard shouting out anti-Semitic filth before their last gasps ... This is particularly entertaining. Takeo is a sort of re-usable Muzzy-loving prey â€“ a rag doll that can be repeatedly bitten and mauled. I wonder when the mods will feed us again. I'm getting hungry.

Are you sure you don't post on stormfront? I think I've read this post somewhere before, of course on a forum where most people were hostile to me. Instead of "anti-semitic" they used the term "anti-white".

takeo

01-29-2009, 03:00 AM

takeo is not that stupid that he really feels that the Saudi proposal would work and produce a two state solution, leaving Israel as an independent Jewish State. takeo's adoption of the disastrous Saudi proposal is intentional. The Saudi proposal includes the return of all so-called Arab refugees, to Israel, which would be the end of Israel as a Jewish governed state. Israel would become a Muslim State, which is takeo's racist, religiously intolerant, antiSemitic pro-Muslim goal. takeo, like all other sneakly, dishonest antiSemites tries to hide his antiSemitism, and pro-Muslim views by speaking out of both sides of his dishonest, racist mouth. A true low-life.

takeo also spouts the normal, antiSemitic lie that the Palestinians want a two state solution, even though they have shown no effort towards this goal, and have only shown a propensity for violence against Jews, and the teaching of hatred against Jews, and absolute efforts to strangle any efforts towards a two state solution.

takeo posts a lot, but says very little new. Just the same, tired old sneaky antiSemitic, pro-Muslim propaganda. Arguing with takeo just helps to promote his dirty, foul, antiJewish hatred.

I conclude with Obama that you should first respect muslims and Palestinians, and listen to them. That's what Mitchell is doing. That's what Barak or the ones who succeeded him never did. Than talk to them, find a compromise which is acceptable to both peoples, no unilateral impositions.
The most likely and preferable solution is a two-state solution. And that's what Obama what to establish in the region. He lost no time and immidiately after his inauguration he sent his envoy and called leaders of Arab neighbouring states, Palestinians and Israeli. I think Obama will keep his promise to do everything within his power to achieve peace in the region.
I'm sure you hate Obama with all your body.:D

And your silly magic answer to everything "antisemitism" is getting old and tired, and lacks credibility.
You are full of hate against muslims and Palestinians, refuse to see the reasonable voices who want peace with Israel, and that suits you because you don't want peace at all. What you want is Eretz israel.

ItsMyJewty

01-29-2009, 04:34 AM

The obsessive slug has returned, continuing its slimy trail of nonsense and hate... The slug makes no mention, however, of the fact that Hamas is continuing to fire rockets into Israel. It also seems to be reluctant to answer questions on its unwillingness to got to Gaza to help its friends. Is the slug really interested in the Pals or does it just hate the Israelis? The latter, I believe.

CanDo

01-29-2009, 04:37 AM

... I just don't have a lot of time, I have a life outside this forum you know...

That's a shame. That means that others are being infected by you, not just the Israel Forum. :(

scattergood

01-29-2009, 04:46 AM

I conclude with Obama that you should first respect muslims and Palestinians, and listen to them. That's what Mitchell is doing. That's what Barak or the ones who succeeded him never did. Than talk to them, find a compromise which is acceptable to both peoples, no unilateral impositions. The most likely and preferable solution is a two-state solution. And that's what Obama what to establish in the region. He lost no time and immidiately after his inauguration he sent his envoy and called leaders of Arab neighbouring states, Palestinians and Israeli. I think Obama will keep his promise to do everything within his power to achieve peace in the region.
I'm sure you hate Obama with all your body.:D

And your silly magic answer to everything "antisemitism" is getting old and tired, and lacks credibility.
You are full of hate against muslims and Palestinians, refuse to see the reasonable voices who want peace with Israel, and that suits you because you don't want peace at all. What you want is Eretz israel.

The bolded statement is what shows you live in a fantasy land. With too large a segment of the Muslim population, THERE IS NO COMPROMISE. Coupled with the fact that the other segment of the Muslim population with which there IS compromise won't do enough to stop the segment that WON'T compromise, there is trouble. I believe THIS is the true dilemma. Unless and until Muslims eradicate Islamist thinking instead of passively not doing enough about it, there will be no solution.

How do you compromise with a group that tells you there is no compromise? Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Queada, Iranian Mullahs, all show there is no compromise. You believe that there is still the possiblity, the reality is that unless they get everything they want, the removal of Israel, the submission f the West to their 'ideals', the destruction of those things that makes the West unique, there is no compromise.

Madeline

01-29-2009, 05:50 AM

Mediocrates

01-29-2009, 06:17 AM

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090129.wgazaschool29/BNStory/International/home

JABALYA, GAZA STRIP â€” Most people remember the headlines: Massacre Of Innocents As UN School Is Shelled; Israeli Strike Kills Dozens At UN School.They heralded the tragic news of Jan. 6, when mortar shells fired by advancing Israeli forces killed 43 civilians in the Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. The victims, it was reported, had taken refuge inside the Ibn Rushd Preparatory School for Boys, a facility run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

The news shocked the world and was compared to the 1996 Israeli attack on a UN compound in Qana, Lebanon, in which more than 100 people seeking refuge were killed. It was certain to hasten the end of Israel's attack on Gaza, and would undoubtedly lead the list of allegations of war crimes committed by Israel.

There was just one problem: The story, as etched in people's minds, was not quite accurate.

Physical evidence and interviews with several eyewitnesses, including a teacher who was in the schoolyard at the time of the shelling, make it clear: While a few people were injured from shrapnel landing inside the white-and-blue-walled UNRWA compound, no one in the compound was killed. The 43 people who died in the incident were all outside, on the street, where all three mortar shells landed.

Stories of one or more shells landing inside the schoolyard were inaccurate.
While the killing of 43 civilians on the street may itself be grounds for investigation, it falls short of the act of shooting into a schoolyard crowded with refuge-seekers.

The teacher who was in the compound at the time of the shelling says he heard three loud blasts, one after the other, then a lot of screaming. "I ran in the direction of the screaming [inside the compound]," he said. "I could see some of the people had been injured, cut. I picked up one girl who was bleeding by her eye, and ran out on the street to get help."But when I got outside, it was crazy hell. There were bodies everywhere, people dead, injured, flesh everywhere."

The teacher, who refused to give his name because he said UNRWA had told the staff not to talk to the news media, was adamant: "Inside [the compound] there were 12 injured, but there were no dead."

"Three of my students were killed," he said. "But they were all outside."
Hazem Balousha, who runs an auto-body shop across the road from the UNRWA school, was down the street, just out of range of the shrapnel, when the three shells hit. He showed a reporter where they landed: one to the right of his shop, one to the left, and one right in front.

"There were only three," he said. "They were all out here on the road."
News of the tragedy travelled fast, with aid workers and medical staff quoted as saying the incident happened at the school, the UNRWA facility where people had sought refuge.

Soon it was presented that people in the school compound had been killed. Before long, there was worldwide outrage.

Sensing a public-relations nightmare, Israeli spokespeople quickly asserted that their forces had only returned fire from gunmen inside the school. (They even named two militants.) It was a statement from which they would later retreat, saying there were gunmen in the vicinity of the school.
No witnesses said they saw any gunmen. (If people had seen anyone firing a mortar from the middle of the street outside the school, they likely would not have continued to mill around.)

John Ging, UNRWA's operations director in Gaza, acknowledged in an interview this week that all three Israeli mortar shells landed outside the school and that "no one was killed in the school."

"I told the Israelis that none of the shells landed in the school," he said.
Why would he do that?

"Because they had told everyone they had returned fire from gunmen in the school. That wasn't true."

Mr. Ging blames the Israelis for the confusion over where the victims were killed. "They even came out with a video that purported to show gunmen in the schoolyard. But we had seen it before," he said, "in 2007."

The Israelis are the ones, he said, who got everyone thinking the deaths occurred inside the school.

"Look at my statements," he said. "I never said anyone was killed in the school. Our officials never made any such allegation."

Speaking from Shifa Hospital in Gaza City as the bodies were being brought in that night, an emotional Mr. Ging did say: "Those in the school were all families seeking refuge. ... There's nowhere safe in Gaza."

And in its daily bulletin, the World Health Organization reported: "On 6 January, 42 people were killed following an attack on a UNRWA school ..."
The UN's Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs got the location right, for a short while. Its daily bulletin cited "early reports" that "three artillery shells landed outside the UNRWA Jabalia Prep. C Girls School ..." However, its more comprehensive weekly report, published three days later, stated that "Israeli shelling directly hit two UNRWA schools ..." including the one at issue.

Such official wording helps explain the widespread news reports of the deaths in the school, but not why the UN agencies allowed the misconception to linger.

"I know no one was killed in the school," Mr. Ging said. "But 41 innocent people were killed in the street outside the school. Many of those people had taken refuge in the school and wandered out onto the street.
"The state of Israel still has to answer for that. What did they know and what care did they take?"

Mediocrates

01-29-2009, 06:19 AM

The Rockets That Destroyed Their Users
by James Dunnigan (http://jimdunnigan.com/)
January 28, 2009

In Gaza, Hamas has been attacking Israel with mortars (mostly 82mm) and homemade rockets (Kassams) for eight years, in an attempt to kill Jews and destroy Israel. These are two primary goals for Hamas, and feature prominently in their propaganda. Since the first Kassam attack in 2001 (at Israelis inside Gaza), about 6,000 rockets have been fired. There were few attacks (about 300 rockets) when Israel occupied Gaza. But after Israel left in mid-2005, Hamas greatly increased the attacks (about 5,700 rockets and 4,000 mortar shells), because Israeli troops were no longer around to interfere with building and launching rockets.

The attacks have been remarkably ineffective, killing only 37 people (half from rockets, the rest by mortars) in eight years. Hamas has had to fire about 270 rockets or mortar shells for each Israel soldier or civilian they have killed. Israeli counterfire killed or wounded a Palestinian for every three Palestinian rockets or mortar shells fired. One Israeli was killed or wounded for every 40 rockets or mortar shells fired. Israeli fire was much more accurate, with most of the Palestinian casualties being terrorists or others involved in building or firing the rockets and mortars. Hamas has tried to get civilians killed, by storing rockets in residential areas, and forming them from those neighborhoods as well. Although Hamas believes in the concept of "involuntary martyrdom" (getting civilians killed for the cause, even if the victims are not willing), many of its chosen candidates for it are not. So civilians stay away from areas where the rockets are launched, and try to conceal the fact that rockets are hidden under their homes.

Kassams began landing in Israel during late 2001, shortly after the Hamas Palestinian terrorist organization perfected the design. This was the Kassam I, and it was 60mm in diameter, about 31 inches long, weighed twelve pounds and carried a one pound explosive charge. Its range is about three kilometers. Like all the Kassams, you aimed it and hoped for the best. In early 2002, Hamas began firing these at Jewish settlements in Gaza as well. By 2003, larger versions were built. There was the Kassam II, which weighed 70 pounds, is 150mm in diameter and six feet long. It has a range of eight kilometers, and a 11-15 pound warhead. It wasn't until June, 2004, that one of these Kassam rockets actually killed an Israeli. By then, about 200 Kassams had been fired into southern Israel.

Later came the Kassam III, which is 6.7 feet long, 170mm in diameter, has a range of about 12 kilometers, and a warhead of 22-44 pounds. This one weighs about 200 pounds. There are many variations in these designs, and larger rockets have been used as well, including the Kassam IV, with a range of 15 kilometers, and a BM-21 clone, called the Nasser 4, with a range of up to 20 kilometers. Costing only $400 to build, materials for the Nasser 4 rockets are smuggled in via the many tunnels between Gaza and Egypt.

Israel and Hamas arranged for a six month truce in June, 2008. During that truce, Palestinians continued to fire rockets (361) and mortar shells (303) into Israel. When Israel began attacking Hamas and other terrorist targets on December 27th, 2008, the Palestinians increased their rocket attacks. But after peaking at about a hundred fired on the 28th, the number launched has declined with each day. Israeli UAVs, aircraft and jets are constantly over Gaza, seeking out rocket workshops, storage areas and launching sites. But since Israeli troops have not yet moved into Gaza City, Hamas is able to continue firing at least ten rockets a day.

Israel knows that Hamas has been stockpiling an arsenal of rockets in Gaza. Israeli intelligence officials believe Hamas currently has, in Gaza, several hundred factory made BM-21 rockets, each with a range of 20-40 kilometers. They also have some shorter range (six kilometers) B-12 rockets. These are not smuggled in much, because the locally made Kassam II has about the same range. However, the B-12 is more reliable (more reliable trajectory and fuze, so more are likely to land where aimed and explode.)

The B-12 is a 107mm, 42 pound, 107mm, 33 inch long, Russian designed rocket that is very popular with terrorists. This rocket has a range of about six kilometers and three pounds of explosives in its warhead. Normally fired, from a launcher, in salvoes of dozens at a time, when used individually, it is more accurate the closer it is to the target. This 107mm design has been copied by many nations, and is very popular with guerillas and terrorists because of its small size and portability.

The 122mm BM-21s weigh 150 pounds and are nine feet long. These have 45 pound warheads, but not much better accuracy than the 107mm model. However, these larger rockets have a maximum range of 20 kilometers. Again, because they are unguided, they are only effective if fired in salvos, or at large targets (like cities, or large military bases or industrial complexes.)

Meanwhile, up north in Lebanon, Hezbollah have stockpiled over 40,000 factory made rockets, mainly BM-21s brought in from Iran via Syria. This is three times as many rockets as they had in the Summer of 2006, when over 4,000 rockets were fired into northern Israel, killing about fifty people, most of them civilians. Over a thousand Lebanese died from Israeli counterattacks. Hezbollah and Hamas plan to launch a joint rocket attack on Israel eventually. The Israelis have been planning more effective countermeasures, which they have not been discussing openly.

Mosche

01-29-2009, 09:41 AM

Mitchell is a failed envoy who has repeatedly ignored facts on the ground. He is bad news for Israel.

You are soooo right Madeline!
Today I heard a colleague--he teaches Islam and Philosophy of Religion classes at my university--singing the praises of Mitchell! I instantly thought, "If this person supports Mitchell's efforts, Israel is about to be taken to the woodshed!"

Mediocrates

01-29-2009, 10:27 AM

On the 6th of January the Israeli army returned fire at Hamas terrorists in Jabalya who were using a mortar battery to target Israeli personnel. They killed and identified at least two Hamas operatives (http://idfspokesperson.com/2009/01/06/hamas-operatives-killed-in-unrwa-school-6-jan-2009/). At the same time a number of innocent civilians died in the attack. The UNâ€™s World Health Organisation have news of this event on their site (http://www.who.int/hac/crises/international/wbgs/sitreps/gaza_6jan2009/en/index.html):
42 people were killed 6 Jan in an UNRWA school in an Israeli attack.
[...]
On 6 January, 42 people were killed following an attack on a UNRWA school transformed into a refugee site for displaced people. Dozens were injured and evacuated.
The UN were extremely concerned by this attack since â€œInternational Humanitarian Law requires all medical personnel and facilities be protected at all times, even during armed conflict. Attacks on them are grave violations of International Humanitarian and Human Rights laws.â€ Indeed, the UN recently have recently called for an investigation of alleged war crimes, and this report (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/victorious-but-vilified-israel-has-destroyed-its-image-and-its-soul-1418920.html) in The Independent notes the attack in Jabalya when discussing the UNâ€™s call:
the call came at the culmination not only of a rising civilian death toll but also a series of attacks on UN installations and, in some cases, the people who were under the UNâ€™s care at the time. The most lethal of these was an earlier shelling in which 43 internally displaced Gazans, sheltering in the Fakhura UNRWA school in Jabalya, were killed on 6 January.
Yet even at the time, there was some confusion as to the target of the Israeli attack. Here in this Guardian editorial (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/07/jabalya-bombing-gaza-israel), the day after the attack, it is noted that the Israeli shells fell outside, as opposed to on or in, the UN refuge:
Three shells exploded outside a United Nations school in Jabalya refugee camp, where more than 300 Palestinians had sought refuge. Over 40 died and 55 were injured. It was waiting to happen.
So, the shells fell outside the school, but it still seems as though the effect of the Israeli attack was to kill over 40 people. If you are in a UN refuge, it makes little difference to you if you are killed because of shells hitting you directly, or indirectly. However, it nows seems that reports of the deaths in the UN refuge are inaccurate. No one died in the UN refuge (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090129.wgazaschool29/BNStory/International/home).
Physical evidence and interviews with several eyewitnesses, including a teacher who was in the schoolyard at the time of the shelling, make it clear: While a few people were injured from shrapnel landing inside the white-and-blue-walled UNRWA compound, no one in the compound was killed. The 43 people who died in the incident were all outside, on the street, where all three mortar shells landed.
Stories of one or more shells landing inside the schoolyard were inaccurate.
While the killing of 43 civilians on the street may itself be grounds for investigation, it falls short of the act of shooting into a schoolyard crowded with refuge-seekers.
The teacher who was in the compound at the time of the shelling says he heard three loud blasts, one after the other, then a lot of screaming. â€œI ran in the direction of the screaming [inside the compound],â€ he said. â€œI could see some of the people had been injured, cut. I picked up one girl who was bleeding by her eye, and ran out on the street to get help.â€But when I got outside, it was crazy hell. There were bodies everywhere, people dead, injured, flesh everywhere.â€
The teacher, who refused to give his name because he said UNRWA had told the staff not to talk to the news media, was adamant: â€œInside [the compound] there were 12 injured, but there were no dead.â€
So, in fact, the Israeli army did not attack a UN refuge. The shells landed outside the UN refuge and no-one in the refuge was killed. The shells also landed outside an auto-body shop, so it may as well be termed an attack on an auto-body shop.
So, firstly, one has to ask why the UN stated that deaths occured within the compound, when none had. When John Ging, UNRWA Director of Operations in Gaza, visited the UN school in Jabaliya he stated in a press release (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/73c4af0938dfdcc985257538006a49a2%21OpenDocument), which says an Israeli strike on UNWRA school occurred:
â€œThereâ€™s nowhere safe in Gaza. Everyone here is terrorized and traumatized. These men, women and children are all seeking safety and there is no safety in Gaza at the moment, even in an UNRWA school. This is unacceptable.â€
In fact, he is wrong. It appears that the UN refuge was safe. To be fair, he has accepted this now, but it would have been nice for the UN to get its facts right or at least shut up until the facts where clear.
Secondly, it is noticable how certain parts of the media leapt onto the story with some glee. The Independent takes first prize with its headline â€œMassacre of innocents as UN school is shelled (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-innocents-as-un-school-is-shelled-1230045.html)â€œ. Those with a biblical eye may spot the reference in the articleâ€™s title to King Herodâ€™s attempt to kill Jesus by murdering all young children in Bethlehem. Interesting that racial agitation, in the form of raising the myth of Jews as the killers of Christ (http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Killers-Passion-Bible-Screen/dp/0195178416), should slip so easily into a modern liberal newspaper.

