The Battle for Gaza has begun! [Archive] - Page 5

Reffo

02-01-2009, 02:48 PM

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. LOL, you are so predictable You make a concession when you get cornered but when targeted killings are carried out, you make new provisos ..... Here is what you said about it to someone else a long time ago ...... I hope you didn't forget? :lol:.......

Well, I'm quite glad you finally accept the rational for the targeted killings of terrorists practiced by the IDF. As well as the fact that if you accept civilians as legitimate targets, then you have no right to criticize the IDF's actions in the territories.

It's such a shame when you're own words come back to bite you in the behind, isn't it?

.....I don't question the targetted killing of terrorists, i condamn the killing of people who aren't terrorists AND the targetted killing of civilians, as happened yesterday...

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 IsraelAnd Israel gave them land for peace.

Hamas is prepared to do so if there's a Palestinian stateYou are lying again, see my previous post! :(

Syria is prepared to do so if Israel gives back the stolen Golan heights.We will see but everytime Israel responds to Hamas's provocations, Syria uses that as an excuse to stop indirect negotiations (via intermediaries) about the Golan and peace. Why do you think that is Takeo? :scratch:

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?If you say so :rolleyes: But then again:

Hamas clearly says that they want to destroy Israel
Despite that, Israel moved out of Gaza
And they are negotiating with Abbas about the West Bank
You are saying that's occupation and that Hamas then has the right to be violent.

And therefore Israel too will respond with violence. Have you got a problem with Israel's response?

What I mentioned was Palestinian willingness to compromise on the refugees to recognise most of their historical Palestinian homeland as a mainly Jewish stateBut you didn't give me a quote and link to prove your assertion. Whreas I gave you a quote and link to disprove it.

That's not what you said before...

that's what I always said.What you always say is: Colonialist Israel .... I respond that the occupation was caused by the war that Arabs started and is continuing because of their ongoing violence.... you then tell me to stop the blame game ...... I then tell you OK but that you too should stop talking about the occupation all the time (a blame game) .... You say no, you won't .... etc etc etc

You know what I wish? I wish that you should live such a "peaceful life"

I would prefere to live in Israel than in Gaza. OK then, go live in Sderot, big mouth ...

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.OK then, why isn't there peace already?

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.Ok then, why aren't they talking already?

Don't you blame Israel for the failure of past peace negotiations?

Yes, partially. But you blame "the Arabs," exclusively. You are one-sided.I am saying that Israel showed willingness to give land for peace so Israel cannot be hit over the head with your favourite word: "Occupation"!

Don't you blame Israel for what happened in Gaza recently?

Yes, partially. Again, I don't like the word "blame". Yet you constantly blame Israel for the occupation!

Reffo

02-01-2009, 03:27 PM

I have news for you Takeo: Israel tried that too, but Hamas didn't stop!

What did Israel try?Israel requested Hamas, nicely, to stop shooting rockets on 1 million Southern Israeli civilians.

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.He/They don't criticize, they write polemics!

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.What he said was that the Palestinians can have their state but they had to compromise on their demands

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.You mean that if your goal is peace, then they have to make an offer and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then they have to make another offer .... and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then Israel has to make another offer .... and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then Israel has to make another offer .... and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then Israel has to make another offer .... and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then Israel has to make another offer .... and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then Israel has to make another offer ....

Where would that stop Takeo? I say that it would stop when Israel would offer to self destruct!

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.Oslo could have worked if Arafat would have been serious about peace but he was not and as you say, Hamas wasn't even interested. That's why they were NOT included in Oslo... And that's why Oslo NEVER even had a chance to succeed. Even you seem to concede that point...

Negotiate about what? Arafat didn't make a counter offer in 2001!

He wanted to negociate about the Barak-offer. Arafat's counter offer in 2001 was to ask Ehud Barak for a better offer which should recognize the so called "Right of Return" demand which is a recipee for Israel's destruction...

Madeline

02-01-2009, 03:55 PM

By Nidal al-Mughrabi, Reuters
2 hours ago
Loading... Must Read?Thank YouYes 517

GAZA â€” Israel launched a series of air strikes in the Gaza Strip Sunday, targeting a Hamas security complex and tunnels used to smuggle weapons after vowing a "disproportionate" response to cross-border fire.

The aircraft carried out half a dozen strikes after three Israelis were injured by a mortar salvo, including two soldiers and the first Israeli civilian hurt since a January 18 truce ended Israel's 22-day offensive in the coastal enclave.

There were no reported casualties in the air attacks. Five of the strikes targeted tunnels along Gaza's border with Egypt, used to smuggle weapons into the coastal enclave, in a zone known as the Philadelphi corridor.

A further Israeli attack was on a security headquarters in a village in central Gaza that residents said had been vacated after Israel telephoned warnings to Palestinians to leave buildings that housed any weapons.

An Israeli military statement said that "in response to rocket and mortar fire today, the air force has attacked a number of targets in the (Gaza) Strip, including six tunnels and a Hamas position." Hamas said five tunnels had been bombed.

Egypt, with U.S. backing, has been trying to broker a long-term ceasefire that would end Hamas weapons smuggling into Gaza and also lead to a reopening of Gaza border crossings, one of Hamas's main demands.

Israel's blockade of Gaza, since Hamas Islamists seized the coastal territory from Western-back Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in 2007, has led to shortages of crucial supplies for many of the 1.5 million Palestinians living there.

Israel's renewed air strikes came as its leaders took a hard line against rocket fire from Gaza ahead of a February 10 national election, which opinion polls predict right-wing leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who favors a tougher stance toward Hamas, will win.

About a dozen rockets and mortar bombs were fired from Gaza Sunday, the Israeli military said.

A wing of al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a group belonging to Abbas's Fatah faction, said it fired some of the rockets, but not all were claimed.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-world/20080929/INTERNATIONAL-US-PALESTINIANS-ISRAEL/

takeo

02-01-2009, 04:32 PM

Reffo

LOL, you are so predictable You make a concession when you get cornered but when targeted killings are carried out, you make new provisos ..... Here is what you said about it to someone else a long time ago ...... I hope you didn't forget? :lol:.......