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/29/israel-did-not-attack-un-school-in-jabalya/

Y. Shulamith

01-29-2009, 10:53 AM

You are soooo right Madeline!
Today I heard a colleague--he teaches Islam and Philosophy of Religion classes at my university--singing the praises of Mitchell! I instantly thought, "If this person supports Mitchell's efforts, Israel is about to be taken to the woodshed!"

There are lots and lots of failed envoys; too many to name, and Mitchell will, in all probability, be just another one of them!!!

:tdown:

Yala

01-29-2009, 11:31 AM

Yala

I guess you are talking about the war of words with him :p because unfortunately I don't think that the real war is over. In any case, I for one won't miss him.

Hi Reffo. I meant the war in gaza is over and unfortunately his cheerleading for Hamas did not lead anywhere. The IDF was not embarrassed as after Lebanon 2006, and may even have established further deterrence, although we can't be sure just yet.

We'll see him next conflict to lecture Israel and the forum. You can bet on it.

Reffo

01-29-2009, 12:11 PM

I'll be back. Yes, I thought you would, but you need to recuperate first and you need re-stock your bag of polemics with new lies eh Takeo? And after that you'll continue with your old ones and endless repetitions and tedium. I guess your dearest hope is to bore everyone to death, right Takeo? :rolleyes:

Madeline

01-29-2009, 12:24 PM

Reffo

01-29-2009, 12:26 PM

Hi Reffo. I meant the war in gaza is over and unfortunately his cheerleading for Hamas did not lead anywhere. The IDF was not embarrassed as after Lebanon 2006, and may even have established further deterrence, although we can't be sure just yet.

We'll see him next conflict to lecture Israel and the forum. You can bet on it. I don't think deterrence will be achieved just by this response but it's a first step. At least the IDF gave Hamas and it's supporters something to think about but operation cast led MUST be followed up relentlessly. In fact, Israel needs to learn from Hamas. It needs to become as relentless as Hamas and show them that it is very serious about ensuring that Hamas and it's supporters will have to pay a very high price for the spilling of ANY Jewish blood. In fact, Israel needs to up the ante until they find Hamas's (and/or their supporters) threshold of pain tolerance. That's when deterrence will be established....

Madeline

01-29-2009, 12:32 PM

Reffo

01-29-2009, 12:53 PM

As soon as takeo takes stage, and shall go on to more productive grounds. Boring indeed. Pick your battles.I know what you are saying but he is a stomach virus :vomit: and there is only so much that a stomach can take before the immune system kicks in ....

Madeline

01-29-2009, 01:00 PM

I know what you are saying but he is a stomach virus :vomit: and there is only so much that a stomach can take before the immune system kicks in ....
I don't mean to be disrespectful to him, or people like him, but my time is too valuable to spend with his nonsense rants. Sorry, but I call it as I see it.

Reffo

01-29-2009, 01:44 PM

I don't mean to be disrespectful to him, or people like him,I do! Especially to people like him ....

but my time is too valuable to spend with his nonsense rants. Sorry, but I call it as I see it.As I said, I know what you are saying and I respect it ...

takeo

01-29-2009, 05:09 PM

The bolded statement is what shows you live in a fantasy land. With too large a segment of the Muslim population, THERE IS NO COMPROMISE. Coupled with the fact that the other segment of the Muslim population with which there IS compromise won't do enough to stop the segment that WON'T compromise, there is trouble. I believe THIS is the true dilemma. Unless and until Muslims eradicate Islamist thinking instead of passively not doing enough about it, there will be no solution.

How do you compromise with a group that tells you there is no compromise? Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Queada, Iranian Mullahs, all show there is no compromise. You believe that there is still the possiblity, the reality is that unless they get everything they want, the removal of Israel, the submission f the West to their 'ideals', the destruction of those things that makes the West unique, there is no compromise.

There is also a segment of the Israeli (and world) Jewish population, which doesn't want any compromise, very well represented on this forum by the way. So you think they should be eradicated before there can be peace? I don't think so. They should be ignored, and they should not have any power. And when they commit illegal acts, such as calling for violence, they can be prosecuted.
The radical segment in the Islamic population exists as well, but isn't nearly as big as you think. In the end, few people really like Al-Quaida, many just support them because of frustration. And frustration (with the rockets from Gaza for example) is also the reason why so many Israeli vote for radical parties. And in reality many people in the muslim world DO speak out against Al-Quaida and extremism, but you don't want to see it, since it doesn't fit in your worldview. In your worldview all Arabs are extremists, and this serves as an excuse to deny them their rights eternally. Many Arabs, and Palestinians, fight with their life against extremism. But they also see that Israel's and U' policy in the region very much contribute to this extremism. Not only in the 80's, when the US directly supported Osama and many other extremists, but also with the invasion of Iraq, which indirectly boosted extremism, especially in Iraq, and nowadays in Iraq.

In reality what most muslims want is respect, that's also the reason why Erdogan, not an extremist, left Davos when he wasn't allowed even to answer the insults of Perez. A life is a life, Palestinian lifes and Palestinian possessions are as valuable as Jewish lifes or Jewish possessions. Palestinians have as much the right to have a state as Israeli. On this site everyone expects the world to respect Israel, rightfully so, but there is no respect, at all, for Palestinians. They are not considered human beings. Some even say it openly. They propose inhuman "solutions" for them, such as "transfer", but if anyone would propose the same "solutions" for Jews, he would (rightly so of course!) be labelled a nazi! (and, he could and will be prosecuted, at least in Europe).
It's sad to see that nazism and extremism can prosper among Jews as well. But it's a reality, and it's in the advantage of everyone to get rid of those extremists and take a distance, as it's in the advantage of muslims to take a distance form their own extremists.

Steven

01-29-2009, 05:22 PM

There is also a segment of the Israeli (and world) Jewish population, which doesn't want any compromise, very well represented on this forum by the way. So you think they should be eradicated before there can be peace? I don't think so. They should be ignored, and they should not have any power. And when they commit illegal acts, such as calling for violence, they can be prosecuted.
The radical segment in the Islamic population exists as well, but isn't nearly as big as you think. In the end, few people really like Al-Quaida, many just support them because of frustration. And frustration (with the rockets from Gaza for example) is also the reason why so many Israeli vote for radical parties. And in reality many people in the muslim world DO speak out against Al-Quaida and extremism, but you don't want to see it, since it doesn't fit in your worldview. In your worldview all Arabs are extremists, and this serves as an excuse to deny them their rights eternally. Many Arabs, and Palestinians, fight with their life against extremism. But they also see that Israel's and U' policy in the region very much contribute to this extremism. Not only in the 80's, when the US directly supported Osama and many other extremists, but also with the invasion of Iraq, which indirectly boosted extremism, especially in Iraq, and nowadays in Iraq.

More excuses from the Jew hater. Al Qaeda is not the only group out there and the call for sharia in the West is getting louder by the day. This is besides terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas being voted into office.

In reality what most muslims want is respect, that's also the reason why Erdogan, not an extremist, left Davos when he wasn't allowed even to answer the insults of Perez. A life is a life, Palestinian lifes and Palestinian possessions are as valuable as Jewish lifes or Jewish possessions. Palestinians have as much the right to have a state as Israeli. On this site everyone expects the world to respect Israel, rightfully so, but there is no respect, at all, for Palestinians. They are not considered human beings. Some even say it openly.

The Islamic world deserves the amount of respect it has for the rest of the world and that is none.

Reffo

01-29-2009, 08:09 PM

There is also a segment of the Israeli (and world) Jewish population, which doesn't want any compromise

The radical segment in the Islamic population exists as well, but isn't nearly as big as you think

In reality what most muslims want is respect,Yes, Takeo, we know, we know already: Jews bad ..... Muslims good ..... Jews bad ..... Muslims good....... Jews bad ..... Muslims good ..... Jews bad ..... Muslims good....... Jews bad ..... Muslims good ..... Jews bad ..... Muslims good...... Jews bad ..... Muslims good ..... Jews bad ..... Muslims good ......Jews bad ..... Muslims good ..... Jews bad ..... Muslims....... good...... It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....

Add water, stir and repeat ad nauseum! :rolleyes:

takeo

01-30-2009, 12:39 AM

Yes, Takeo, we know, we know already: Jews bad ..... Muslims good ..... Jews bad ..... Muslims good....... Jews bad ..... Muslims good ..... Jews bad ..... Muslims good....... Jews bad ..... Muslims good ..... Jews bad ..... Muslims good...... Jews bad ..... Muslims good ..... Jews bad ..... Muslims good ......Jews bad ..... Muslims good ..... Jews bad ..... Muslims....... good...... It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....It's ALL the Jews fault .....

Add water, stir and repeat ad nauseum! :rolleyes:

That's not what I said, at all, you are creating a strawman that isn't me. Stop lying.

takeo

01-30-2009, 12:44 AM

Yes, I thought you would, but you need to recuperate first and you need re-stock your bag of polemics with new lies eh Takeo? And after that you'll continue with your old ones and endless repetitions and tedium. I guess your dearest hope is to bore everyone to death, right Takeo? :rolleyes:

The only way you can criticise me is by creating a strawman, and by twisting my words. Actually, if you read my posts, you'll see we both believe ine a two-state solution, based on the green line, and a compromise for the refugees which is acceptable to both Palestinians and Israeli. So why do you keep on focussing on me, instead of the many other posters who don't want that?

takeo

01-30-2009, 12:48 AM

There are lots and lots of failed envoys; too many to name, and Mitchell will, in all probability, be just another one of them!!!

:tdown:

According to you, should he succeed or fail? Do you want a two-state solution based on the green line?

takeo

01-30-2009, 12:54 AM

Mitchell is a failed envoy who has repeatedly ignored facts on the ground. He is bad news for Israel.

He is bad news to you, because you don't want peace and you don't want a Palestinian state. To me he's good news, I support the efforts of the Obama administration to create peace in the Middle East. Obama also said he would extend his hand to Iran, and the next step is Hamas. If those parties get involved in the peace-proces, and make peace with Israel, any peace will succeed. I think all the Arab and muslim parties involved, as well as Obama, should work towards peace in cooperation, Hamas should unconditionally stop all violence. In that case, Israel won't have any excuses left to boycott any peace-process. And in that case, if for example Netanyahu refuses to negociate, the whole world will know who's responsible and the pressure on Israel to give in will become very high.

takeo

01-30-2009, 12:57 AM

takeo

01-30-2009, 01:13 AM

Reffo

Back up for a minute Takeo. This interchange started with your complaint about the "Occupation". And I proved to you that Israel showed willingness to end that. Now, what more do you want? :scratch:

The Palestinians also showed a willingness to recognise Israel. But that's not enough. Both parties should negociate and compromise on everything, especially the details.

And they would, after a few years of peace and quiet in which they would demonstrate that they give up on their penchant for violence..

You can't expect the Palestinians to make the first move. Everything should be discussed and decided during an all-inclusive treaty. Palestinians will not make peace if occupation and colonisation continues. You can't expect that. Equally so Israel should not withdraw without a peace-treaty and mutual recognition.
Besides, on the Westbank there hasn't been any violence since a long time. And Hamas only started firing rockets when the truce ended, mostly because of the continued economic strangle of Gaza.

You are lying again Takeo :mad: How could 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank and the offer of other lands to offset the remaining 3%, result in Bantustahns? :scratch: Because that's what Barak offered in 2001!

I already told you that these figures are disputed. Barak's proposal has never been made public. Anyway, you agreed with me that any peace-proposal should be talked trough, unilateral impositions are unacceptable. Israel never accepted the Saudi peace proposal.(which was also agreed upon by the Palestinians, which prooves you were lying when you said the Palestinians never made a counter-proposal). So I guess the final outcome should be a compromise between Barak's proposal and the Saudi proposal.

But Israel tried all sorts of low key responses, for 7 years, and none of that worked. The rockets kept on raining onto the heads of Israeli civilians. Wasn't that enough of a restraint by Israel for you?

There has been a truce for a long time. Israel could have ended the embargo which was strangling Gaza, the main reason why Hamas ended the truce.

So that Hamas would be able to import more sophisticated terror weapons to lob onto the heads of Israeli civilians? I don't think so!

No! What I mean end the embargo, not the weapons embargo. Why is Gaza cut off from the outside world, why can only humanitarian aid pass trough, why can't normal trade resume? What's the goal except to punish ordinary Palestinians for supporting hamas?

Yes you are! Just listen to yourself: You support Hamas's extortion of Israel! Remember Hamas's openly declared objective to destroy Israel? You want Israel to facilitate that aim!

Hamas will only give up on that if Israel directly negociates with hamas and if Hamas will be included in the peace-process.

But Israel has every right to defend itself and it's civilians.

Yes, and Palestinians have the right to defend themselves against occupation and colonisation of their land.

Yep, and Egypt would have rushed in to attack Hamas if Israel would have asked it to do so.

No, but I think Egyptian and other Arab troops troops can controll the security in the region as part of a final peace-plan. That's also the plan put forwards by Friedman in the New York Times. These will be acceptable to Palestinians, on the contrary to Israeli troops.

Reffo

01-30-2009, 01:23 AM

Takeo is NOT stupid, period. He is just backing a cause that is frankly un-backable! That's why he has no choice but to act like a broken record. :tdown:

So peace and a two-state solution is unbackable? That's what you SAY that you are backing. But when one looks at what you are REALLY backing one realises that you are ACTUALLY backing Israel's destruction because you'd force Israel to give up land without it getting REAL guarantees for peace. You can deny that all you like but your own words betray you...

Reffo

01-30-2009, 01:27 AM

That's not what I said, at all, you are creating a strawman that isn't me. Stop lying. Really? So tell me this: Who is to blame that there isn't a two state solution yet?

takeo

01-30-2009, 01:34 AM

Reffo

This is from Haaretz 15/02/2006:
Are you saying that Israel wouldn't negotiate with Hamas if they would agree to that?

Why put pre-conditions in place for talking? The IRA wanted to end Brittish rule in Ulster when Blair started talking to them, as a result of these talks they changed their position.

Eastern Jerusalem is a separate matter. In 1948 the UN made it an international city but Jordan ignored that and occupied it. And since 1967 Israel controlled it but one of the most painful concessions forced on Barak in 2001, by Clinton and Dennis Ross, Barak agreed to share it as a joint capital between Israel and the Palestinians.

The UN also declared that Eastern-Jerusalem is occupied territory and doesn't belong to Israel. The Barak proposals were interesting, but not detailed enough. For example which neighbourhoods will continue to be Israeli, which will go to the Palestinians, what will Palestinians get in return for ceding some parts of Eastern Jerusalem? And will Netanyahu be prepared to negociate about Jerusalem? If he doesn't, the peace-proces will fail and Netanyahu will be the one to blame, at least partly, right? (because that's what, according to me, is going to happen)

And it was painful indeed because of the 2000 year bond of the Jewish people to Jerusalem, not only historically and culturally but also physically because Jerusalem had a majority Jewish population for hundreds of years till 1948 when your Arabs ethnically cleansed the Jews of East Jerusalem!