Well, I never said targetted killing in response to Hamas violence is forbidden.
I also always said that the occupation force is a legitimate target. Cvilians are not a legitimate target, and that goes for both parties.

And Israel gave them land for peace.

It didn't. Colonisation and occupation in the Westbank goes on.

We will see but everytime Israel responds to Hamas's provocations, Syria uses that as an excuse to stop indirect negotiations (via intermediaries) about the Golan and peace. Why do you think that is Takeo? :scratch:

Because they don't want to be seen as traitors by the Arab world. They can not make a separate deal with Israel without a solution for the Palestinian problem. Yet Assad frequently said that he wants to recognise Israel in return for the Golan. But he said as well for this to materialise there should at least be negociations going on between Israel and the Palestinians about a two-state solution.

If you say so :rolleyes: But then again:

Hamas clearly says that they want to destroy Israel

Hamas leader said he would recognise Israel if a Palestinian state would be created.

Despite that, Israel moved out of Gaza

I didn't support that, unilateral withdrawel is a receipe for disaster. He should have handed over the Gaza to the PA and Arafat.

And they are negotiating with Abbas about the West Bank

Yes, but so far colonisation goes on.

You are saying that's occupation and that Hamas then has the right to be violent.

As long as occupation continues, yes. War is war.

And therefore Israel too will respond with violence. Have you got a problem with Israel's response?

No, but they shouldn't target civilians, nor should Hamas.

But you didn't give me a quote and link to prove your assertion. Whreas I gave you a quote and link to disprove it.

I provided enough links to Abbas calling for compromise on the refugees question, and links to Abbas and Arafat recognising Israel. Do you deny that?

What you always say is: Colonialist Israel .... I respond that the occupation was caused by the war that Arabs started and is continuing because of their ongoing violence....

That's your opinion, not fact. Only the Israeli government knows why colonisation started and occupation continued. There hasn't been a war between 1955 and 1967, and noone attacked Israel. Israel invaded Egypt in 1967, and then started the occupation and colonisation. These are the facts, the rest is blame-game, polemics and interpretation. Do you deny these facts?

you then tell me to stop the blame game ...... I then tell you OK but that you too should stop talking about the occupation all the time (a blame game) .... You say no, you won't .... etc etc etc

The occupation is not a game, it's fact. Occupation is an act oif war, that's a fact too. Israel occupies large parts of the Westbank and Eastern Jerusalem. That's a fact too. Who's the blame for this is, again, a matter of interpretation, historians and blame-games.

OK then, go live in Sderot, big mouth ...

How many Sredot citizens died by rockets, compared to how many Gazans?

OK then, why isn't there peace already?

That's a difficult question, it has more than one reason. My guess is that a serious part of Israeli society and politics want Eretz Israel, and thus continued occupation and colonisation, and on the palestinian side Hamas didn't play exactly a constructive role, especially not in the 90's when they did their best to sabotage Oslo.

Ok then, why aren't they talking already?

Because both sides want the other side to take the first step, I think.
I think Hamas should offer talks to Israel, do you think Israel should talk to Hamas? (just checking if you really want peace, or just for the sake of argument)

I am saying that Israel showed willingness to give land for peace so Israel

not enough apparently. Why don't they offer total withdrawel against recognition and safety garantees? Could it be possible that radical parties which have links to colonist organisations have a say in this as well?

cannot be hit over the head with your favourite word: "Occupation"!

Yet you constantly blame Israel for the occupation!

Well, Israel is occupying, right? Not the Palestinians, who are occupied.
I'm not blaming. What I say is that as long as there's occupation, there won't be peace.

takeo

02-01-2009, 04:41 PM

Reffo

Israel requested Hamas, nicely, to stop shooting rockets on 1 million Southern Israeli civilians.

But it didn't offer to end the embargo which caused civilian suffering and was heavily criticised by most international organisations. And no, I'm not talking about the embargo on weapons but the general embargo against Gaza.

He/They don't criticize, they write polemics!

As you

What he said was that the Palestinians can have their state but they had to compromise on their demands

They are ready to compromise, but they don't accept unilateral impositions, they want negociations.

You mean that if your goal is peace, then they have to make an offer and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then they have to make another offer .... and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then Israel has to make another offer .... and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then Israel has to make another offer .... and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then Israel has to make another offer .... and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then Israel has to make another offer .... and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then Israel has to make another offer ....

They have to sit together and find a compromise acceptable for both parties. Barak didn't want that.

Where would that stop Takeo? I say that it would stop when Israel would offer to self destruct!

nonsense, that's not what they expect, if not they would not call for compromise on the refugee-question.

Oslo could have worked if Arafat would have been serious about peace but he was not and as you say, Hamas wasn't even interested. That's why they were NOT included in Oslo... And that's why Oslo NEVER even had a chance to succeed. Even you seem to concede that point...

Oslo had many flows, and was heavily criticised by E. Said, among others, since the start. One of the problem was the staged approach, which left too much room for both parties to escape their responsabilities. Palestinians were not very serious about the security garantees, and didn't do enough to stop Hamas, but Israel too violated the agreements in many ways.(more colonisation, the fastest rate ever during the 90's, not following the agreed upon time schedule, etc.)

takeo

02-01-2009, 04:44 PM

There'll be more suffering in Gaza soon if the backward, morally depraved Pals don't stop firing rockets into Israel.

If Israel ends the blockade (a reason for war) than the firing will stop.

takeo

02-01-2009, 04:50 PM

Well of course it is. Why? Because it's easier to pretend furious anger over places where the good guys and the bad guys have already been explained to you. Plus, in all those other places, either there's no one in the west to blame, or it's the French.

I don't think that's the reason. Most Europeans don't look at this conflict in terms of good or bad guys. To most both Hamas and Israeli leaders are bad, and the civilians are caught in the middle.
The reason why this conflict gets so much of attention is because it's near Europe, because the West is involved, there's easy acces for journalists (which wasn't the case in for example Chechnya), it's an international conflict and because so many Jews and Arabs live in Europe.

Mosche

02-01-2009, 04:57 PM

If Israel ends the blockade (a reason for war) than the firing will stop.

Hey Takeo,

I wish that this was true, but I don't believe it. Many people made similar arguments in 2005 when the settlers were pulled back; peace didn't happen, however.

I think that many here--myself included--feel that Israel has given the Palestinians many opportunities to move forward with peace. Unfortunately, we also feel that every opportunity has backfired. Thus, speaking for myself, I have become jaded when I hear that "this concession" or "that concession" will lead to peace.

takeo

02-01-2009, 04:58 PM

Reffo

Yet you expect ONLY Israel to make "good will gestures" and concession upon concession but NOT the Palestinian Arabs.

Palestinians too can make good will gestures and consessions, and did so.

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying about Hamas and Hezbollah.

Well, they will not unilaterally end the violence without serious negociations and a peace-deal. What you ask is unilateral surrender, that will never happen.

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.

Fair enough, it can be part of a peace-deal which involves the creation of a Palestinian state.

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.

what's the cause of the problem, who's tho blame, again, is a question for analysts and historians. What BBC did and do is showing the suffering of Palestinian AND Israeli citizens. I think they have the right to do so, don't you?

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.

Yes they do, they showed the rockets in Sredot, many times.

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.

These conflicts get attention as well, and there are plenty of horrific images from the war in Congo for example.

takeo

02-01-2009, 05:02 PM

And reffo, you STILL didn't answer my question: if Netanyahu decides to end all peacetalks and shuts the door to a two-state solution, have the Palestinians the right to start another large Intifadeh, the right to resist?

takeo

02-01-2009, 05:08 PM

Hey Takeo,

I wish that this was true, but I don't believe it. Many people made similar arguments in 2005 when the settlers were pulled back; peace didn't happen, however.

I think that many here--myself included--feel that Israel has given the Palestinians many opportunities to move forward with peace. Unfortunately, we also feel that every opportunity has backfired. Thus, speaking for myself, I have become jaded when I hear that "this concession" or "that concession" will lead to peace.

the unilateral withdrawel was a bad idea. Israel should have talked it trough with the PA and Fatah. It didn't.

It's not because peace failed in the past, that it will always fail, at least if both parties are serious about it. Measures such as blockades rarily help to establish peace, why not end it and see what happens? And continue talking to Abbas. Actually, if not for the latest war in Gaza and Netanyahu, I would be optimistic. For the first time since Oslo Fatah and Israel are actually talking to eachother, even Hamas is ready to recognise Israel on a few conditions, and taboo's on both sides disappear. Palestinians are now openly calling to compromise on the right of return, which used to be absolute and sacred. And in Israel total withdrawel is no longer a minority position, even Kadima defends it. And for the first time in 8 years or more, there's a voluntarist administration in Washington ready to engage for peace in the region, instead of supporting one side.

takeo

02-01-2009, 05:16 PM

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.

Israel left Gaza without any negociation. So you can't compare that to the creation of a Palestinian state and mutual recognition and safety garantees.
I think you should give it a chance, that's the only way to know if it will work.

And it's not going to mean the end of Israel, even in the very unlikely case that the palestinian state declares war on Israel, Israel would defeat them in a matter of hours.

Mosche

02-01-2009, 05:29 PM

the unilateral withdrawel was a bad idea. Israel should have talked it trough with the PA and Fatah. It didn't.

In hindsight, the withdrawl WAS a bad idea--I'll grant you that. The fact that the withdrawl didn't work, however, is my point. Israel makes concessions, and they don't work. When is enough actually enough?

You admit that the withdrawl was a bad idea, and then you say that Israel "should have done...." Israel GAVE THEM THE LAND, and still it's somehow Israel's fault for giving up the land unilaterally! WHY? Why can't the Palestinians just say, "Thank you! We will PROVE that we are serious about peaceful co-existence. We look forward to future negotiations with our neighbor Israel." Is that too much to ask?

I surmise that the real reason that such accomodations are not reality is because the Palestinians and their allies still dream of a non-existent Israel. As long as the complete destruction of Israel is part of the Hamas charter--or any other charter (spoken or unspoken)--there will be no peace, regardless of Israel's concessions.

joabell

02-01-2009, 06:11 PM

Israel has the right to defend itself against the Islamist attacks.

The Arabs of Palestine never agreed to live together with other non-Muslim neighbors, and the Arab Muslims always attacked the Jews since 1920.

Israel has learned that trying to negotiate with the Muslims, is like "writing on wet paper".
The best example is the evacuation of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza in 2005, as a peace initiative by Israel....And what happened then? Hamas called the Palestinian people to die fighting against the Israel till the end. Hamas calls on Palestinians to fight to exterminate all Jews, "as an obligation with Allah"... This kind of "Terminator" speeches are also recited by the president of Iran, and many other muslim leaders...(or hooligans..iÂ´d say).

I dont belive that today there are still some "politicians" as Hugo Chavez, who say that radical islamists of Hamas "are the victims, and Israel is the bad one", just because Israel defends his country, (and because Israel is a democratic country and westernized). Almost two million palestinian live in Israel, enjoing the whole freedom of religion, democracy, human rights, etc, etc.

Can anybody tell me how many jewish could live in Palestina?? How many Christians or Jews or just no-muslims can live in Palestina or Lebanon, or Egypt without being attacked??? Can anybody tell me about human rights in Palestina? or in Iran? or Syria?? etc etc.

Even we have seen on the Palestinian TV that Hamas train childen for future terrorists, and we know that Hamas use the families as human shields, and Hamas put its weapons in cellar of schools and universities.

The Israelis must know that they are not alone. In Berlin more than 2,000 people marched on January 11 in favor of Israel.

On the last January 18th, in Madrid (Spain) more than 3.000 people demonstrated in support of Israel. I send you the links:

http://www.minutodigital.com/actualidad2/2009/01/18/miles-de-espanoles-apoyan-el-derecho-de-israel-a-defenderse-del-islamismo-radical/

http://alianzacivilizaciones.blogspot.com/2009/01/manifestacin-de-apoyo-israel-en-madrid.html

We must to stop the islamist attacks in the whole world. The fundamentalist threats are the global war today. People should know the truth.