Yes, but West-Jerusalem will still be the capital of Israel, and some Holy monuments in the East will be incorporated in Israel, or put under international mandate. Jerusalem is equally the capital of Palestinians since the middle Ages, and a Holy city for both christian and muslim Palestinians and Arabs, and for christians and muslims worldwide it's a Holy city.
And yes Jerusalem had a Jewish majority in the 19th century, but the whole of Palestine had clearly an Arab majority, so let's not use 19th century demographics as an argument. The only realistic option is dividing the city, as it was before 1967.

Excuse me Takeo but when did Hamas say that they would change their charter in response to a peace deal? Quote and link please!

Meshal, whose Hamas movement leads the Palestinian government, told Reuters in
an interview on Wednesday that Israel is a "matter of fact," apparently
softening a previous refusal to accept that Israel's existence. One hour after the Reuters interview was published, the Hamas government
spokesman Ghazi Hamad told Haaretz that Meshal said, "Israel exists - and
that's a fact." Israel is a "reality" and "there will remain a state called Israel, this is a
matter of fact," Meshal, who is considered Hamas' main power broker, told
Reuters.

The problem was not Israel's existence but the failure to establish a state
for Palestinians, said Meshal, whose party leads the Palestinian government.

Formal recognition of Israel could only be considered by Hamas once such a
Palestinian state is established, Reuters quoted Meshal as saying.

Senior Hamas officials have already made similar statements over the past
year, saying Israel's existence is an undeniable reality, but this is the
first time that such statements are emanating from the group's Syria-based
leadership.

This is also the first time that a Hamas official has raised the possibility
of full and official recognition of Israel in the future."The distant future will have its own circumstances and positions could be
determined then," he said. Past concessions to Israel by Palestinian
negotiators went unrewarded, he argued, and his Islamist group would drive
hard bargains over key issues such as recognition.

"For Israel to suck us into bargains in stages and in packages - this road
constitutes an attempt to weaken the Palestinian position."

http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/01/pm-dismisses-meshal-comments-that.html

There IS another way! Hamas will need to be persuaded (gently :D) that their violence will do nothing for the Palestinian people (except bring suffering) and that no matter how much violence they will use, Israel will never be destroyed! And if Hamas will not be persuaded by that, some of the saner Palestinian people might be and they might do something about Hamas, get my drift Takeo? :D It's a long shot but there are no other alternatives.

You don't get it. Palestinians don't believe in the honest will of the Israeli side to give them their own state. So they'll only stop the violence once and for all once an all-inclusive deal is signed. And this is the way it always happens concerning such international disputes.

Reffo

01-30-2009, 01:34 AM

The only way you can criticise me is by creating a strawman, and by twisting my words. Actually, if you read my posts, you'll see we both believe ine a two-state solution, based on the green line, and a compromise for the refugees which is acceptable to both Palestinians and Israeli.Strawman? In what way? Yes, we both stated that we believe in the same end solution but where we differ is that I expect the Palestinian Arabs to formally renounce their past pretexts for war in return for land. Whereas you don't and that's a recepee for future war/s in which Israel's position would be MUCH weaker, get it?

So why do you keep on focussing on me, instead of the many other posters who don't want that?Didn't you accuse me (unjustifiably) of advocating ethnic cleansing?

takeo

01-30-2009, 01:42 AM

Reffo

01-30-2009, 01:58 AM

Back up for a minute Takeo. This interchange started with your complaint about the "Occupation". And I proved to you that Israel showed willingness to end that. Now, what more do you want?

The Palestinians also showed a willingness to recognise Israel. But that's not enough. Both parties should negociate and compromise on everything, especially the details.And Israel HAS BEEN and IS negotiating with Fatah. So what more do you want? Why is it only Israel's fault that they can't agree?

And they would, after a few years of peace and quiet in which they would demonstrate that they give up on their penchant for violence..

You can't expect the Palestinians to make the first move.Why not? Weren't they the ones who started this war originally?

Everything should be discussed and decided during an all-inclusive treaty. Palestinians will not make peace if occupation and colonisation continues. You can't expect that.So I assume that you expect Israel to give up the land FIRST, and without the conclusion of a formal peace deal which would only occur later (supposedly)?

Equally so Israel should not withdraw without a peace-treaty and mutual recognition.Now you have lost me! Isn't this a cotradiction with what you said above?

Besides, on the Westbank there hasn't been any violence since a long time.So why didn't they sign a peace deal yet, in your opinion? I have already answered that question on this thread.

And Hamas only started firing rockets when the truce ended, mostly because of the continued economic strangle of Gaza.And your point is?

You are lying again Takeo How could 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank and the offer of other lands to offset the remaining 3%, result in Bantustahns? Because that's what Barak offered in 2001!

I already told you that these figures are disputed.Only by people like you ...

Barak's proposal has never been made public.Yes it has, but people like you don't want to acknowledge it...

Anyway, you agreed with me that any peace-proposal should be talked trough, unilateral impositions are unacceptable.And your point is?

Israel never accepted the Saudi peace proposal.And I told you why not!

(which was also agreed upon by the PalestiniansNot by Hamas but it doesn't matter anyway..

which prooves you were lying when you said the Palestinians never made a counter-proposal).I said that in relation to the 2001 peace offer to which the Palestinians counter proposal was the Intifada which led to murderous suicide bombings against thousands of Israeli civilians. The Saudi proposal came well after that in 2002.

To be continued ....

takeo

01-30-2009, 02:00 AM

Reffo

Have you apologised to me yet for accusing me of supporting ethnic cleansing? I said that I don't now and that I argued against it with KW before and I gave you a link to prove it as you asked. I am waiting for your apology for that!

Well, I will apologise if you apologise for calling me an anti-semite and advocating the destruction of Israel, which are lies. :stick:

But in any case, you won't be getting an apology from me because even in your last few posts you demonstrated that you expect everything from Israel and nothing from Hamas and that is as good as supporting them in my book!

Nonsense, I expect Hamas to eventually give up violence and recognise Israel, as part of a major peace-deal which includes both Israel, Hamas and fatah. (and probably other Arab countries and the US as well, who knows maybe even Iran if Obama succeeds to change the Iranian position). But not unilaterally! Nor do I expect Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the occupied territories, it should all be part of a major peace-deal. But for this to happen both sides have to talk.

OK then, you agree that Israel need not do anything about the settlements before negociations conclude and a peace package is agreed to by both parties?

Yes, but of course, why should Israel expand settlements it plans to terminate as part of a peace-deal? What's the logic behind this? Equally so, Palestinians killing Israeli citizens is not a good sign to the other side that they want peace.
Anyway, nevertheless, despite this, they should start negociations. And only than we'll really see if Israel is willing to stop colonisation and occupation, and Palestinians to recognise Israel and end violence.

I didn't say ALL, I said MANY! What was that based on? The election of Hamas by a majority of Palestinians!

So if Israeli vote for Netanyahu it means they don't want peace? It's more complicated than that.
Besides, by electing Hamas they demonstrated that they lost believe in the Fatah tactics to achieve a Palestinian state. But in the end even hamas wants peace with Israel (see my post above) but only the condition that Israel recognises the Palestinian state as well.

takeo

01-30-2009, 02:05 AM

Reffo

But I thought that you said that you already challenged Israel haters who came here and believe me they DID!

Yes I did, but not often as Israel-haters don't tend to stay long on this forum. And if you give me a link to one I'll do it again.

But now you are saying that you will challenge them in the future. OK, we will see :unsure:

Yes I will, if they post on the same thread I'm reading or posting at.

Reffo

01-30-2009, 02:17 AM

But Israel tried all sorts of low key responses, for 7 years, and none of that worked. The rockets kept on raining onto the heads of Israeli civilians. Wasn't that enough of a restraint by Israel for you?

There has been a truce for a long time. Israel could have ended the embargo which was strangling Gaza, the main reason why Hamas ended the truce.There has been a truce for 6 months and at the end of that Hamas resumed it's rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. And no, Israel could not agree to end the embargo because that would allow Hamas to smuggle in even more advanced rockets with which it could use to extort more concessions from Israel without giving Israel anything in return..

So that Hamas would be able to import more sophisticated terror weapons to lob onto the heads of Israeli civilians? I don't think so!

No! What I mean end the embargo, not the weapons embargo. Why is Gaza cut off from the outside world, why can only humanitarian aid pass trough, why can't normal trade resume? What's the goal except to punish ordinary Palestinians for supporting hamas?Because they are governed by a terrorist organisation that has a charter to destroy it's neighbour, Israel..

Yes you are! Just listen to yourself: You support Hamas's extortion of Israel! Remember Hamas's openly declared objective to destroy Israel? You want Israel to facilitate that aim!

Hamas will only give up on that if Israel directly negociates with hamas and if Hamas will be included in the peace-process.You are lying again. I already gave you a reference link which demonstrated that Hamas does not want to recognize Israel under any circumstance.

But Israel has every right to defend itself and it's civilians.

Yes, and Palestinians have the right to defend themselves against occupation and colonisation of their land.OK, and your point is?

Yep, and Egypt would have rushed in to attack Hamas if Israel would have asked it to do so.

No, but I think Egyptian and other Arab troops troops can controll the security in the region as part of a final peace-plan. That's also the plan put forwards by Friedman in the New York Times. These will be acceptable to Palestinians, on the contrary to Israeli troops.But that's not what you suggested before. What you suggested was akin to making pigs fly :D

takeo

01-30-2009, 02:18 AM

Reffo

And Israel HAS BEEN and IS negotiating with Fatah. So what more do you want? Why is it only Israel's fault that they can't agree?

It should also invite Hamas to take part in the negociations, because Hamas is a reality. Arab neighbouring countries and the US are also involved.
I don't know what are the difficult points, but it seems that it's wise to wait for the Israeli elections. Because when Netanyahu gets elected he will shut the door to any negociated solution.

Why not? Weren't they the ones who started this war originally?

This whole blame-game is childish. Israel too made big mistakes, such as the colonisation proces.

So I assume that you expect Israel to give up the land FIRST, and without the conclusion of a formal peace deal which would only occur later (supposedly)?

No!
Both at once.

Now you have lost me! Isn't this a cotradiction with what you said above?

no

And your point is?

that you can't only blame Hamas.

Only by people like you ...

No, by the Arab side, by some American negociators, by acedemics, etc.

And your point is?

Barak's proposal was a unilateral imposition.

And I told you why not!

I also told you why Arabs and Palestinians couldn't accept the Barak proposal, but you continue to use their refusal as an argument to demonstrate that they supposedly don't want peace...

I said that in relation to the 2001 peace offer to which the Palestinians counter proposal was the Intifada which led to murderous suicide bombings against thousands of Israeli civilians. The Saudi proposal came well after that in 2002.

During that time Israel refused to talk to BOTH Arafat and Hamas. And the US-administration was totally one-sided and unsuited as mediator during that time. So there haven't been talks during many years, eventough Arafat repeated his willingness to talk to Israel, he even concluded a "shadow" peace-deal with the Israeli opposition.

takeo

01-30-2009, 02:29 AM

Reffo

There has been a truce for 6 months and at the end of that Hamas resumed it's rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. And no, Israel could not agree to end the embargo because that would allow Hamas to smuggle in even more advanced rockets with which it could use to extort more concessions from Israel without giving Israel anything in return..

nonsense, the embargo was not about weapons but about food, construction material, energy, etc. Israel was trying to strangle Gazan economy to pressure Hamas.

Because they are governed by a terrorist organisation that has a charter to destroy it's neighbour, Israel..

I told you already that Hamas will only change its charter as part of a global peace-deal, the Hamas-leader himself said so (see the quote I gave).
That's not a reason not to start negociations with Hamas, and even less a reason to strangle the Gazan economy and punish ordinary Gazans. Wasn't it you who told me that a blockade is a casus belli?

You are lying again. I already gave you a reference link which demonstrated that Hamas does not want to recognize Israel under any circumstance.

And I gave you a link which demonstrates the opposite.

Reffo

01-30-2009, 02:39 AM

This is from Haaretz 15/02/2006:
Are you saying that Israel wouldn't negotiate with Hamas if they would agree to that?

... The IRA wanted to end Brittish rule in Ulster when Blair started talking to them, as a result of these talks they changed their position.And had Britain agreed to that, then the Brits would have got out of Ireland and Britain and Iraland could have lived side by side peacefully ever after.. That's the worst deal that the Brits could have got out of it. Not so bad huh Takeo?

But if Israel would accept Hamas's terms, Israel would cease to exist. Get it Takeo? Here is a hint: Your analogy STINKS! :rolleyes:

Eastern Jerusalem is a separate matter. In 1948 the UN made it an international city but Jordan ignored that and occupied it. And since 1967 Israel controlled it but one of the most painful concessions forced on Barak in 2001, by Clinton and Dennis Ross, Barak agreed to share it as a joint capital between Israel and the Palestinians. And it was painful indeed because of the 2000 year bond of the Jewish people to Jerusalem, not only historically and culturally but also physically because Jerusalem had a majority Jewish population for hundreds of years till 1948 when your Arabs ethnically cleansed the Jews of East Jerusalem!

what will Palestinians get in return for ceding some parts of Eastern Jerusalem?Are you for real?

Excuse me Takeo but when did Hamas say that they would change their charter in response to a peace deal? Quote and link please!

Meshal, whose Hamas movement leads the Palestinian government, told Reuters in
an interview on Wednesday that Israel is a "matter of fact," apparently
softening a previous refusal to accept that Israel's existence.Really? You don't say! They said that ....last Wednesday? Obviously operation cast led had some positive effects ;)

Formal recognition of Israel could only be considered by Hamas once such a
Palestinian state is established, Reuters quoted Meshal as saying.But then this ...:rolleyes: Back to the idea that Israel should just trust them .... give up strategic assets (land) .... and if it suits them afterwards ...... if they'll feel like it ..... They'll recognize Israel. And you think that Israel should accept such a deal Takeo?

There IS another way! Hamas will need to be persuaded (gently ) that their violence will do nothing for the Palestinian people (except bring suffering) and that no matter how much violence they will use, Israel will never be destroyed! And if Hamas will not be persuaded by that, some of the saner Palestinian people might be and they might do something about Hamas, get my drift Takeo? It's a long shot but there are no other alternatives.

You don't get it. Palestinians don't believe in the honest will of the Israeli side to give them their own state. So they'll only stop the violence once and for all once an all-inclusive deal is signed. And this is the way it always happens concerning such international disputes. No, Takeo, you are the one who doesn't get it! :mad:

Reffo

01-30-2009, 02:59 AM

Strawman? In what way? Yes, we both stated that we believe in the same end solution but where we differ is that I expect the Palestinian Arabs to formally renounce their past pretexts for war in return for land. Whereas you don't and that's a recepee for future war/s in which Israel's position would be MUCH weaker, get it?

What past pretexts, can you be a bit more specific please?No I can't because I mentioned them to you several times already on this thread alone. Go..... look back and find it, don't be so lazy!

As I repeated at neaseum, A solution for the refugees has to be included in any peace-deal, of course, and you said you agree with meNo I didn't. I advocated what Ehud Barak offered for the refugees and you didn't agree. But I won't elaborate because as you said, we already talked about this ad nauseum...

but Israel can not expect Palestinians to unilaterally give up on the refugees evne before the talks start.It doesn't but again we discussed this before...

Didn't you accuse me (unjustifiably) of advocating ethnic cleansing?

I accused you of not speaking out against people who reject peace and advocate etnic cleansing, the majority on this forum. But I showed you that you were wrong and did you apologize after that? Now if you show me that I am wrong about you, then I would be prepared to apologize for what I said about you, but you haven't!

__________________
"Change the channel" (Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see tv images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops)

Reffo

01-30-2009, 03:28 AM

Have you apologised to me yet for accusing me of supporting ethnic cleansing? I said that I don't now and that I argued against it with KW before and I gave you a link to prove it as you asked. I am waiting for your apology for that!

Well, I will apologise if you apologise for calling me an anti-semiteShow me where I accused you of being an antisemite.

and advocating the destruction of Israel, which are lies.What I did accuse you was that your proposals would lead to Israel's destruction.

But in any case, you won't be getting an apology from me because even in your last few posts you demonstrated that you expect everything from Israel and nothing from Hamas and that is as good as supporting them in my book!

Nonsense, I expect Hamas to eventually give up violence and recognise Israel, as part of a major peace-deal which includes both Israel, Hamas and fatah.But didn't you expect Israel to give up land first? Without getting any recognition?

who knows maybe even IranYep, who knows indeed ...