And Israel must survive.

Shalom and greetings from Madrid.

Reffo

02-01-2009, 07:13 PM

Well, I never said targetted killing in response to Hamas violence is forbidden.But it seems that you must have said it at one stage. Otherwise why did LionOfLoyalty say this to you?

Well, I'm quite glad you finally accept the rational for the targeted killings of terrorists practiced by the IDF. As well as the fact that if you accept civilians as legitimate targets, then you have no right to criticize the IDF's actions in the territories.

It's such a shame when you're own words come back to bite you in the behind, isn't it?

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?

Egypt, recognised Israel

And Israel gave them land for peace.

It didn't. Colonisation and occupation in the Westbank goes on.So you deny that Israel gave Egypt land for peace?

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?If you say so :rolleyes: But then again:

Hamas clearly says that they want to destroy Israel
Despite that, Israel moved out of Gaza
And they are negotiating with Abbas about the West Bank
You are saying that's occupation and that Hamas then has the right to be violent.

And therefore Israel too will respond with violence. Have you got a problem with Israel's response?

I provided enough links to Abbas calling for compromise on the refugees question, and links to Abbas and Arafat recognising Israel. Do you deny that?What compromise? You admitted that Abbas never indicated how many refugees he expects Israel to let in. And Arafat certainly didn't mention any numbers. So, what do you want Israel to agree to?

What you always say is: Colonialist Israel .... I respond that the occupation was caused by the war that Arabs started and is continuing because of their ongoing violence....

That's your opinion, not fact. Only the Israeli government knows why colonisation started and occupation continued. There hasn't been a war between 1955 and 1967, and noone attacked Israel. Israel invaded Egypt in 1967, and then started the occupation and colonisation. These are the facts, the rest is blame-game, polemics and interpretation. Do you deny these facts?Are you saying that the Arabs were not the ones who started the war in 1948? Are you saying that they didn't threaten to drive the Jews into the sea?

you then tell me to stop the blame game ...... I then tell you OK but that you too should stop talking about the occupation all the time (a blame game) .... You say no, you won't .... etc etc etc

The occupation is not a game...Well, but you were the one who coined the term "Blame Game" when you preached to me not to do it?

OK then, go live in Sderot, big mouth ...

How many Sredot citizens died by rocketsOne is too many! I bet you'd agree with me if it would be your mother..

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.

OK then, why isn't there peace already?

That's a difficult question, it has more than one reason. My guess is that a serious part of Israeli society and politics want Eretz Israel, and thus continued occupation and colonisation, and on the palestinian side Hamas didn't play exactly a constructive role, especially not in the 90's when they did their best to sabotage Oslo.
It couldn't possibly be that Israel holds onto the land because of how Hamas behaves? And perhaps because Fatah has not been willing to compromise too about renouncing their past pretexts for war? Could it Takeo?

Ok then, why aren't they talking already?

Because both sides want the other side to take the first step, I think.
I think Hamas should offer talks to Israel, do you think Israel should talk to Hamas? (just checking if you really want peace, or just for the sake of argument)I think that if Hamas would offer to talk to Israel directly, Israel SHOULD agree. And I think that Israel WOULD agree..

I am saying that Israel showed willingness to give land for peace

not enough apparently. Why don't they offer total withdrawel against recognition and safety garantees? Could it be possible that radical parties which have links to colonist organisations have a say in this as well?Are you saying that Ehud Barak's 2001 offer to withdraw from 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank and offsets for the remaining 3% would not have amounted to a TOTAL WITHDRAWAL?

Don't you blame Israel for what happened in Gaza recently?

Yes, partially. Again, I don't like the word "blame".

Yet you constantly blame Israel for the occupation!

Well, Israel is occupying, right? Not the Palestinians, who are occupied.
I'm not blaming. What I say is that as long as there's occupation, there won't be peace.But it seems that the Palestinians don't want to agree to terms that would make Israelis feel secure and therefore the occupation WILL continue and as you say, the Palestinian violence will continue and therefore Israel's harsh responses will continue too...

It seems that Israel is not being given any choice in the matter, don't you think Takeo?

Reffo

02-01-2009, 07:45 PM

Israel requested Hamas, nicely, to stop shooting rockets on 1 million Southern Israeli civilians.

But it didn't offer to end the embargo which caused civilian suffering and was heavily criticised by most international organisations. And no, I'm not talking about the embargo on weapons but the general embargo against Gaza.The embargo goes hand in hand with the weapons smuggling. Lift the embargo and Hamas will find it easier to smuggle in more advanced weapons.

He/They don't criticize, they write polemics!

As you:lol: You mean ... as you, don't you? :lol:

What he said was that the Palestinians can have their state but they had to compromise on their demands

They are ready to compromise, but they don't accept unilateral impositions, they want negociations.Quote and link please! Let's just pick on one issue for starters: Have they told Israel how many refugees they expect Israel to let in? ...... No? I didn't think so!

And since they haven't but they rejected Ehud Barak's offer, what do you expect Israel to do if they don't even know what number of refugees they are expected to let in?

You mean that if your goal is peace, then they have to make an offer and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then they have to make another offer .... and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then Israel has to make another offer .... and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then Israel has to make another offer .... and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then Israel has to make another offer .... and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then Israel has to make another offer .... and if the Palestinian Arabs say NO, then Israel has to make another offer ....

They have to sit together and find a compromise acceptable for both parties. Barak didn't want that.Barak said: Here is my offer ...... Arafat said: Not enough but he didn't say what IS enough ..... Moreover, he escalated the violence instead of making a specific offer .... And according to you, it was Ehud Barak's fault? :scratch:

Where would that stop Takeo? I say that it would stop when Israel would offer to self destruct!

nonsense, that's not what they expectNonsense, I think a full right of return would be a recipee for Israel's destruction.

if not they would not call for compromise on the refugee-questionI repeat, what compromise? How many refugees do they expect Israel to let in?

Oslo could have worked if Arafat would have been serious about peace but he was not and as you say, Hamas wasn't even interested. That's why they were NOT included in Oslo... And that's why Oslo NEVER even had a chance to succeed. Even you seem to concede that point...

Oslo had many flows, and was heavily criticised by E. Said, among others, since the start. One of the problem was the staged approach, which left too much room for both parties to escape their responsabilities. Palestinians were not very serious about the security garantees, and didn't do enough to stop Hamas, but Israel too violated the agreements in many ways.(more colonisation, the fastest rate ever during the 90's, not following the agreed upon time schedule, etc.)OK, I could live with that statement but Ehud Barak's offer WAS a serious and good offer which would have redressed most if not all of the stated Arab grievances. Yet it seems even that wasn't good enough for the Palestinian Arabs. That's why even moderate Israelis and Jews have come to doubt the intentions of Palestinian Arabs. Because anything MORE than Ehud Barak offered would endanger the security of Israel and Israelis.

Reffo

02-01-2009, 08:07 PM

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

TaYes, that's exactly what I am saying about Hamas and Hezbollah.

Well, they will not unilaterally end the violence without serious negociations and a peace-deal. What you ask is unilateral surrender, that will never happenBut Hamas and Hezbollah don't want to negotiate directly with Israel. So it seems that violence is their choice and Israel has the right to up the ante with their violent response till it will begin to hurt Hamas and Hezbollah so much that they will be willing to choose a more peaceful path.

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.

Fair enough, it can be part of a peace-deal which involves the creation of a Palestinian state. Fair enough.

They [the BBC] 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.

Yes they do, they showed the rockets in Sredot, many times.They showed bland 1 minute segments about Sderot about once every three months (if that). Compare that to their saturation coverage of endless gory images of alleged Israeli atrocities 24 by 7!

And they [the BBC and CNN] 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.

These conflicts get attention as well, and there are plenty of horrific images from the war in Congo for example.Nowhere near as much as the frenzied saturation coverage of Gaza, 24 by 7!

KiwiWriter

02-01-2009, 08:23 PM

Nowhere near as much as the frenzied saturation coverage of Gaza, 24 by 7!

If you watch the news over here, you'd never think the other conflicts you listed were even happening. Except when some particularly interesting event occurs.

Reffo

02-01-2009, 08:27 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?

Yala

02-01-2009, 09:41 PM

Reffo

02-01-2009, 10:25 PM

If they don't want to "recognize" Israel, then who cares?Not recognizing Israel is a symptom of Hamas's intentions. Their stated intentions to destroy Israel no matter how long it would take them to achieve that aim.

Reffo

02-02-2009, 12:04 AM

ItsMyJewty

02-02-2009, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by ItsMyJewty
There'll be more suffering in Gaza soon if the backward, morally depraved Pals don't stop firing rockets into Israel.

takeo: If Israel ends the blockade (a reason for war) than the firing will stop.

There have been rocket attacks since 2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks, well before Israel's blockade of Gaza, which started in June 2007 (after Hamas took control). The blockade was a security measure. So, as usual, your argument is without foundation.

takeo

02-02-2009, 03:11 AM

In hindsight, the withdrawl WAS a bad idea--I'll grant you that. The fact that the withdrawl didn't work, however, is my point. Israel makes concessions, and they don't work. When is enough actually enough?

You admit that the withdrawl was a bad idea, and then you say that Israel "should have done...." Israel GAVE THEM THE LAND, and still it's somehow Israel's fault for giving up the land unilaterally! WHY? Why can't the Palestinians just say, "Thank you! We will PROVE that we are serious about peaceful co-existence. We look forward to future negotiations with our neighbor Israel." Is that too much to ask?

I surmise that the real reason that such accomodations are not reality is because the Palestinians and their allies still dream of a non-existent Israel. As long as the complete destruction of Israel is part of the Hamas charter--or any other charter (spoken or unspoken)--there will be no peace, regardless of Israel's concessions.

Unilateral withdrawel was bad, because there's still no Palestinian state. So actually noone was in controll in Gaza, and Hamas quickly filled the void.
AND israel is still occupying large parts of Palestine, so it means war goes on, it was not a part of some kind of peaceplan which would end with the liberation of the Westbank and Eastern Jerusalem as well, with recognition of Israel and a Palestinian state.
If you want to know if peace is possible, you have to talk to both Palestinian parties, and end with a serious peace-deal. There's no other way.

takeo

02-02-2009, 03:47 AM

joabell

Israel has the right to defend itself against the Islamist attacks.

And Palestinians have the right to defend themselves against colonisation and occupation.

The Arabs of Palestine never agreed to live together with other non-Muslim neighbors, and the Arab Muslims always attacked the Jews since 1920.

there are many christian Palestinians, some Palestinian resistance organisations (PLF for example) mainly consist of christians.
And of course, zionists weren't exactly kind to the original inhabitants of the region either.

Israel has learned that trying to negotiate with the Muslims, is like "writing on wet paper".

the peace-deal with Egypt is still standing.

The best example is the evacuation of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza in 2005, as a peace initiative by Israel....

In 2005 Israel didn't want to talk to Palestinians, which peace-initiative? In the meanwhile many other colonies were expanded.

And what happened then? Hamas called the Palestinian people to die fighting against the Israel till the end. Hamas calls on Palestinians to fight to exterminate all Jews, "as an obligation with Allah"... This kind of "Terminator" speeches are also recited by the president of Iran, and many other muslim leaders...(or hooligans..iÂ´d say).

Many other Arab leaders are calling for a compromise, including Assad of Syria. Even Hamas leader said he is willing to recognise Israel if there's a Palestinian state.

I dont belive that today there are still some "politicians" as Hugo Chavez, who say that radical islamists of Hamas "are the victims, and Israel is the bad one", just because Israel defends his country, (and because Israel is a democratic country and westernized). Almost two million palestinian live in Israel, enjoing the whole freedom of religion, democracy, human rights, etc, etc.

Noone in the western world, including Obama, accept Israel to coninue its colonisation and occupation. All are calling for a two-state solution.

It's not about the bad or the evil ones, it's about solutions for this very difficult problem.