But not unilaterally! Nor do I expect Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the occupied territories, it should all be part of a major peace-deal. But for this to happen both sides have to talk. But didn't you say that Hamas expects unilateral withdrawal first, then formation of Palestine and maybe recognition of Israel afterwards?

OK then, you agree that Israel need not do anything about the settlements before negociations conclude and a peace package is agreed to by both parties?

Yes, but of courseThat's good, you agree that NEITHER side should impose pre-conditions on the other side..

why should Israel expand settlements it plans to terminate as part of a peace-deal? What's the logic behind this?Because people already live there and children are born and there are newly marrieds who want to establish new households and not live with parents and siblings...

But forget all that! You said above: NO PRECONDITIONS and here you want to impose PRECONDITIONS? What's the logic behind that, Takeo? :scratch:

Equally so, Palestinians killing Israeli citizens is not a good sign to the other side that they want peace.There you go, see? You can do it! You can actually exhibit rare moments of insight...

Anyway, nevertheless, despite this, they should start negociations. Who do you mean by "they"? Hamas?

And only than we'll really see if Israel is willing to stop colonisation and occupation, and Palestinians to recognise Israel and end violence.Wow .... only then? Are you feeling OK Takeo? .... I thought you already accused Israel of colonisation? Have I been wrong about you after all? Or could it be that you are just all over the place?

I didn't say ALL, I said MANY! What was that based on? The election of Hamas by a majority of Palestinians!

So if Israeli vote for Netanyahu it means they don't want peace? If Netanyahu says that he doesn't want peace and Israelis vote for him then it would mean that. But Netanyahu does not say that..

It's more complicated than that. No it's not!

Besides, by electing Hamas they demonstrated that they lost believe in the Fatah tactics to achieve a Palestinian state.And that they prefer Hamas who openly stated that they want to destroy Israel and replace it by an Islamic state.

But in the end even hamas wants peace with Israel (see my post above) but only the condition that Israel recognises the Palestinian state as well.No they don't! See what I said above.

takeo

01-30-2009, 03:31 AM

Reffo

And had Britain agreed to that, then the Brits would have got out of Ireland and Britain and Iraland could have lived side by side peacefully ever after.. That's the worst deal that the Brits could have got out of it. Not so bad huh Takeo?

But if Israel would accept Hamas's terms, Israel would cease to exist. Get it Takeo? Here is a hint: Your analogy STINKS! :rolleyes:

Israel will not loose anything by talking to Hamas. And if Hamas changes their positions in return for a clear Israeli engagement to end both occupation and colonisation in all occupied territories, both sides will win. Ira too was considered a terrorist organisation, and Thatcher didn't want to talk to them, Blair did and with splendid results.

Are you for real?

Of course, exchange of land is possible, Israel keeping parts of the occupied territories in exchange for nothing is impossible.

Really? You don't say! They said that ....last Wednesday? Obviously operation cast led had some positive effects ;)

No, they said it long before operation "Cast led". But you were not willing to hear it as it fit in your view.

But then this ...:rolleyes: Back to the idea that Israel should just trust them .... give up strategic assets (land) .... and if it suits them afterwards ...... if they'll feel like it ..... They'll recognize Israel. And you think that Israel should accept such a deal Takeo?

No, again you are twisting my words. I said AT THE SAME TIME, part of a general all-inclusive peace treaty.
But the large majority of this forum doesn't want that, that's why they create the strawman of the barbarian subhuman Arab which wants to destroy Israel at all costs. That's the only way they can justify their call for ethnic cleansing, Drang nach Osten and a GroB-Israel. Just like Hitler did: he diabolised the "ennemies" of Germany, said that peace with those evil bolsheviks and semitic and slavic subhumans was impossible, that's how he deluded the german people into accepting his evil wars and ideas.

Reffo

01-30-2009, 03:43 AM

But I thought that you said that you already challenged Israel haters who came here and believe me they DID!

Yes I did, but not often as Israel-haters don't tend to stay long on this forum. And if you give me a link to one I'll do it again.You do amuse me Takeo :lol: You mean you want me to prove what you claimed? You challenged me to give you a link to prove my claim and I gave you one. Now it's your turn: If you really did challenge Israel haters in the past (like you claimed) then give us a link and show us! Don't be lazy, go find it ...

But if you want to do it now, then just do a search with the keyword "troll". I am sure that will lead you to some haters. Good luck...

But now you are saying that you will challenge them in the future. OK, we will see :unsure:

Yes I will, if they post on the same thread I'm reading or posting at. OK, I see..., you just changed the rules again. You just imposed new conditions, huh Takeo?

Calling all Hamasniks and srael haters ..... please post on Takeo's threads from now on :D

takeo

01-30-2009, 03:52 AM

Reffo

Show me where I accused you of being an antisemite.

At least you implied it more than a few times. And everyone else on this forum is calling me an anti-semite, but you never reply to them, eventough I seem to be an interesting object of debate on this thread, more interesting to some then the actual Palestinian-Israeli conflict.:scratch:

What I did accuse you was that your proposals would lead to Israel's destruction.

How?

But didn't you expect Israel to give up land first? Without getting any recognition?

No! I never said that!

Yep, who knows indeed ...

It would be good for the region. Clinton almost made peace with Iran, but 8 years were lost under Bush. Ahmedinejad by the way is not the real strongman in Iran, Khamenei is, and he seems much more pragmatic.

But didn't you say that Hamas expects unilateral withdrawal first, then formation of Palestine and maybe recognition of Israel afterwards?

No, read what is stated.

That's good, you agree that NEITHER side should impose pre-conditions on the other side..

yes. But a few steps of goodwill wouldn't hurt. Such as Israel not expanding illegal settlements and Palestinians refraining from attacks against Israel.

Because people already live there and children are born and there are newly marrieds who want to establish new households and not live with parents and siblings...

They can already start a new life in Israel, since they'll have to leave sooner or later anyway. Besides, most settlements are only an hour or less by car from Jerusalem.

But forget all that! You said above: NO PRECONDITIONS and here you want to impose PRECONDITIONS? What's the logic behind that, Takeo? :scratch:

no I don't, I said a few steps of goodwill would be better, but even that isn't necessary to start talks.

There you go, see? You can do it! You can actually exhibit rare moments of insight...

I think most of my arguments are reasonable, on the contrary to most posters here.

Who do you mean by "they"? Hamas?

And Israel too.

If Netanyahu says that he doesn't want peace and Israelis vote for him then it would mean that.

In that case Palestinians have the right to resume Intifadeh, right?
(and in that case, they will, sure as hell!)

But Netanyahu does not say that..

Likud doesn't want any talks with hamas or Fatah, and doesn't want compromise on Jerusalem, settlements, refugees, etc. In short: they don't want peace.

And that they prefer Hamas who openly stated that they want to destroy Israel and replace it by an Islamic state.

Many Israeli also vote for parties who don't want a Palestinian state. In reality most Palestinians, as Hamas, realise Israel will stay on, but they think the peaceful strategy of Fatah to establish their own state failed.

Mediocrates

01-30-2009, 04:12 AM

takeo mimics the Arab position that Israel needs to be reduced to tiny Jewish enclaves among an Aran Muslim Palestine until they are wiped out on their own.

ItsMyJewty

01-30-2009, 04:15 AM

takeo: I think most of my arguments are reasonable, on the contrary to most posters here.

I don't think it's reasonable to accuse people - wrongly - of advocating ethnic cleansing and genocide. Hypocrit!

Reffo

01-30-2009, 04:21 AM

And Israel HAS BEEN and IS negotiating with Fatah. So what more do you want? Why is it only Israel's fault that they can't agree?

It should also invite Hamas to take part in the negociations, because Hamas is a reality. Arab neighbouring countries and the US are also involved.I have a better Idea: Why doesn't Hamas invite Israel to negotiate with it? And of course it has not, so perhaps we should blame Hamas, huh Takeo?

I don't know what are the difficult points, but it seems that it's wise to wait for the Israeli elections. Because when Netanyahu gets elected he will shut the door to any negociated solution.And then you will be happy.

Why not? Weren't they the ones who started this war originally?

This whole blame-game is childish.You are right. It is childish to blame Israel for the refugees and the "occupation".

So I assume that you expect Israel to give up the land FIRST, and without the conclusion of a formal peace deal which would only occur later (supposedly)?

No!
Both at once.But you said that Hamas expects to be able to establish a Palestinian state before (in your opinion) they would agree to recognize Israel.

Now you have lost me! Isn't this a cotradiction with what you said above?

noYes. I gotta laugh :D

And your point is?

that you can't only blame Hamas.OK, I'll blame their supporters too then. Are you happy now?

Only by people like you ...

No, by the Arab sideWhat a surprise :clap:

by some American negociatorsWho were not even present at the negotiations

by acedemics, etc.Who have an anti USA anti Israel agenda and who were not even in the same country where the negotiations were conducted..

And your point is?

Barak's proposal was a unilateral imposition.Imposition? Did he twist Arafat's arms? Did he get a counter proposal in 2001 (other than the violent Intifada)?

And I told you why not!

I also told you why Arabs and Palestinians couldn't accept the Barak proposal, but you continue to use their refusal as an argument to demonstrate that they supposedly don't want peace...No, not because of "their refusal" .... because of the Intifada. Or are you saying that their response with the violent intifada represented peaceful intentions?

I said that in relation to the 2001 peace offer to which the Palestinians counter proposal was the Intifada which led to murderous suicide bombings against thousands of Israeli civilians. The Saudi proposal came well after that in 2002.

During that time Israel refused to talk to BOTH Arafat and Hamas.BS, Hamas was the one who refused to talk to Israel. And there was nothing more to say to Arafat because Israel made it's offer to him, Arafat said NO! And he did NOT come back with a counter offer.

And the US-administration was totally one-sided and unsuited as mediator during that time.Why? Because it refused to apply more pressure on Israel?

So there haven't been talks during many years,Hold on there: The Taba peace offer was made in 2001. Arafat said NO, without giving a counter offer, because there haven't been talks "during many years"? You are not making any sense..:scratch:

eventough Arafat repeated his willingness to talk to Israel, he even concluded a "shadow" peace-deal with the Israeli opposition.So who stopped him. Why didn't he make a counter offer instead of fanning the flames of the violent intifada?

There has been a truce for 6 months and at the end of that Hamas resumed it's rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. And no, Israel could not agree to end the embargo because that would allow Hamas to smuggle in even more advanced rockets with which it could use to extort more concessions from Israel without giving Israel anything in return..

nonsense, the embargo was not about weapons but about food, construction material, energy, etc. Israel was trying to strangle Gazan economy to pressure Hamas.Nonsense, it would have facilitated weapons smuggling too ... and more sophisticated ones at that!

Because they are governed by a terrorist organisation that has a charter to destroy it's neighbour, Israel..

I told you already that Hamas will only change its charter as part of a global peace-deal, the Hamas-leader himself said so (see the quote I gave). You told me diametrically opposite self contradictions...

That's not a reason not to start negociations with HamasNo, but if they [Hamas] don't want to talk to Israel directly, that's a good reason ... even you must admit that :unsure:

and even less a reason to strangle the Gazan economy and punish ordinary Gazans. Punish ordinary Gazans? But didn't you agree with your mentor [Uri avneri] that Hamas cannot be defeated because the ordinary population of Gaza ARE the sons, brothers and fathers of Hamas?

Wasn't it you who told me that a blockade is a casus belliI said that blockade, getting rid of UN peace keepers, terrorism, threats to drive the jews into the sea ALL TOGETHER is a casus belli ...

Madeline

01-30-2009, 04:35 AM

Yawn

Madeline

01-30-2009, 04:36 AM

takeo mimics the Arab position that Israel needs to be reduced to tiny Jewish enclaves among an Aran Muslim Palestine until they are wiped out on their own.

Since you are the mod, do you have to read all of this?

bararallu

01-30-2009, 04:54 AM

Madeline,

You fail to see the entertainment value in this then. Reffo needs to receive a lifetime achievement award at pretzelizing Jew hating blow hards.

takeo

01-30-2009, 04:59 AM

Reffo

I have a better Idea: Why doesn't Hamas invite Israel to negotiate with it? And of course it has not, so perhaps we should blame Hamas, huh Takeo?

And why doesn't Israel invite Hamas to negociate with it? Who is supposed to be the most reasonable party of the two? Hamas, according to you?

And then you will be happy.

on the contrary, most posters here, will be happy. That's why they support Netanyahu. (altough most even consider Netanyahu to be too moderate, not hawkish or radical enough)

You are right. It is childish to blame Israel for the refugees and the "occupation".

No! Israel is to blame for that, as the Arabs are to blame for the 1948 war. What I mean is that we should get past this "who is to blame" game and look for solutions. If not the conflict will never be resolved.

But you said that Hamas expects to be able to establish a Palestinian state before (in your opinion) they would agree to recognize Israel.

Not before, at the same time.

OK, I'll blame their supporters too then. Are you happy now?

And what about Israel?

What a surprise :clap:

Not a surprise, not a surprise either that the main negociators Clinton and Barak will defend their side of the story.

Who were not even present at the negotiations

How do you know?

Who have an anti USA anti Israel agenda and who were not even in the same country where the negotiations were conducted..

There are American and Israeli academics too...

Imposition? Did he twist Arafat's arms? Did he get a counter proposal in 2001 (other than the violent Intifada)?

He wanted to impose his offer, he didn't want any negociations.

No, not because of "their refusal" .... because of the Intifada. Or are you saying that their response with the violent intifada represented peaceful intentions?

They started the Intifadeh because peace appeared to be impossible and Israel was not willing to negociate. But even during Intifadeh Arafat wanted to talk and negociate, Sharon refused, said Arafat was "persona non grata". You agreed with me there shouldn't be any preconditions before talks.

BS, Hamas was the one who refused to talk to Israel. And there was nothing more to say to Arafat because Israel made it's offer to him, Arafat said NO!

so there was nothing more to talk with Arafat because he didn't accept the unilateral Barak imposition? Now you are contradicting yourself. You agreed with me that peace should be negociated, right? Arafat was ready to negociate, Sharon wasn't.

And he did NOT come back with a counter offer.

He did support the Saudi proposal.

Why? Because it refused to apply more pressure on Israel?

It just sided with Israel! Didn't make any demands on Israel, only on the Palestinians. Bush didn't want to talk with Arafat either, and even less with Syria, Iran, Hamas, etc.. So 8 lost years.

to be continued

Reffo

01-30-2009, 05:03 AM

Show me where I accused you of being an antisemite

At least you implied it more than a few times. And everyone else on this forum is calling me an anti-semiteWhere did I imply it?

but you never reply to them, eventough I seem to be an interesting object of debate on this thread, more interesting to some then the actual Palestinian-Israeli conflict.::scratch:Why should I?

What I did accuse you was that your proposals would lead to Israel's destruction.

How?Go back and read all about it..

But didn't you expect Israel to give up land first? Without getting any recognition?

No! I never said that!But you said that Hamas expects it and you blame Israel, not Hamas.

Yep, who knows indeed ...

It would be good for the region. Clinton almost made peace with Iran, but 8 years were lost under Bush. Ahmedinejad by the way is not the real strongman in Iran.A nuclear Iran would be good for the region?

Khamenei is, and he seems much more pragmaticNo he isn't.

But didn't you say that Hamas expects unilateral withdrawal first, then formation of Palestine and maybe recognition of Israel afterwards?

No, read what is stated.You sure DID say that! And no, I won't read what is stated, I'll let anyone else check it for themselves in the unlikely event that they are even remotely interested in this crazy discussion ;)

That's good, you agree that NEITHER side should impose pre-conditions on the other side..

yes. But a few steps of goodwill wouldn't hurt. Such as Israel not expanding illegal settlements and Palestinians refraining from attacks against Israel.And I say, Israel gave plenty of good will for which it only got ill will in return. Now it's time for quid pro quo ... Pals give good will and Israel should then reciprocate. It's time for your Palis now to START with the good will, huh Takeo?

Because people already live there and children are born and there are newly marrieds who want to establish new households and not live with parents and siblings...

They can already start a new life in Israel, since they'll have to leave sooner or later anyway. Besides, most settlements are only an hour or less by car from Jerusalem.But didn't you say that neither side should expect pre-conditions from the other side?

But forget all that! You said above: NO PRECONDITIONS and here you want to impose PRECONDITIONS? What's the logic behind that, Takeo?

no I don't, I said a few steps of goodwill would be better, but even that isn't necessary to start talks.Repetition... read above...

There you go, see? You can do it! You can actually exhibit rare moments of insight...

I think most of my arguments are reasonable, on the contrary to most posters here.You think so? I don't ... maybe 1 in 100, I'll grant you that for now. ;)

If Netanyahu says that he doesn't want peace and Israelis vote for him then it would mean that.

In that case Palestinians have the right to resume Intifadeh, right?
(and in that case, they will, sure as hell!)WILL? I thought they never stopped it since 2000!