Can anybody tell me how many jewish could live in Palestina?? How many Christians or Jews or just no-muslims can live in Palestina or Lebanon, or Egypt without being attacked???

About 40% of the population of Lebanon is christian. The Lebanese president is christian. About 10% of Egyptian population is christian, etc.
Did Israel ever had a non-Jewish president?

Can anybody tell me about human rights in Palestina? or in Iran? or Syria?? etc etc.

They didn't kill over 1000 people during bombings on schools, universities and hospitals, that's for sure. I'm not saying the humanitarian situation is good in these countries tough.

Even we have seen on the Palestinian TV that Hamas train childen for future terrorists, and we know that Hamas use the families as human shields, and Hamas put its weapons in cellar of schools and universities.

That's what Israel says, many international organisations present in Gaza didn't agree with that conclusion.

The Israelis must know that they are not alone. In Berlin more than 2,000 people marched on January 11 in favor of Israel.

Yes, but much more demonstrated against Israel.

We must to stop the islamist attacks in the whole world. The fundamentalist threats are the global war today. People should know the truth.

I agree. But the problem between Israel and the Palestinians is great propaganda for fundamentalists. It should be resolved quickly. Moderate Arab and muslim politicians should be supported.

And Israel must survive.

Yes, but it can only survive in peace if it, sooner or later, makes peace with its neighbours.

Shalom and greetings from Madrid.

hasta la proxima vez. Saludos de Amberes.

takeo

02-02-2009, 04:24 AM

Reffo

But it seems that you must have said it at one stage. Otherwise why did LionOfLoyalty say this to you?

I don't know why he said this to me, I'm not responsible for his posts, I always said that targetted killings of Hamas-leaders in a war-like environment are acceptable, as are targetted killings of Israeli politicians and military. Do you think Hamas has the right to kill IDF-soldiers? Or do you think that only Israel has the right to kill? (just checking if you admit being biased)

So you deny that Israel gave Egypt land for peace?

Egypt yes, and that's a fine example that real peace can work. It doesn't mean both have to hug and love eachother, but there's mutual recognition, safety and respect for territorial integrity.

If you say so :rolleyes: But then again:
[list]
Hamas clearly says that they want to destroy Israel

that's not what the Hamas-leaders said. I already gave you the quote.

Despite that, Israel moved out of Gaza

see above

And they are negotiating with Abbas about the West Bank

That's good, but not enough. There should also be talks with hamas. Another problem is that this israeli government has little legitimacy to make fundamental decisions because of the upcoming elections.

You are saying that's occupation and that Hamas then has the right to be violent.

As long as there's no formal peace-treaty and occupation and colonisation continue, yes. But you see today Israel is talking to fatah and there's peace in the Westbank.

And therefore Israel too will respond with violence. Have you got a problem with Israel's response?

No, as long as they don't target civilians.

What compromise? You admitted that Abbas never indicated how many refugees he expects Israel to let in. And Arafat certainly didn't mention any numbers. So, what do you want Israel to agree to?

That is exactly what needs to be negociated with Israel, preferably behind closed doors. Because this is very sensitive matter, both in palestine and Israel. If both parties start to make claims before the negociations actually happen, it will poison the negociations.

Are you saying that the Arabs were not the ones who started the war in 1948? Are you saying that they didn't threaten to drive the Jews into the sea?

It's more complicated than that actually if you read the whole history. Just like Israel had its reasons in 1967 to attack Egypt, Arabs had their reasons in 1948 to attack Israel. If these were good or bad reasons, remains a matter for historians and politicians to debate.

Well, but you were the one who coined the term "Blame Game" when you preached to me not to do it?

I repeat: it's not about blame, it's about a solution for the conflict.

One is too many! I bet you'd agree with me if it would be your mother..

Of course, but one is too many in Gaza either, let alone 1000. Israel was not very carefull to avoid civilian victims in Gaza. And one hungry Palestinian is too many as well. Why couldn't Israel just lift the embargo?

It couldn't possibly be that Israel holds onto the land because of how Hamas behaves? And perhaps because Fatah has not been willing to compromise too about renouncing their past pretexts for war? Could it Takeo?

I don't think so. Just look at which Israeli parties don't want compromise or a two-state solution, at all. because of ideological reasons, not because of safety reasons.

I think that if Hamas would offer to talk to Israel directly, Israel SHOULD agree. And I think that Israel WOULD agree..

OK, but why can't Israel offer to talk first? Do you think Hamas is more reasonable than Israel, or the other way? Does this kind of macho-attitude (by both parties) makes sense?

Are you saying that Ehud Barak's 2001 offer to withdraw from 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank and offsets for the remaining 3% would not have amounted to a TOTAL WITHDRAWAL?

No, according to many sources he would, for example, hold on the Jordan river bank and the death sea banks as well as many other settlemens on the Westbank. Israel would also continue to controll Palestinian external borders.

But it seems that the Palestinians don't want to agree to terms that would make Israelis feel secure and therefore the occupation WILL continue and as you say, the Palestinian violence will continue and therefore Israel's harsh responses will continue too...

They want to, but Israel doesn't want to compromise over issues which are vital to the Palestinians, such as the refugee-question. Moreover for years Israel didn't want to talk to Palestinian leaders at all.

It seems that Israel is not being given any choice in the matter, don't you think Takeo?

Of course they have a choice. The current talks with Abbas have to extended to Hamas, and other countries such as Syria, Egypt, Jordan, the US, Europe and others have to be involved as well. Israel can offer total withdrawel (minus some exchanges of land if Israel insists on keeping some settlements near Jerusalem), recognition of Palestine and a compromise concerning the refugees, acceptable to both parties. Palestinians can offer recognition of Israel and safety garantees.

takeo

02-02-2009, 04:36 AM

Reffo

The embargo goes hand in hand with the weapons smuggling. Lift the embargo and Hamas will find it easier to smuggle in more advanced weapons.

Nonsense, Israel would still controll everything that passes the border. This whole embargo is just a collective punishment against the entire Gazan population.

Quote and link please! Let's just pick on one issue for starters: Have they told Israel how many refugees they expect Israel to let in? ...... No? I didn't think so!

see above.