But Netanyahu does not say that..

Likud doesn't want any talks with hamas or Fatah, and doesn't want compromise on Jerusalem, settlements, refugees, etc. In short: they don't want peace.So why is it that you are so excited by the prospects of Bibi's victory which Hamas helped bring about (more than likely)?

By the way, I still say that Bibi does not WANT war. But if Hamas wants it, he WILL give it to them.

And that they prefer Hamas who openly stated that they want to destroy Israel and replace it by an Islamic state.

Many Israeli also vote for parties who don't want a Palestinian state.Many but NOT most. But MOST Palestinians voted for Hamas, go figure :scratch:

In reality most Palestinians, as Hamas, realise Israel will stay on, but they think the peaceful strategy of Fatah to establish their own state failed. That's not how they seem to behave in reality!

Madeline

01-30-2009, 05:13 AM

Madeline,

You fail to see the entertainment value in this then. Reffo needs to receive a lifetime achievement award at pretzelizing Jew hating blow hards.
I hand out the award personally. Just don't make me watch the.:lol:

bararallu

01-30-2009, 05:20 AM

Lets call it the Pretzel award!

Reffo

01-30-2009, 05:22 AM

And had Britain agreed to that, then the Brits would have got out of Ireland and Britain and Iraland could have lived side by side peacefully ever after.. That's the worst deal that the Brits could have got out of it. Not so bad huh Takeo?

But if Israel would accept Hamas's terms, Israel would cease to exist. Get it Takeo? Here is a hint: Your analogy STINKS!

Israel will not loose anything by talking to Hamas. And if Hamas changes their positions in return for a clear Israeli engagement to end both occupation and colonisation in all occupied territories, both sides will win. Ira too was considered a terrorist organisation, and Thatcher didn't want to talk to them, Blair did and with splendid results.And Hamas wouldn't lose anything by talking to Israel. So why don't they want to do so?

Are you for real?

Of course, exchange of land is possible, Israel keeping parts of the occupied territories in exchange for nothing is impossible.That wasn't what we discussed there but who cares carry on supermposing bits and pieces out of context...

Really? You don't say! They said that ....last Wednesday? Obviously operation cast led had some positive effects

No, they said it long before operation "Cast led". But you were not willing to hear it as it fit in your view.When did they say it? Quote and link please!

But then this ... Back to the idea that Israel should just trust them .... give up strategic assets (land) .... and if it suits them afterwards ...... if they'll feel like it ..... They'll recognize Israel. And you think that Israel should accept such a deal Takeo?

No, again you are twisting my words. I said AT THE SAME TIME, part of a general all-inclusive peace treaty. Your words, I was talking about Hamas's words. I don't care about what you imagine could be/should be..

Madeline

01-30-2009, 05:50 AM

Lets call it the Pretzel award!
Pretzel? Croissant it should be.

Reffo

01-30-2009, 05:51 AM

I have a better Idea: Why doesn't Hamas invite Israel to negotiate with it? And of course it has not, so perhaps we should blame Hamas, huh Takeo?

And why doesn't Israel invite Hamas to negociate with it? Who is supposed to be the most reasonable party of the two? Hamas, according to you?Aha.... gotcha Takeo.... so even you think of Israel as more reasonable?

And then you will be happy.

on the contrary, most posters here, will be happy. That's why they support Netanyahu. (altough most even consider Netanyahu to be too moderate, not hawkish or radical enough)But you too will be happy won't you Takeo?

You are right. It is childish to blame Israel for the refugees and the "occupation".

No! Israel is to blame for that, as the Arabs are to blame for the 1948 war. What I mean is that we should get past this "who is to blame" game and look for solutions. If not the conflict will never be resolved.I think that what you really mean is that Israel SHOULD stop blaming but the Arabs could go on with THEIR blame game..

But you said that Hamas expects to be able to establish a Palestinian state before (in your opinion) they would agree to recognize Israel.

Not before, at the same time.But that's not what Hamas said according to you..

OK, I'll blame their supporters too then. Are you happy now?

And what about Israel?No, because you and people like you do NOTHING else. So I will just blame Hamas if that's OK with you Takeo ?

Who were not even present at the negotiations

How do you know?Because unlike you I read books like "The Missing Peace".

Who have an anti USA anti Israel agenda and who were not even in the same country where the negotiations were conducted..

There are American and Israeli academics too...Like your mates Chomsky and Pappe? Are you saying they are not anti American anti Israel? :lol:

Imposition? Did he twist Arafat's arms? Did he get a counter proposal in 2001 (other than the violent Intifada)?

He wanted to impose his offer, he didn't want any negociations.How did he want to impose it?

No, not because of "their refusal" .... because of the Intifada. Or are you saying that their response with the violent intifada represented peaceful intentions?

They started the Intifadeh because peace appeared to be impossible Why? Because Arafat didn't want peace?

and Israel was not willing to negociate.Arafat wanted Ehud Barak to make another offer. Barak didn't make one and that was cause for violence?

But even during Intifadeh Arafat wanted to talk and negociate, Sharon refused, said Arafat was "persona non grata".Because Arafat broke his word, he renigged on all his promises and he encouraged violence. Sharon didn't agree to EXTORTION by violenve. Have you got a problem with that?

BS, Hamas was the one who refused to talk to Israel. And there was nothing more to say to Arafat because Israel made it's offer to him, Arafat said NO!

so there was nothing more to talk with Arafat because he didn't accept the unilateral Barak imposition? Now you are contradicting yourself. You agreed with me that peace should be negociated, right? Arafat was ready to negociate, Sharon wasn't.There was nothing more to talk to Arafat because .... see above. You'll find I haven't contradicted myself .... but hey ... I won't argue the point .... let others judge :cool:

And he did NOT come back with a counter offer.

He did support the Saudi proposal.There was no Saudi offer in 2001, the only thing that was in 2001 is the Intifada!

And we discussed that offer already before.

Why? Because it refused to apply more pressure on Israel?

It just sided with Israel! Didn't make any demands on Israel, only on the Palestinians. Bush didn't want to talk with Arafat either, and even less with Syria, Iran, Hamas, etc.. So 8 lost years. Because Arafat proved himself to be a liar and a war monger.. Oh and by the way... Where does Bush come into this? We were talking about Clinton ... You are all over the place Takeo! :rolleyes:

Reffo

01-30-2009, 05:52 AM

I'll take Pretzel? Croissant :cool:

bararallu

01-30-2009, 06:10 AM

http://www.nmajh.org/jewishetc/uploaded_images/pretzel-resized-761248.jpg

Madeline

01-30-2009, 06:23 AM

http://www.nmajh.org/jewishetc/uploaded_images/pretzel-resized-761248.jpg
Gotcha

Reffo

01-30-2009, 06:31 AM

ItsMyJewty

01-30-2009, 07:25 AM

takeo can rant and rave all he likes - Israel exists. :)

Y. Shulamith

01-30-2009, 07:44 AM

According to you, should he succeed or fail? Do you want a two-state solution based on the green line?

I cannot think of, in my lifetime, of a less propitious time for peace talks.:tdown:

takeo

01-30-2009, 04:27 PM

I cannot think of, in my lifetime, of a less propitious time for peace talks.:tdown:

So basically you don't want peace.

takeo

01-30-2009, 04:28 PM

takeo can rant and rave all he likes - Israel exists. :)

I never denied that. But does it want to live in peace with its neighbours? That's a totally different thing.

takeo

01-30-2009, 04:31 PM

From your Own Quote of What Hamas said, Takeo in Your Post #906 ...Second last entry ...

"Formal recognition of Israel could only be considered by Hamas once such a
Palestinian state is established, Reuters quoted Meshal as saying."

Now do you see why I call you a liar so regularly?

Well, read what is stated. If a Palestinian state is established, Hamas will recognise Israel. Or, Hamas will recognise Israel, if a Palestinian state is established. So at the same time.
And, on this, they are right. Why should they recognise Israel before Israel recognises Palestine?

Y. Shulamith

01-30-2009, 04:31 PM

So basically you don't want peace.

I'd love peace and there are lots of things I'd love to see, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. Times have to be right for certain things to transpire and I don't think that this is one of those times.

I am just being circumspect about the chances of peace, right now. It's my observation, and nothing more.

:rolleyes:

Reffo

01-30-2009, 04:50 PM

But you said that Hamas expects to be able to establish a Palestinian state before (in your opinion) they would agree to recognize Israel.

Takeo
Not before, at the same time.

From your Own Quote of What Hamas said, Takeo in Your Post #906 ...Second last entry ...

"Formal recognition of Israel could only be considered by Hamas once such a
Palestinian state is established, Reuters quoted Meshal as saying."

Now do you see why I call you a liar so regularly?I repeat, Why did you have to lie, Takeo?

takeo

01-30-2009, 04:53 PM

Reffo

Aha.... gotcha Takeo.... so even you think of Israel as more reasonable?

Well, Israel is an established state that considers itself to be a Western democracy. Hamas is basically still a guerilla organisation. So Israel should be more reasonable.

But you too will be happy won't you Takeo?

No, that's a lie.

I think that what you really mean is that Israel SHOULD stop blaming but the Arabs could go on with THEIR blame game..

Both sides should stop blaming eachother for what happened decades ago and look for solutions.

No, because you and people like you do NOTHING else. So I will just blame Hamas if that's OK with you Takeo ?

Well, in that case don't blame me for not criticising the Arabs and Palestinians, because you and people like you do NOTHING else. Fair enough, is it?

Like your mates Chomsky and Pappe? Are you saying they are not anti American anti Israel? :lol:

Not only them. And Chomsky is a Jewish-American, how can he be anti-american or an anti-semite? These people don't buy the official story, they didn't buy the official story concerning Iraq either. They are often right. That doesn't make them anti-american.

How did he want to impose it?

It was take it or leave it.

Why? Because Arafat didn't want peace?

Because Barak didn't want to negociate and talk. In the meanwhile, Israel was buildign new colonies at a rapid rate.

Arafat wanted Ehud Barak to make another offer. Barak didn't make one and that was cause for violence?

Barak also didn't want to negociate about key issues.

Because Arafat broke his word, he renigged on all his promises and he encouraged violence.

Israel too broke their word. According to Oslo there should have been a Palestinian state by 1999. So why should Palestinians refrain from using violence if Israel is continuing its occupation and colonisation policy?

Sharon didn't agree to EXTORTION by violenve. Have you got a problem with that?

You said yourself that there shouldn't be any preconditions for peace-talks. Forgot already? Besides, Israel uses extortion all the time (closures, bombing, embargo's, etc.) and the colonisation and occupation in itself is enough reason for the Palestinians to resist.

Arafat extended his hand to Israel, but Israel didn't reach it, instead, it destroyed the PA-institutions. The problem Israel has now with Hamas, originates in this time. They basically destroyed the Fatah powerbase, and than withdrew from Gaza. It doesn't take much imagination to know who would fill the void.

There was nothing more to talk to Arafat because .... see above.

why not? You think there should be preconditions for peace-talks? Now you are contradicting yourself again. And if there are preconditions on the israeli side, Palestinians can have preconditions as well (such as ending the existence of the settlements).

You'll find I haven't contradicted myself .... but hey ... I won't argue the point .... let others judge :cool:

Can't you do it yourself? You want preconditions for peace-talks or you don't want it? Or you think only Israel can have preconditions, not the Palestinians?

There was no Saudi offer in 2001, the only thing that was in 2001 is the Intifada!

In 2002 there was, and Israel rejected it.

And we discussed that offer already before.

As we discussed the Barak-offer before as well. Still you continue to claim that Palestinians didn't want peace because they rejected the Barak-offer.

Because Arafat proved himself to be a liar and a war monger..

And Sharon wasn't a warmonger perhaps? He's still referred to as the butcher of Lebanon. Arafat wanted peace-talks, Israel refused, these are the facts.
Besides, you didn't answer my question that, if Netanyahu decides to end all peace-talks, the Palestinians have the right to resume Intifadeh? A very unconvenient question, I know...

Oh and by the way... Where does Bush come into this? We were talking about Clinton ... You are all over the place Takeo! :rolleyes:

Bush was in power just a few months after Camp david. He didn't do anything to revive peace-talks during 8 years in power. Obama, after only 1 day in power, already called all the leaders and sent his envoy.

Y. Shulamith

01-30-2009, 05:02 PM

The Oslo accord never should have been. I don't know lots about it, but it was a total sell out from the beginning and the beginning of the end for Israel.

Whoever signed the accord was out of their minds. It is a no-brainer for the demise of Israel, lock, stock and barrel.

I have not a scintilla of recognition of the "Oslo Accord". Just coming from Oslo, in and of itself, is a travesty that never, ever should have occurred.

takeo

01-30-2009, 05:10 PM

Reffo

And Hamas wouldn't lose anything by talking to Israel. So why don't they want to do so?

They are not invited to any peace-negociations.

When did they say it? Quote and link please!

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467703960&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

He said so 11 jan. 2007. You were caught lying again!

Your words, I was talking about Hamas's words. I don't care about what you imagine could be/should be..

Hamas leader said he would recognise Israel on the condition of a Palestinian state.
This proves that your ranting that peace with Palestinians is impossible. Both Hamas and Fatah stated Israel will continue to exist. But many Israeli political parties don'y want a Palestinian state!

Madeline

01-30-2009, 05:12 PM

and for our special feature tonight...the takeo channel, featuring takeo, spreading the word according to takeo...
ooops, seems to be a rerun.

Reffo

01-30-2009, 05:20 PM

Aha.... gotcha Takeo.... so even you think of Israel as more reasonable?

Well, Israel is an established state that considers itself to be a Western democracy. Hamas is basically still a guerilla organisation. So Israel should be more reasonable.You mean they should just allow Hamas firing their rockets and beg them to stop?

I have news for you Takeo: Israel tried that too, but Hamas didn't stop!

But you too will be happy won't you Takeo?

No, that's a lie.You could have fooled me Takeo..:scratch:

I think that what you really mean is that Israel SHOULD stop blaming but the Arabs could go on with THEIR blame game..

Both sides should stop blaming eachother for what happened decades ago and look for solutions.I agree, now let's see whether you'll practice what you preach here ..

No, because you and people like you do NOTHING else. So I will just blame Hamas if that's OK with you Takeo ?

Well, in that case don't blame me for not criticising the Arabs and Palestinians, because you and people like you do NOTHING else. Fair enough, is it?All I have been doing here is RESPONDING to the likes of you. So, if you will continue, I'll continue too, OK Takeo?

Like your mates Chomsky and Pappe? Are you saying they are not anti American anti Israel?

Not only them. And Chomsky is a Jewish-American, how can he be anti-american or an anti-semite? These people don't buy the official story, they didn't buy the official story concerning Iraq either. They are often right. That doesn't make them anti-american.He can be and he is and I said he is anti Israel anti American. It's up to you if you want to use different descriptions than I used..

How did he want to impose it?

It was take it or leave it.Arafat wanted him to make a better offer and he said he hasn't got one.

That doesn't sound like an imposition to me.

Why? Because Arafat didn't want peace?

Because Barak didn't want to negociate and talk. In the meanwhileYou mean he HAD TO make Arafat a better offer? Says who?

Israel was buildign new colonies at a rapid rate.And the Palestinians were blowing up Israeli civilians twice a week...

Arafat wanted Ehud Barak to make another offer. Barak didn't make one and that was cause for violence?

Barak also didn't want to negociate about key issues.Negotiate about what? Arafat didn't make a counter offer in 2001!

To be continued..

takeo

01-30-2009, 05:32 PM

Reffo

Where did I imply it?

You implied it many times, don't have time to look for it. But OK, maybe I'm wrong, so you formally admit I'm not an antisemite? And I don't want the destruction of Israel? That would already be a first step in the direction of a reasonable debate.

Why should I?

because it's a falsehood.

A nuclear Iran would be good for the region?

It wouldn't make much difference for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, except that noone would think of bombing Iran, ever again. But personally I'm in favor of a nuclear-free Middle East.

And I say, Israel gave plenty of good will for which it only got ill will in return.

what good will, you refere once more to the Barak-proposal? Than I'm referring to the Saudi proposal. The continued colonisation policy, closures, bombings 100's of civilians, etc. are not signs of good will.
Palestinian president already recognised Israel, relinquished most of the historical Palestine, and want further talk. Despite Israel's continued colonisation, there haven't been recently any violent clashes in the Westbank. Altough Palestinians have full right to resist the occupation force as long as a peace-deal hasn't been signed. Plenty of goodwill.

Now it's time for quid pro quo ... Pals give good will and Israel should then reciprocate. It's time for your Palis now to START with the good will, huh Takeo?

No, talks should start without preconditions. Both sides should show some goodwill at the same time. Hamas refraining from shelling Israel, Israel opening the border for all non-military items. (why does Israel block Gaza, if it isn't a collective punishment?)