And since they haven't but they rejected Ehud Barak's offer, what do you expect Israel to do if they don't even know what number of refugees they are expected to let in?

Negociate and compromise. Thats also what Arafat wanted.

Nonsense, I think a full right of return would be a recipee for Israel's destruction.

yes, but as both Arafat and Abbas said, that's not what they want.

I repeat, what compromise? How many refugees do they expect Israel to let in?

once more, the exact numbers have to be decided on the negociating table, not by making public demands.

OK, I could live with that statement but Ehud Barak's offer WAS a serious and good offer which would have redressed most if not all of the stated Arab grievances. Yet it seems even that wasn't good enough for the Palestinian Arabs.

As I said it was an imposition, what Palestinians wanted was a negociated solution, not only on Israel's terms.

That's why even moderate Israelis and Jews have come to doubt the intentions of Palestinian Arabs. Because anything MORE than Ehud Barak offered would endanger the security of Israel and Israelis.

That's BS. The Jordan river is NOT going to endanger the security of Israel, nor are a few carefully selected Palestinians returning. That's why there should be negociations and compromise. Israel will not agree to anything that will endanger its safety, Palestinians will not agree to anything they can't defend to their people either.

takeo

02-02-2009, 04:44 AM

Reffo

But Hamas and Hezbollah don't want to negotiate directly with Israel. So it seems that violence is their choice and Israel has the right to up the ante with their violent response till it will begin to hurt Hamas and Hezbollah so much that they will be willing to choose a more peaceful path.

I don't think that's the right strategy. By killing many civilians, such as in Gaza or Lebanon, the voices which don't want any deal with Israel will become stronger.. Why doesn't Israel propose direct talks with Hezbollah and Hamas? If they refuse, everyone will see them as an obstacle to peace, including many Palestinians. If they agree, than they will anger their financers in Iran. And Israel has nothing to loose by offering them to talk.

They showed bland 1 minute segments about Sderot about once every three months (if that). Compare that to their saturation coverage of endless gory images of alleged Israeli atrocities 24 by 7!

nonsense: during the war I saw constant images of Sredot and the rockets on streets or one in an elderly institute, both on French, Belgian television and BBC. It got almost as much coverage as the slaughter in Gaza, which killed over a 1000 people, among which many civilians, and destroyed half of Gaza.

takeo

02-02-2009, 04:47 AM

takeo

02-02-2009, 05:10 AM

There have been rocket attacks since 2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks, well before Israel's blockade of Gaza, which started in June 2007 (after Hamas took control). The blockade was a security measure. So, as usual, your argument is without foundation.

The blockade was stated by Hamas as a breach of the cease-fire.
Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict

In this stage of the cease-fire, Hamas called on other Palestinian factions to abide by the truce, and a rocket attack on Israel by al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades was condemned by Hamas as "unpatriotic."[15] Hamas claimed it would imprison anyone, from its own ranks or other groups, caught firing rockets, but also explicitly stated it would not police the border with Israel.[16] In 28 June, Saeb Erekat, the PLO's chief negotiator, called upon all groups to honor the lull, calling it the â€œsupreme Palestinian interestâ€ above all else.[17] The three rocket attacks made from 19 June to 28 June lead Israel to slow down the re-opening of Gaza border areas.[16] In 29 June, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center commented that Hamas preferred to exert outside pressure on the rocket attackers and refused to confront them directly.[17]

Hamas believed that the 19 June agreement required it to end rocket attacks upon Israel in exchange for an end of the blockade.[6] According to The New York Times:

â€œ It took some days, but they were largely successful. Hamas imposed its will and even imprisoned some of those who were firing rockets. Israeli and United Nations figures show that while more than 300 rockets were fired into Israel in May, 10 to 20 were fired in July, depending on who was counting and whether mortar rounds were included. In August, 10 to 30 were fired, and in September, 5 to 10.[6]
Rocket and mortar attacks continued at a rate of several rockets per month.[7] Shortly after the start of the truce, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center commented that "rogue terrorist organizations" opposed to Hamas continued to carry out attacks.[17] Nevertheless, rocket fire decreased 98% in the four and a half months between 18 June and 4 November in comparison with the four and half months preceding the ceasefire since over 1,894 rockets were fired into Israel from 1 February to 18 June and just 37 were fired between 18 June and the beginning of November.[7] However, the amount of rocket fire decreased by about 20% when comparing the lull in November 2008 to the time shortly before Hamas took power in Gaza.[7]

In 20 November 2008, Human Rights Watch wrote an open letter to Ismail Haniya, Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza, and Khaled Mishaal, leader of the Islamic Resistance Movement, stating that:

â€œ We recognize that until last week Hamas took efforts to halt rocket attacks by other groups as part of the June 19 ceasefire. However, throughout the ceasefire period other armed groups have continued to intermittently fire rockets from Gaza. As the governing authority in the Gaza Strip, it is your responsibility under international law to prevent such attacks, and to arrest and prosecute those who carry them out. We also urge you to take all necessary measures to curb such unlawful attacks whether or not the current ceasefire remains in place or is extended beyond its December 19 deadline. Security forces under your control in Gaza have also demonstrated an ability to curb rocket fire. On at least two occasions, Hamas security personnel arrested people accused of firing rockets. On July 10 at least three members of the Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades were detained for firing rockets. All were later released however, and no charges were brought against them.[18] â€

[edit] Blockade agreements
See also: Blockade of the Gaza Strip
The Palestinians who negotiated the cease-fire believed that the commerce in Gaza was to be restored to the levels preceding Israel's withdrawal in 2005 and Hamas's electoral victory. [6][8] Israeli policy tied the easing of the blockade on success in reducing rocket fire[19]. They re-opened supply lines gradually, in stages. They permitted a 20% increase in goods trucked into Gaza in the pre-lull period, up from 70 to 90 truckloads a day.[6], including not only humanitarian supplies bur also clothes, shoes, refrigerators, and construction materials.[20] Fuel supplies increased from 55MW worth to 65MW worth.[20] BBC News reported in 11 November that Gaza was then receiving only 28% of the amount of goods traded before the Hamas takeover.[20]