But didn't you say that neither side should expect pre-conditions from the other side?

yes

You think so? I don't ... maybe 1 in 100, I'll grant you that for now. ;)

Of course since the majority on this forum are extreme rightwing lunatics who advocate ethnic cleansing. They will support you, and you seem to chooce them over me, eventough you claim to want peace-negociations and a two-state solution.

WILL? I thought they never stopped it since 2000!

There hasn't been any significant violence on the Westbank, despite continued occupation and colonisation (which are acts of war). But of course if Netanyahu shuts the door to a two-state solution, this will all change radically, I can assure you.

So why is it that you are so excited by the prospects of Bibi's victory which Hamas helped bring about (more than likely)?

I'm worried about it, since he'll end peacetalks, which means WAR.

By the way, I still say that Bibi does not WANT war. But if Hamas wants it, he WILL give it to them.

If he doesn't want peace-negociations than he wants war. There's nothing in between.

Many but NOT most. But MOST Palestinians voted for Hamas, go figure :scratch:

Most will most likely vote for Netanyahu and other parties which don't want peace. According to polls however both the majority of Palestinians and of Israeli want a two-state solution. Hamas victory is a result of many things, among which the weakened Fatah (weakenec by Israel), corruption, and the lack of any progress in peace-talks. (Israel didn't want to talk to the PA for many years)

That's not how they seem to behave in reality!

There can only be peace if Israel ends colonisation and occupation. Not before.

Reffo

01-30-2009, 05:39 PM

Because Arafat broke his word, he renigged on all his promises and he encouraged violence.

Israel too broke their word. According to Oslo there should have been a Palestinian state by 1999. So why should Palestinians refrain from using violence if Israel is continuing its occupation and colonisation policy?There could have been one but Arafat didn't accept what Israel offered. And if you ask me, he didn't accept because what Israel asked in return would have stopped him from implementing the next stage of his plan: Making Israeli's lives so intolerable that Israel's exisestence would be endangered..

Sharon didn't agree to EXTORTION by violenve. Have you got a problem with that?

You said yourself that there shouldn't be any preconditions for peace-talks. Forgot already? Besides, Israel uses extortion all the time (closures, bombing, embargo's, etc.) and the colonisation and occupation in itself is enough reason for the Palestinians to resist.
Arafat extended his hand to Israel, but Israel didn't reach it, instead, it destroyed the PA-institutions. The problem Israel has now with Hamas, originates in this time. They basically destroyed the Fatah powerbase, and than withdrew from Gaza. It doesn't take much imagination to know who would fill the void.No, you said it and I agreed with you but you have been insisting that Israel should meet preconditions in spite of what you advocated. Coud that be due to your double standard?

There was no Saudi offer in 2001, the only thing that was in 2001 is the Intifada!

In 2002 there was, and Israel rejected it.Actually, Israel was positive about it and they indicated that they would be prepared to negotiate about it if the so called right of return demand would be removed from the offer. Why? Because the right of return is a recipee for Israel's destruction.

And we discussed that offer already before.

As we discussed the Barak-offer before as well. Still you continue to claim that Palestinians didn't want peace because they rejected the Barak-offer.And I seem to be right, unless you consider 7 years of Qassam rockets and suicide bombings of Israeli civilians as peaceful behaviour by Palestinians? :scratch:

Because Arafat proved himself to be a liar and a war monger..

And Sharon wasn't a warmonger perhaps? You bet he was! What do you want, a peacenick in response to the actions of a war monger like Arafat?

Oh and by the way... Where does Bush come into this? We were talking about Clinton ... You are all over the place Takeo!

Bush was in power just a few months after Camp david. He didn't do anything to revive peace-talks during 8 years in power. Obama, after only 1 day in power, already called all the leaders and sent his envoy. And by that stage Arafat thoroughly scuttled Ehud Barak's peace offer which Clinton cajoled and pressured Ehud Barak to make..

Reffo

01-30-2009, 06:04 PM

don't have time to look for it. But OK, maybe I'm wrong, so you formally admit I'm not an antisemite?I don't know you, are you?

And I don't want the destruction of Israel? That would already be a first step in the direction of a reasonable debate.Oh but you do! everything you advocate suggests it..

Why should I?

because it's a falsehood.So you want me to defend you from others who also agree with my interpretation that what you advocate would lead to Israel's destruction?

Let me think about it ....... I thought about it and my answer is: Nah!:rolleyes:

A nuclear Iran would be good for the region?

It wouldn't make much difference for the Israeli-Palestinian conflictIn one sense you are right. Why? Because if that comes about, the Palestinian conflict will seem like a Sunday School picnic in comparison..:(

And I say, Israel gave plenty of good will for which it only got ill will in return.

what good will...Ah nothing much ... just unilateral withdrawals, relaxation of check points, prisoner releases... just for starters! And what did they get in return? Qassams and more suicide bombings ..

Now it's time for quid pro quo ... Pals give good will and Israel should then reciprocate. It's time for your Palis now to START with the good will, huh Takeo?

No, talks should start without preconditions. Both sides should show some goodwill at the same time. Hamas refraining from shelling Israel, Israel opening the border for all non-military items. (why does Israel block Gaza, if it isn't a collective punishment?)What? You changed your mind again? :rolleyes: Didn't you suggest that Israel should show some good will?

WILL? I thought they never stopped it since 2000!

There hasn't been any significant violence on the Westbank, despite continued occupation and colonisation (which are acts of war). But of course if Netanyahu shuts the door to a two-state solution, this will all change radically, I can assure you.And you expect me to stop the blame game when ALL you do is carry on with your BLAME GAME?...:scratch:

So why is it that you are so excited by the prospects of Bibi's victory which Hamas helped bring about (more than likely)?

I'm worried about it, since he'll end peacetalks, which means WAR.And what do you call the situation NOW? Peaceful? :rolleyes:

Many but NOT most. But MOST Palestinians voted for Hamas, go figure

Most will most likely vote for Netanyahu and other parties which don't want peace Thanks to your war mongering Hamasnicks.

That's not how they seem to behave in reality!

There can only be peace if Israel ends colonisation and occupation. Not before.And what would you call that? I'd call it BLAME GAME but when I tell you about how your Palestinians are responsible for this 100 years war which they started, you BLAME ME for my BLAME GAME! .... Double standards by you again ? :rolleyes:

takeo

01-30-2009, 06:11 PM

Reffo

01-30-2009, 06:23 PM

takeo

01-30-2009, 06:34 PM

Reffo

I don't know you, are you?

No! How can I be an anti-semite? :scratch:

Oh but you do! everything you advocate suggests it..

That's a big fat lie and you know it. What do I advocate which would destroy Israel?

So you want me to defend you from others who also agree with my interpretation that what you advocate would lead to Israel's destruction?

Advocating the destruction of Israel is anti-semitic, isn't it, according to you? So you just denied that you were implying that I was anti-semitic, and you're doing it again!

Let me think about it ....... I thought about it and my answer is: Nah!:rolleyes:

Equally so I don't believe that you honestly believe in Palestinian rights and a two-state solution. You still didn't answer my question that, if Netanyahu doesn't want a Palestinian state, Palestinians have the right to resist colonisation?

In one sense you are right. Why? Because if that comes about, the Palestinian conflict will seem like a Sunday School picnic in comparison..:(

Nonsense, Pakistan, much more radical than Iran, has nukes and it didn't change a thing.

Ah nothing much ... just unilateral withdrawals, relaxation of check points, prisoner releases... just for starters! And what did they get in return? Qassams and more suicide bombings ..

I mentioned the many palestinian signs of goodwill which you simply deny.

What? You changed your mind again? :rolleyes: Didn't you suggest that Israel should show some good will?

I said, for the last time, BOTH sides.

And you expect me to stop the blame game when ALL you do is carry on with your BLAME GAME?...:scratch:

It's not about blame. If Netanyahu doesn't want to talk about peace, than there'll be no peace, right? Than there's war. This is a mere fact. Occupation and colonisation are acts of war, and without peacetalks there's no reason not to fight the occupiers.

And what do you call the situation NOW? Peaceful? :rolleyes:

It could be worse, the Westbank is largely quiet, and a truce with Hamas is being negociated. But there's still no end to the occupation or a Palestinian state in sight, so why should there be peace?

Thanks to your war mongering Hamasnicks.

Maybe. Or perhaps thanks to a corrupted Olmert?

And what would you call that? I'd call it BLAME GAME but when I tell you about how your Palestinians are responsible for this 100 years war which they started, you BLAME ME for my BLAME GAME! .... Double standards by you again ?

Palestinians aren't solely responsible for this 100 years war, you agreed with me that both sides made mistakes.
But once again this is not about blaming anyone. Occupation is according to international law an act of war, if Netanyahu doesn't want to relinquish the occupied territories, and doesn't want to comrpomise with the Palestinians, there'll be largescale war. That is a choice he'll make. and palestinians (and Arab world at large) will react accordingly.
In that case, who would you blame? (keep in mind that you too said a negociated compromise by both parties is the only solution)

Now I can imagine Obama wouldn't be happy with such a situation.

takeo

01-30-2009, 06:42 PM

Reffo

There could have been one but Arafat didn't accept what Israel offered.

He didn't have to. There should have been a negociated solution, not barak imposing his one-sided "peaceplan".

And if you ask me, he didn't accept because what Israel asked in return would have stopped him from implementing the next stage of his plan: Making Israeli's lives so intolerable that Israel's exisestence would be endangered..

He wanted compromise on the question of the refugees. Arafat wanted to compromise in general.

No, you said it and I agreed with you but you have been insisting that Israel should meet preconditions in spite of what you advocated. Coud that be due to your double standard?

Again, at nauseam, there shouldn't be any preconditions to talk. Goodwill is better, but not necessar. And this goes for both sides. (,or, I'm repeating my question again, should only Israel have the right to have preconditions not palestinians?)

And I seem to be right, unless you consider 7 years of Qassam rockets and suicide bombings of Israeli civilians as peaceful behaviour by Palestinians? :scratch:

As long as there isn't a global peace-agreement, there can't be peace.

You bet he was! What do you want, a peacenick in response to the actions of a war monger like Arafat?

No, but at least some capable of and willing to negociating;

Y. Shulamith

01-30-2009, 07:06 PM

So, I repeat, basically you don't want peace.

Basically I'd love to see peace but NOT the placement of borders and the creation of a state that would be ready, willing and able to carry out the complete eradication of Israel......not on your life..

Reffo

01-30-2009, 07:54 PM

And Hamas wouldn't lose anything by talking to Israel. So why don't they want to do so?

They are not invited to any peace-negociations.Actually they were invited to peace negotiations by Egypt, the US and the Europeans but they didn't accept. I gave you the Haaretz reference about that already but you keep on ignoring it...

When did they say it? Quote and link please!

He said so 11 jan. 2007. You were caught lying again!

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467703960&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

BS! Here are his quotes from your very own reference, you are the one who is lying! :(

"but the significance of his words were immediately downplayed by both Israeli and Hamas officials"

"Over the last few months there have been efforts to get Hamas to implicitly recognize Israel, without explicitly saying so."

"It is true that in reality there will be an entity or state called Israel on the rest of Palestinian land," said Mashaal. "This is a reality but I won't deal with it in terms of recognizing or admitting it," he added."

Hamas leader said he would recognise Israel on the condition of a Palestinian state.You said establishing a Palestinian state and simultaneously recognizing Israel.

But how would that work? Surely in order to establish the Palestinian state, Israel would need to hand ALL the land over first? Before Israel would be recognized?

And then what? What if then Hamas wouldn't recognize Israel?

Reffo

01-30-2009, 08:28 PM

I don't know you, are you?

No! How can I be an anti-semite? :scratch:Are you talking to yourself? I wasn't talking about anti-semites but you seem to be..

Oh but you do! everything you advocate suggests it..

That's a big fat lie and you know it. What do I advocate which would destroy Israel?I know that you do! ho hum ... here we go again, these are the types of things that you say:

It's Israel's fault....It's Israel's fault....It's Israel's fault....It's Israel's fault....It's Israel's fault....Israel should make the first concessions...Israel should make the first concessions...Israel should make the first concessions...Israel should make the first concessions...Israel should make the first concessions...Israel is a colonialist state.....Israel is a colonialist state.....Israel is a colonialist state.....Israel is a colonialist state.....Israel is a colonialist state..... etc etc etc

And that type of propaganda turns western public opinion against Israel.

So you want me to defend you from others who also agree with my interpretation that what you advocate would lead to Israel's destruction?

Advocating the destruction of Israel is anti-semitic, isn't it, according to you? So you just denied that you were implying that I was anti-semitic, and you're doing it again!You do advocate that Israel has no right to respond to Hamas's violence. If Israel would listen to you, that would lead to the disintegration of Israeli society!

Let me think about it ....... I thought about it and my answer is: Nah!

Equally so I don't believe that you honestly believe in Palestinian rights and a two-state solution. You still didn't answer my question that, if Netanyahu doesn't want a Palestinian state, Palestinians have the right to resist colonisation?I don't really care what the likes of you believe. But just for the record, I believe in Palestinian rights if they believe in Israelis rights. If they don't then I don't believe in their rights either... Kapish Takeo?

In one sense you are right. Why? Because if that comes about, the Palestinian conflict will seem like a Sunday School picnic in comparison..

Nonsense, Pakistan, much more radical than Iran, has nukes and it didn't change a thing.Nonsense!

In any case, history is unfolding .... watch this space and find out how things unfold with Pakistan too...

Ah nothing much ... just unilateral withdrawals, relaxation of check points, prisoner releases... just for starters! And what did they get in return? Qassams and more suicide bombings ..

I mentioned the many palestinian signs of goodwill which you simply deny.What did you mention? Qassams and suicide bombings?

What? You changed your mind again? Didn't you suggest that Israel should show some good will?

I said,...., BOTH sides.But then you say things that contradict what you said before .... go figure...:scratch:

for the last timeHonest Injun tell no lie?.....:D

And you expect me to stop the blame game when ALL you do is carry on with your BLAME GAME?... :scratch:

It's not about blameThat's not what you said before...

And what do you call the situation NOW? Peaceful?

It could be worse, the Westbank is largely quiet, and a truce with Hamas is being negociated.You know what I wish? I wish that you should live such a "peaceful life" :rolleyes:

And what would you call that? I'd call it BLAME GAME but when I tell you about how your Palestinians are responsible for this 100 years war which they started, you BLAME ME for my BLAME GAME! .... Double standards by you again ?

Palestinians aren't solely responsible for this 100 years warBut they DO carry a big share of the blame so then why do you only expect Israel to give in on every negotiating point?

Didn't you blame Israel for not begging Hamas to negotiate with it?

Don't you blame Israel for the failure of past peace negotiations?

Don't you blame Israel for what happened in Gaza recently?

In fact, don't you blame Israel for just about anything that went or goes wrong?

Reffo

01-30-2009, 08:37 PM

CanDo

01-30-2009, 10:16 PM

duplicate post.

erased.

CanDo

01-30-2009, 10:18 PM

Perhaps takeo accidentally looked into a mirror, saw how shallow, lowly, and small in stature he was, and then decided that the other image had no right to exist, the same as he feels about the Jews of Israel.
You seem to be obsessed by me... I'm sorry dude, I'm not interested...

I called you shallow, which is true, and lowly, which is equally true, and small in stature, which is undeniably true, and you think that indicates an obsession by me??? I am obsessed because I think of you as shallow and a low-life? You can think whatever your twisted mind conjures up. ;)

I am not obsessed by you, I am repulsed by your ignorance, propaganda and lies about the conflict!

Perhaps takeo accidentally looked into a mirror, saw how shallow, lowly, and small in stature he was, and then decided that the other image had no right to exist, the same as he feels about the Jews of Israel.

I just don't have a lot of time, I have a life outside this forum you know... whenever I've time I will answer to most posts.

Yeh....... a life standing in line waiting for food stamps. :D

CanDo

01-30-2009, 10:42 PM

I conclude with Obama that you should first respect muslims and Palestinians, and listen to them.

Listen to them teach hatred towards Christians and Jews in their schools and mosques? What good does that do? Shouldn't the muslims and pals first respect other religions?

Than talk to them, find a compromise which is acceptable to both peoples, no unilateral impositions.

The racist, hateful, backward, religiously intolerant muslims/arabs forced Jews throughout their countries to flee for their lives, into Israel, leaving all of their possessions, homes and land behind. Then the racist, hateful, backward, religiously intolerant muslims/arabs tried to wipe out all of the Jews in Israel, through war, after war, after war, and then through 60+ years of terrorism against the Jews of Israel, which continues today.

For some twisted, demented reason, you think that this animalistic, barbaric muslim/arab behavior is acceptable and that it is the Jews fault. That just shows your complete ignorance of the history of arab/muslim beastiality towards Jews.

The most likely and preferable solution is a two-state solution.

Just how many racist, religiously intolerant, violent, backward, uncivilized states to the muslim/arabs need? You really think that it is a good solution to have another horrible, hateful muslim/arab sewer?

I'm sure you hate Obama with all your body.:D

Strange comment? Typical mindless comment from a low-life wacko. :tdown:

And your silly magic answer to everything "antisemitism" is getting old and tired, and lacks credibility.

It can't be as old as your antiSemitism. You are a typical, sneaky, cowardly antiSemite, who denies being hateful and insanely jealous of Jews, while at the same time, denying Jews a right to peace and justice.

You are full of hate against muslims and Palestinians,

Of course not. I just deny the right of muslim states to exist. After thousands of years, they are as useless as a cancerous mole on a warhog's arse. Thousands of years, and they have developed the most hateful, backward, uncivilized, barbaric sewers of culture on the earth. Quite an accomplishment for so called humans, isn't it?

... refuse to see the reasonable voices who want peace with Israel, and that suits you because you don't want peace at all. What you want is Eretz israel.

Reasonable voices, in your twisted, confused mind, are those who have attacked Israel over and over again, during the past 60 years, teach hatred of Christians and Jews in their schools and mosques, denounce Israel every chance that they get, and have NEVER reached out a hand for peace.

I don't want peace because I object to Palestinians strapping bomb belts on their children and sending them out to murder Jewish families? That, according to your twisted antiSemitic logic, reflects a reasonable desire for peace on the part of the Palestinians?

You are sick!

ItsMyJewty

01-31-2009, 02:21 AM

takeo: Of course since the majority on this forum are extreme rightwing lunatics who advocate ethnic cleansing.

Since you're insisting on this, could you please provide some proof. Statements containing those words - not your interpretation of them.

CanDo

01-31-2009, 04:15 AM

Of course since the majority on this forum are extreme rightwing lunatics who advocate ethnic cleansing.
Since you're insisting on this, could you please provide some proof. Statements containing those words - not your interpretation of them.

takeo is delusional and a liar. Do you really expect him to show you proof of anything?

takeo, the fraud, is calling most, on this forum, rightwing lunatics. Why? Because we disagree with his radical, hateful blood-thirsty views? If we despise his racist, religious intolerance, we are the lunatics?!

Yet, takeo keeps coming back for discussions with us "rightwing lunatics". He can't stay away, just like the compulsive, delusional liar that he is, spreading his lies over and over again. What a waste of time he is. :rolleyes:

Madeline

01-31-2009, 05:00 AM

Tevet 11, 5769, 07 January 09 11:25

by by Jack Engelhard

(IsraelNN.com) Frankly, given a choice, I prefer the skinheads and other brutes who express their anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism openly. In such places, we know the enemy.

But please spare me the pieties and the righteous indignation of those "good people" protesting throughout Europe against Israel's defensive operation in Gaza. True, thousands have taken up banners in support of Israel. At the same time, however, the streets of Europe (and even some in America) are in an uproar. These are the "humanitarians" - the good, the noble, the refined, who chant "peace."

Now you're up and about? Now you speak? Where were you when, throughout the years, thousands of jihadist bombs fell on Israel? The streets of Europe were empty. There were no pictures in the newspapers of grieving Jewish mothers and fathers. You called it "peace" as long as the Arabs were doing the killing and the Jews were doing the dying. All was well with the world.

Suddenly, as Israel answered back, you found your Cause; and how self-righteous you are in your Cause.

You are the best and the brightest of Europe. You are educated. You attended the finest schools. You care for the birds, the bees, the bears, the trees. You favor free speech and freedom of religion. Strange it is that the one and only place in the Middle East that shares your world-view is Israel, and it is Israel that you slander.

Israel is a Jewish State. Is that your problem? At the first hint of Jewish self-defense, how quickly you show your true colors.

I've seen the photos of your candlelight vigils along the streets and boulevards of Europe, all of it; all these tears in the service of those terrorists whom you call your brothers. Indeed you are related to Hamas (and Fatah) as once before, a mere generation ago, you were related to Hitler's stormtroopers. Your angelic faces are touching - and disgusting. Your hypocrisy is transparent and nauseating.

You speak of disproportion. You want proportion? Give Israel a population of 300 million residing in 22 countries, similar to the Arab Muslims who surround and ambush Israel - instead of five and a half million Jews in one single country. There's plenty of "proportion" coming from your BBC, which delights in presenting one side of the story and picks up where Der Sturmer left off. Now, with this type of "news", we know how Europe was conditioned for a Holocaust.

CanDo

01-31-2009, 05:18 AM

... I've seen the photos of your candlelight vigils along the streets and boulevards of Europe, all of it; all these tears in the service of those terrorists whom you call your brothers. Indeed you are related to Hamas (and Fatah) as once before, a mere generation ago, you were related to Hitler's stormtroopers. Your angelic faces are touching - and disgusting. Your hypocrisy is transparent and nauseating. ...

I wonder how many Europeans, who are living in the "stolen" homes of murdered Jews, and are eating from plates, and with spoons and forks, of murdered Jews, are against the Jews of Israel because they are afraid of losing their ill-gotten goods?

The same can be said about the Turks. I wonder how many Turks, who are living in the "stolen" homes of murdered Armenians, and are eating from plates, and with spoons and forks, of murdered Armenians, are against Turkey admitting that they murdered 1.5 million Armenians, just because they are afraid of losing their ill-gotten goods?

I wonder how Europeans and Turks can sleep at night, and enjoy eating with a "stolen" spoon that was previously used by a small child who was brutally tortured and murdered? Then these same immoral cretins go out of their way to deny the Jews of Israel the right to defend Jewish families from constant Arab/Muslim rocket attacks, which have occurred day after day and year after year for the past eight years.

It takes all kinds.................. :rolleyes:

Madeline

01-31-2009, 05:59 AM

I wonder how many Europeans, who are living in the "stolen" homes of murdered Jews, and are eating from plates, and with spoons and forks, of murdered Jews, are against the Jews of Israel because they are afraid of losing their ill-gotten goods?

The same can be said about the Turks. I wonder how many Turks, who are living in the "stolen" homes of murdered Armenians, and are eating from plates, and with spoons and forks, of murdered Armenians, are against Turkey admitting that they murdered 1.5 million Armenians, just because they are afraid of losing their ill-gotten goods?

I wonder how Europeans and Turks can sleep at night, and enjoy eating with a "stolen" spoon that was previously used by a small child who was brutally tortured and murdered? Then these same immoral cretins go out of their way to deny the Jews of Israel the right to defend Jewish families from constant Arab/Muslim rocket attacks, which have occurred day after day and year after year for the past eight years.

It takes all kinds.................. :rolleyes:

You make some very good points. Let's not forget that not all people are involved, and generations have changed at least some perspective...at least one would hope.

Madeline

01-31-2009, 06:00 AM

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/01/davos-israel-speaks-turkey-storms-out.html

Thursday, January 29, 2009
DAVOS: ISRAEL SPEAKS ELOQUENTLY, TURKEY STORMS OUT

Davos Annual Meeting 2009 - Gaza: The Case for Middle East Peace

I am not a fan of Shimon Peres, but I am deeply proud of him in this. Don't sit through the Jew bashing....fast forward to minute 40 - watch Peres. It is an incredible speech. And please don't point out to me in the comment section all of Peres' faults. I know them well.
But in this moment, he is magnificent.
No one reported that Shimon Peres read from the Hamas Charter.
Davos Epiphany? Simple Shimon Reads Hamas Charter to Mas-Kom-Ya Erdogan, Et Al Andrew Bostom

Turkey's Inveterate Jew-Hating Prime Minister Mas-kom-ya Erdogan Angry with "One of Those (i.e., Jews, in this case Shimon Peres) Who Have Earned Allah's Anger (as per [1] Koran 1:7)"

An apparent epiphany for (Simple) Shimon Peres at the Davos World Economic Forum, was followed by a truly Orwellian bout of anger from the Islamic fundamentalist Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip MAS-KOM-YA Erdogan, as reported [2] here; with video [3] here.

Peres whose previous blithe ignorance of the Genocidal Jihad and Jew Hatred in [4] Hamas' foundational Covenant I have documented [5] here, actually read extracts from this odious document to the audience (Erdogan and the equally vile Amr Moussa of the Arab League, prominent among those attending), including (in part) the genocidal hadith in Article 7,

<"â€¦the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to realize the promise of Allah, no matter how long it takes. The Prophet, Allah's prayer and peace be upon him, says: "The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews." ([6] Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6985),"

and the clear statement in article 13 that Hamas' jihadism is completely incompatible with any meaningful Middle East peace settlement:

"Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on thatâ€¦There is no solution to the Palestinian question except by Jihad. All initiatives, proposals, and International Conferences are a waste of time and vain endeavors."

MAS-KOM-YA Erdogan was in such a rage following Peres' straightforward remarks, that after some barely coherent diatribe, he rushed off the Davos stage. I have referred to Erdogan as MAS-KOM-YA Erdogan, and his enraged behavior as Orwellian because of these relevant details I discussed in September, 2007:....more

Mosche

01-31-2009, 10:05 AM

Madeline, thanks for the link--first time that I've actually been able to watch the video. Erdogan is a fool/moron--he reminds me of the spoiled child who has to have his way. His extra minute was incoherent dribble.

What angers me with Peres--though I'm still proud of him for his candor--was that he apologized to the fool Erdogan. Let's keep the spoiled kid happy!?

CanDo

01-31-2009, 10:36 AM

... Let's not forget that not all people are involved, ...

Many Europeans were involved, and many are living in the stolen homes of dead Jews and are eating with the spoons and forks of murdered Jewish children.

Knowing European mentality, I doubt if their consciences bother them.

The subject rarely comes up.

Madeline

01-31-2009, 10:49 AM

Many Europeans were involved, and many are living in the stolen homes of dead Jews and are eating with the spoons and forks of murdered Jewish children.

Knowing European mentality, I doubt if their consciences bother them.

The subject rarely comes up.
I agree with you, but I am speaking of a new, and hopefully more 'loving' generation, even though the signs indicate otherwise. I would so hope that they have learned from past mistakes.

Madeline

01-31-2009, 10:50 AM

ItsMyJewty

01-31-2009, 11:37 AM

CanDo: Many Europeans were involved, and many are living in the stolen homes of dead Jews and are eating with the spoons and forks of murdered Jewish children.

Knowing European mentality, I doubt if their consciences bother them.

The subject rarely comes up.

EXCELLENT point there, CanDo!:clap: I've been thinking about this recently too.

Who knows, with the growing "humanitarian" awareness in Europe, we may soon see protestors demanding that confiscated Jewish property be given back to the original owners and that more ex-Nazis be caught and tried... like hell we will! These people only come out to bash Israel.

Europe's full of ex-Nazis (there are plenty in Austria) enjoying good retirements and no doubt profiting from stolen money and property. Never mind war crimes trials (what a joke that is!) against Israel - something needs to be done about this DISGUSTING business!

ItsMyJewty

01-31-2009, 11:43 AM

CanDo: takeo is delusional and a liar. Do you really expect him to show you proof of anything?

Yes, by not replying! :D

CanDo

01-31-2009, 12:37 PM

... Who knows, with the growing "humanitarian" awareness in Europe, we may soon see protestors demanding that confiscated Jewish property be given back to the original owners and that more ex-Nazis be caught and tried... like hell we will! These people only come out to bash Israel.

Hell! The Europeans elected nazis into government, after the war. They stole the property and homes of Jews, and many of them assisted in the persecution, torture and murder of Jews, followed by pouring billions of aid into the hands of Israel's Arab/Muslim enemies, the Palestinians, without offering one damn cent to aid Jewish victims of Palestinian terrorism! :mad:

During these difficult, recessionary times, I wonder how the rank and file European loves billion dollar handouts to the worthless, useless Palestinian culture of hate, violence and terrorism?

Europe's full of ex-Nazis (there are plenty in Austria) enjoying good retirements and no doubt profiting from stolen money and property. Never mind war crimes trials (what a joke that is!) against Israel - something needs to be done about this DISGUSTING business!

Sadly it is only going to get worse as Europeans get overrun by ignorant, violent, backward, welfare-breeding Muslims.

Reffo

01-31-2009, 06:10 PM

Madeline

I too would like to thank you for posting the link which allowed us to watch what went on in that Davos debate, it was very enlightening. I must say that although I was aware of the hostility that has been emanating from the current leadership of Turkey, I didn't appreciate the extent of it. And I must say that I for one would like to see Israel reassess it's policy of using Turkey as intermediaries in it's negotiations with the Arabs. It's interesting to note that Erdogan complained about the outgoing American administration because he did not consider them to be honest brokers. Well then, neither is he. In fact I would describe him as some piece of work, he was even more hostile and less diplomatic than Abu Moussa, the secretary of the Arab league ..... and that's saying a lot!

Anyway, thanks again and by the way, please accept my apology for the boredom that I have been contributing/causing you in debating Takeo. Believe me I can understand your boredom.

Madeline

02-01-2009, 05:10 AM

takeo

02-01-2009, 05:46 AM

takeo

02-01-2009, 05:51 AM

EXCELLENT point there, CanDo!:clap: I've been thinking about this recently too.

Who knows, with the growing "humanitarian" awareness in Europe, we may soon see protestors demanding that confiscated Jewish property be given back to the original owners and that more ex-Nazis be caught and tried... like hell we will! These people only come out to bash Israel.

Europe's full of ex-Nazis (there are plenty in Austria) enjoying good retirements and no doubt profiting from stolen money and property. Never mind war crimes trials (what a joke that is!) against Israel - something needs to be done about this DISGUSTING business!

War-criminals should be prosecuted, wether they are nazi's, Israeli or French.
Many nazi's have been prosecuted and given life setntences, almost all senior ones.
Israel refuses to publish the names of officers involved in the recrent war, to avoid prosecution. The US refuses to recognise the international court in The Hague (Obama will most likely change that), demands that its citizens will be exempt from prosecution, but still demands that Serbia hands over its citizens to the tribunal. :scratch:

takeo

02-01-2009, 05:56 AM

Listen to them teach hatred towards Christians and Jews in their schools and mosques? What good does that do? Shouldn't the muslims and pals first respect other religions?

The racist, hateful, backward, religiously intolerant muslims/arabs forced Jews throughout their countries to flee for their lives, into Israel, leaving all of their possessions, homes and land behind. Then the racist, hateful, backward, religiously intolerant muslims/arabs tried to wipe out all of the Jews in Israel, through war, after war, after war, and then through 60+ years of terrorism against the Jews of Israel, which continues today.

For some twisted, demented reason, you think that this animalistic, barbaric muslim/arab behavior is acceptable and that it is the Jews fault. That just shows your complete ignorance of the history of arab/muslim beastiality towards Jews.

Just how many racist, religiously intolerant, violent, backward, uncivilized states to the muslim/arabs need? You really think that it is a good solution to have another horrible, hateful muslim/arab sewer?

Strange comment? Typical mindless comment from a low-life wacko. :tdown:

It can't be as old as your antiSemitism. You are a typical, sneaky, cowardly antiSemite, who denies being hateful and insanely jealous of Jews, while at the same time, denying Jews a right to peace and justice.

Of course not. I just deny the right of muslim states to exist. After thousands of years, they are as useless as a cancerous mole on a warhog's arse. Thousands of years, and they have developed the most hateful, backward, uncivilized, barbaric sewers of culture on the earth. Quite an accomplishment for so called humans, isn't it?

Reasonable voices, in your twisted, confused mind, are those who have attacked Israel over and over again, during the past 60 years, teach hatred of Christians and Jews in their schools and mosques, denounce Israel every chance that they get, and have NEVER reached out a hand for peace.

I don't want peace because I object to Palestinians strapping bomb belts on their children and sending them out to murder Jewish families? That, according to your twisted antiSemitic logic, reflects a reasonable desire for peace on the part of the Palestinians?

You are sick!

Let me summarize: Arabs are intolerant, racist, violent, etc. subhumans, you on the contrary are very tolerant, not racist, not violent, etc.
Peace with them is only possible if they cease to exist, right?
And calling for a two-state solution is anti-semitic; Which means that Rabin, Olmert, Livni, Bush, Obama and many others are anti-semites.

:rolleyes:

I can't continue taking you seriously. There are limits. At some point reason stops and insanity begins.

takeo

02-01-2009, 06:00 AM

I repeat, Why did you have to lie, Takeo?

What's the matter? Are you too shy to respond?

Well, read what is stated. Palestinian state = recognition.

It also proves you were lying. You said Hamas didn't want to recognise Israel and wants to whipe all Jews. That was a lie.

Mediocrates

02-01-2009, 06:17 AM

by Maayana Miskin

(IsraelNN.com) During the Cast Lead operation in Gaza, IDF tank fire near a United Nations school in Gaza was blamed for the deaths of dozens of civilians who had taken refuge in the building. The incident became one of the most highly publicized attacks in the war, and led to heavy international criticism.

Recent reports suggest that the incident was not accurately portrayed by senior U.N. officials. John Ging, the director of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in Gaza, spoke to the Toronto Globe and Mail last week and agreed that no shell had actually struck the school building. Ging said he had never claimed that the school itself was hit, and he blamed Israel for confusion over where the strike took place.
http://click.inn.co.il/phpAdsNew-en-new/adlog.php?bannerid=2126&zoneid=17&clientid=1509&dest=http://www.libi-fund.org.il/Libi/eng/&1233501391185
Shortly after the alleged attack, Ging harshly criticized Israel for firing near the school, saying he had given the exact coordinates of the compound to the IDF. He charged that the IDF had failed to avoid hitting the building.
While admitting that Israeli fire had not hit the school compound, Ging insisted it made little difference. â€œForty-one innocent people were killed in the street... The State of Israel still has to answer for that,â€ he said.
While many Israel news (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/) outlets reported that the strike had taken place near the school, several international media networks reported that the UN school building itself was hit. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs may have added to the confusion by releasing a report stating that Israeli fire â€œdirectly hit two UNRWA schools.â€

Almost all reports said that the victims were primarily civilians who had fled to the school for shelter â€“ a version of events cast into suspicion by the Globe and Mail report.

A teacher who was in the school at the time of the shelling reported that several people within the compound were injured, but that none were killed. Those killed were all outside in the street as the shells were fired, he said. Only three of those killed were students at the school, he added.
The teacher did not give his name, explaining that U.N .officials had told staff not to talk to the media.

The IDF responded to criticism over the attack by explaining that soldiers were simply responding to terrorist fire and did not mean to hit a civilian area.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129696

takeo

02-01-2009, 06:29 AM

Reffo

I
know that you do! ho hum ... here we go again, these are the types of things that you say:

It's Israel's fault....It's Israel's fault....It's Israel's fault....It's Israel's fault....It's Israel's fault....Israel should make the first concessions...Israel should make the first concessions...Israel should make the first concessions...Israel should make the first concessions...Israel should make the first concessions...Israel is a colonialist state.....Israel is a colonialist state.....Israel is a colonialist state.....Israel is a colonialist state.....Israel is a colonialist state..... etc etc etc

I didn't say it's uniquely Israel's fault, but it is partly Israel's fault, even many Israeli realised that. And I said both sides should make concessions, at the same time. And yes Israel is a colonialist state as long as the colonisation continues. Or not according to you?

You are saying: It's the Arabs fault, it's the Arabs fault, Arabs are violent, Arabs are violent, Arabs want to destroy Israel, Arabs want to destroy Israel, Palestinians should make all the concessions, Palestinians should make all the concessions, etc. over and over again, at nauseam.

And that type of propaganda turns western public opinion against Israel.

BS. It's Israel's behavior, disrespect for civilian lifes, continued violation of many UN-resolutions, colonisation policy, etc. which turns Western public opinion against Israel.

on this site BBC is being accused of being pro-Palestinian, only because they show images of Palestinians suffering! (altough they also show images of rockets being fired on israeli towns, and even refused to broadcast a publicity spot to raise funds for the Gazan civilians!). What you call for is a biased media where Palestinian suffering is censored.

You do advocate that Israel has no right to respond to Hamas's violence. If Israel would listen to you, that would lead to the disintegration of Israeli society!

That's a lie. I said they could respond, but not destroy half of Gaza. They can carry out targetted attacks against Hamas leaders, they can't destroy clinics, universities, police stations, etc. which are war crimes against civilians.

I don't really care what the likes of you believe. But just for the record, I believe in Palestinian rights if they believe in Israelis rights. If they don't then I don't believe in their rights either... Kapish Takeo?

Jordan, Egypt, recognised Israel, Arafat and Abbas recognised Israel, Hamas is prepared to do so if there's a Palestinian state, Syria is prepared to do so if Israel gives back the stolen Golan heights. etc. So Palestinians seem to believe in Israel's right to exist, on the condition that Israel believe in their right to exist. So, if Israel doesn't want a Palestinian state, it doesn't have the right to exist, right? According to your logic?

What did you mention? Qassams and suicide bombings?

As long as Israel continues the occupation policy and don't give the Palestinians their rights they have the right to resist, right?
What I mentioned was Palestinian willingness to compromise on the refugees, to recognise most of their historical Palestinian homeland as a mainly Jewish state, to live in peace with Israel if Israel lives in peace with them, and stops war (occupation and colonisation are also acts of war)

And you STILL didn't answer my question: if Netanyahu decides to end talks about a two-state solution, because Likud doesn't want that, do the Palestinians have the right to resist, to start another Intifadeh?

That's not what you said before...

that's what I always said.

You know what I wish? I wish that you should live such a "peaceful life" :rolleyes:

I would prefere to live in Israel than in Gaza. The risk of getting killed is much smaller. And of course if Israel wants total peace, it should end occupation and colonisation and recognise Palestine, if Palestinians recognise Israel.
You can't commit acts of war and expect the other side to stay calm and do nothing.

But they DO carry a big share of the blame so then why do you only expect Israel to give in on every negotiating point?

I don't expect only Israel to give in, I expect both sides to give in. You expect only the Palestinians to give in.

Didn't you blame Israel for not begging Hamas to negotiate with it?

It's not about blame. But if Israel wants peace, it's in their own interest to start talking to Hamas. And if Hamas wants to be taken seriously as a nagociating partner, it should start talking to Israel.

Don't you blame Israel for the failure of past peace negotiations?

Yes, partially. But you blame "the Arabs," exclusively. You are one-sided.

Don't you blame Israel for what happened in Gaza recently?

Yes, partially. Again, I don't like the word "blame". Israel was blockading the Gaza strip (according to you an act of war) and in return Hamas ended the cease-fire and sent rockets. In return, Israel destroyed half of Gaza. This will most certainly create more hate among Palestinians and less willingness to recognise Israel. This in turn will be used by Israel as a reason to continue occupation and colonisation, this in return... etc. etc. etc. this is an eternal circle. It's clear that both the Israeli as the Palestinian policy during the last decades are deadlocked and were negative for both sides; both have to break out of this circle, and they only can do it together.

Madeline

02-01-2009, 06:43 AM

Time to leave. Takeo has arrived...adieu

takeo

02-01-2009, 06:47 AM

Reffo

You mean they should just allow Hamas firing their rockets and beg them to stop?

No, they can take appropriate measures against hamas, such as targetted killings, but not turn against civilian infrastructure. In the meanwhile, there should be negociations about a cease-fire and ending the blockade, which both sides have to respect.

I have news for you Takeo: Israel tried that too, but Hamas didn't stop!

What did Israel try? Talking to hamas, ending the blockade?

He can be and he is and I said he is anti Israel anti American. It's up to you if you want to use different descriptions than I used..

He's neither anti-American, anti-Israel or anti-semitic. He just criticises Israeli and American policy. Which isn't the same as being anti-Israel or anti-American.

Arafat wanted him to make a better offer and he said he hasn't got one.

That doesn't sound like an imposition to me.

What he said is: take my offer or the war (colonisation and occupation) continues... that's an imposition.

You mean he HAD TO make Arafat a better offer? Says who?

If his goal was peace, than it would have been wise to make another offer. You said yourself a peacedeal should be the result of negociations and compromise by both sides.

And the Palestinians were blowing up Israeli civilians twice a week...

Hamas was not included in Oslo, which was one of the many deficiencies in Oslo.

Negotiate about what? Arafat didn't make a counter offer in 2001!

He wanted to negociate about the Barak-offer. And he made a counter-offer in 2002, Israel even refused to talk to them and was destroying the PA-infrastructure.

takeo

02-01-2009, 06:50 AM

Time to leave. Takeo has arrived...adieu

Yes I know you can't stand people who don't agree with you. The Mid-West isn't famous for its intellectual debates, it's famous for trigger-happy people. But not all people are the image of that clichÃ©. Even in the Mid-West many people voted for Obama.

Mediocrates

02-01-2009, 06:51 AM

It's a bizarre strategy to provoke an army that already beat you to RE ENTER the area they just left. Particularly since the IDF no longer fights Hamas on Hamas' terms.

Mediocrates

02-01-2009, 06:54 AM

The Mid-West isn't famous for its intellectual debates, it's famous for trigger-happy people.

Carl Sandberg? Frank Lloyd Wright? The Quakers? The Mennonites? Eugene V. Debs?

takeo

02-01-2009, 06:57 AM

Basically I'd love to see peace but NOT the placement of borders and the creation of a state that would be ready, willing and able to carry out the complete eradication of Israel......not on your life..

If you don't want a Palestinian state, and you don't want one state for Palestinians and Israeli either, than you don't want peace. Unless you have another solution? Ethnic cleansing?

And besides, I've been criticised for mentioning the term "ethnic cleansing". I said that most posters here want ethnic cleansing. Let's count who is in favor of "transfer": baralallu, cando, mediocrates(?), newsguy, and many others. Who is not in favor of "transfer": only reffo is far as I know.
And can anyone explain the difference between "transfer" and ethnic cleansing? I don't get it... "transfer" sounds nicer, but besides that what's the difference?

dayag

02-01-2009, 07:09 AM

If you don't want a Palestinian state, and you don't want one state for Palestinians and Israeli either, than you don't want peace. Unless you have another solution? Ethnic cleansing?...

Takeo, perhaps Miss Shulamith doesn't think there is a good solution? It sounds to me like she is doubtful that a Palestinian state would keep the peace. I share her distrust as does everyone within rocket range of the Gaza Strip.

CanDo

02-01-2009, 07:42 AM

The same old story. Because Israel is a Jewish country, and Jews suffered in the past, everyone criticising Israel is a nazi.

This is just another obnoxious, low life takeo saying. You repeat this charge over and over again, like a brainwashed, antiSemitic parrot, regardless of what anyone else said. You think that by mimicing the standard, old, boring antiSemitic slogans, that, somehow it makes you look smart?! What a fool!

Your criticism of Israel is filled with lies and ignorance about history. You ignore any of the crimes committed against Jews, by Arabs or Muslims, and heap all of the blame against Jews, and you do this all the time. That makes you an obnoxious bigot, a racist, and an antiSemite. If you don't like the word antiSemite, because it has too many syllables for your peabrain, than I'll just say that you hate Jews. Is that better?

kozzol

02-01-2009, 08:01 AM

I cannot blame any person who does not believe in a two state solution as history has shown what happens when you leave the palestinian people to their own devices.

I remember in the mid 80's when I had daily contact with palestinians and long conversations about the political situation that exsisted. Apart from a few who said that it would be worst living under the PLO, the same was always said 'All we want is our own home land', yet when I asked if that meant they would co-exsist with the Israeli's the same answer has echoed through the years 'We will then drive them out once we have become strong'.

This made me reliase that there will never be peace and when Ariel Sharon withdrew the settlers and IDF from Gaza, I knew and said the first thing would be a civil war and then the arming and attacking of Israel.

CanDo

02-01-2009, 08:13 AM

The same old story. ... Israel can kill Palestinians, can occupy and colonise, and noone has the right to protest.

It is the same old, boring antiSemitic garbage that spews out of you all the time. You visit the Israel Forum, spew out some vile, racist, antiSemitic insults and then crawl back under your rock.

When you say "Israel can kill Palestinians", you fail to mention that the harm suffered by Palestinians is almost always as a result of Palestinians first attacking Jews, and then Jews having to defend themselves. There is almost always an act of barbarism by Palestinians, and then a counter-action by Jews, only after Jews have endured more than anyone else would have endured.

For eight long years, day and night, night and day, Palestinian rockets flew into Israels towns and villages, terrorizing the citizens and greatly disrupting their lives. Jewish children, the most vulnerable of all, were traumatized every day and night. Getting the children to sleep was a difficult job. This lasted for eight long years until finally Israel did the right thing and fought back, in order to stop the rockets.

But...... what does the low-life antiSemite takeo spew out of his racist brain? Only that Jews kill Arabs!

You are a pathetic, hateful racist!

Madeline

02-01-2009, 08:25 AM

Yes I know you can't stand people who don't agree with you. The Mid-West isn't famous for its intellectual debates, it's famous for trigger-happy people. But not all people are the image of that clichÃ©. Even in the Mid-West many people voted for Obama.
Get a clue. Even Obama and Oprah are from the mid-west. It shows that you have no idea what you are even talking about.
I love good arguments with people who have something to offer. Even andak has grown on me. It is you, mon ami, and your rambling that make me leave...if even for a while.

Madeline

02-01-2009, 08:28 AM

Takeo, perhaps Miss Shulamith doesn't think there is a good solution? It sounds to me like she is doubtful that a Palestinian state would keep the peace. I share her distrust as does everyone within rocket range of the Gaza Strip.
Another clear indication the our takeo does can't make sense of what we are saying, but merely has his mind made up. Miss Shulamith is right on the money...no matter what and how much you offer, Palestine will never be at peace with Israel.

Y. Shulamith

02-01-2009, 08:31 AM

It's a terrible thing, but right now, in my humble opinion, there is NO good solution to the problem that is equitable to everyone and will make everyone on both sides very happy and ensure a durable peace.

I wish I could see something else and have an idea about it, but honestly, I don't see it. It would take such a big change in the basic framework and thinking of both parties, and I just don't see it happening right now.

I hope that maybe, something happens that is totally unseen right now....something that is not imaginable, that will change the whole framework of what is going on now and make both parties able to get down to a durable and lasting peace.

I don't mean something necessarily a terrible thing, but something that grabs everyone's attention and makes everyone stop and say, hey, we'd better be sincere, each one of us and make and honest and durable peace and stop screwing around.

Until then, it seems that fighting is going to go on for awhile. I hope I am wrong, but I don't see peace in the area for a long haul.

Reffo

02-01-2009, 12:48 PM

But you said that Hamas expects to be able to establish a Palestinian state before (in your opinion) they would agree to recognize Israel.

Not before, at the same time.

From your Own Quote of What Hamas said, Takeo in Your Post #906 ...Second last entry ...

"Formal recognition of Israel could only be considered by Hamas once such a
Palestinian state is established, Reuters quoted Meshal as saying."

Now do you see why I call you a liar so regularly?

I repeat, Why did you have to lie, Takeo?

What's the matter? Are you too shy to respond?

Well, read what is stated. Palestinian state = recognition.And once again, you haven't answered my question. Even if it would be true that Hamas said that they would recognize Israel and really meant it, even then: Hamas clearly wants Israel to FIRST give up everything and then .... maybe ..... if Hamas feel like it .... they say they will recognize Israel. They DID NOT say that it would happen at the same time!

So you see? Once again, your lie has been exposed!

It also proves you were lying. You said Hamas didn't want to recognise Israel and wants to whipe all Jews. That was a lie.Yes I did say that and indeed your own reference link proved what I said as I pointed out to you in one of my previous posts Post #958 Click Here.

And here is another quote from your own reference which disproves your assertion about Hamas's intentions:

From Your own reference link that you gave in your post #906 (http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/01/pm-dismisses-meshal-comments-that.html)

"One hour after the Reuters interview was published, the Hamas government
spokesman Ghazi Hamad told Haaretz that Meshal said, "Israel exists - and
that's a fact."

However, Hamad maintained that Meshal did not say anything about recognizing
Israel. "There was no change in our stance that Hamas does not recognize
Israel," he said."

So tell us again Takeo: Why are you such a blatant habitual liar?

Reffo

02-01-2009, 01:46 PM

I didn't say it's uniquely Israel's faultYet you expect ONLY Israel to make "good will gestures" and concession upon concession but NOT the Palestinian Arabs.

You are saying: It's the Arabs fault, it's the Arabs fault, Arabs are violent, Arabs are violent, Arabs want to destroy Israel, Arabs want to destroy IsraelYes, that's exactly what I am saying about Hamas and Hezbollah.

Palestinians should make all the concessions, Palestinians should make all the concessions, etc. over and over again, at nauseam.Yes, I expect Hamas and Hezbollah to give up their dream of destroying Israel and to clearly say so in public and be seen to mean it.

And that type of propaganda turns western public opinion against Israel.

BS. It's Israel's behavior, disrespect for civilian lifes, continued violation of many UN-resolutions, colonisation policy, etc. which turns Western public opinion against Israel.That's what I mean, people like you make that happen unjustifiably. They single out Israel's response to constant terrorism against Israeli civilians as the cause of the problem rather than the effect of Hamas's terrorism.

on this site BBC is being accused of being pro-Palestinian, only because they show images of Palestinians suffering!They show simplistic out of context images 24 by 7 yet they hardly bothered to show what Hamas has been doing to Israeli civilians for years. And they hardly show even more horrific images of a greater number of civilian casualties in other conflicts like:

Congo
Sudan
Sri Lanka
Georgia
Ossetia
And many other places now and in the recent past.

Don't you think that smacks of bias? I do!

To be continued..