Over the one month period from 4 November to 8 December, about 700 truck loads of goods went into Gaza, which is about the amount of material that would have gone through in a single day without a blockade.[8][21]

On 4 November 2008, Israeli military raided a Hamas-dug tunnel between Gaza and Israel on the Gazan side of the border. The IDF claimed it was intended for the capture of Israeli soldiers, while Hamas, and one IDF source maintained it was for defensive purposes.[24] As six members of Hamas were killed,[25][6] it considered this attack a "massive breach of the truce,"[26] and rocket attacks towards Israeli cities around Gaza increased sharply in November 2008, approaching the pre-truce levels.[27] According to a 17 November article in The Telegraph, "since violence flared on Nov 5, Israeli forces and militants, some of them from Hamas, have engaged in almost daily tit-for-tat exchanges."[28]

On 13 December 2008, Israel announced that it was in favor of extending the cease-fire, provided Hamas adhered to its conditions.[29] The conditions posed by a Hamas delegation in Cairo on December 14, were that the parties return to the original Hamas-Israel ceasefire arrangement. Hamas would undertake to stop all rocket attacks against Israel if the Israelis would agree to open up the border crossings, not to reduce commercial traffic thereafter, and not to launch attacks in Gaza. At an Israeli Cabinet meeting on December 21, Yuval Diskin, the head of Israel's internal security agency, confirmed the seriousness of Hamasâ€™s interest in maintaining the truce.[citation needed]

On 20 December Hamas officially announced that they would not be extending the cease-fire, which had expired on 19 December, citing Israeli border closures as the primary reason, and resumed its shelling of the western Negev.[30] Hamas blamed Israel for the end of the ceasefire, saying it had not respected its terms, including the lifting of the blockade, under which little more than humanitarian aid has been allowed into Gaza. Israel said it initially began easing the blockade, but resumed it when Hamas failed to fulfill the agreed conditions, including ending all rocket fire and halting weapons smuggling.[31]

Although on the November Israel had previously broken the ceasefire by attacking a cross-border tunnel to capture additional Israeli soldiers, [3] On 23 December, Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior Hamas leader, said in a Newspaper Interview that his group was willing to consider renewing the hudna if Israel refrained from operating in Gaza, and lifted its blockade of the Gaza strip.[32] The same day the IDF killed three Palestinian militants, stating that the militants were planting explosives on the Gaza border.[33] Israel was also reluctant to open the border crossings, which had been closed since November.[34] On 24 December the Negev was hit by more than 60 mortar shells and Katyusha and Qassam rockets, and the IDF was given a green light to operate.[35] Hamas claimed to have fired a total of 87 rockets and mortar rounds that day at Israel, code-naming the firing "Operation Oil Stain".[36]

On 25 December 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert delivered 'Last Minute' Warning to Gaza in direct appeal to Gaza's people via the Arabic language satellite channel al-Arabiya, to pressure their leaders to stop the barrages. "I am telling them now, it may be the last minute, I'm telling them stop it. We are stronger," he said.[37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Israel-Hamas_ceasefire

takeo

02-02-2009, 05:14 AM

If they don't want to "recognize" Israel, then who cares? They are acting like children and it's not normal to stoop to their level. The forum Hamas supporter is simply angry that Hamas did much worse than Hezbollah and were beaten to a pulp. Hezbollah at least learned their lesson and are keeping the border quiet while Hamas insists on going at it again. Hezbollah is in any case much more successful than Hamas. Hezbollah control a whole country, while Hamas cannot even control a small strip.

I don't support Hamas, but reality is that peace without Hamas will not be succesfull.

And I provided quoted from Hamas' supreme leader saying that he is willing to recognise Israel if a Palestinian state gets established.

And I don't care who "won". Both lost, Israel's image is once again shattered by the many civilian casualties, and there is still no peace or safety. It aleniated key allies such as Turkey. Negociations with Syria and Abbas are now at a stand-still. And Palestinians lost many lifes, and there's no indication that things will improve soon.

maven

02-02-2009, 05:26 AM

And reffo, you once AGAIN avoided to answer my question: if Netanyahu shuts the door to a two-state solution and ends all talks with Palestinians, does it mean they have the right to restart the Indifadeh and resist?Please excuse me for butting in on your thread which I have not followed but just saw a reference to Benjamin Netanyahu and peace.

This is the LAST chance for peace with the Palestinians. It is also the last chance for the Palestinians to have a State and for Israel to contimue to exist. New forces are rising which are much more powerful than the existing Arab States.

International Muslim opinion is now in a fine balance. Who will win? the old or the younger generation? If we don't make peace now, then just as the Shah was swept aside, the leaders of Egypt and Jordan will be swept aside within the next possibly five to ten years.

We can save the stability of the ME now and avoid the Islamist threat or face a hopeless World War that the West simply cannot win because the West is not located in the ME.

Ariel Sharon was on the verge of making peace when sadly he was struck down, Bibi Netanyahu must be firm, be strong, face up to Hamas the way our current cabinet did not have the courage to do and then make a good peace that makes the majority on both sides happy and is endorsed by the Arab world and the world community.

Bibi may think in far off Israel cut off from the real world that he can put his finger in the dyke and say no to all Palestinian demands and all will be well. But that dam will burst and wash him and Israel away.

I am supporting Bibi because Israel needs a strong leader, But he needs to bring peace through strenght. If he throws away the opportunity then I believe that he will throw away the future of Israel itself.

Sharona

02-02-2009, 05:28 AM

Mediocrates

02-02-2009, 05:48 AM

You say that like it's a bad thing. Hand out machetes and let them do what comes naturally.

ItsMyJewty

02-02-2009, 06:06 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsMyJewty
There have been rocket attacks since 2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rocket_attacks, well before Israel's blockade of Gaza, which started in June 2007 (after Hamas took control). The blockade was a security measure. So, as usual, your argument is without foundation.

takeo: The blockade was stated by Hamas as a breach of the cease-fire.
Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.

The blockade was a security measure - Hamas is an anti-Semitic Islamic terrorist organization that has carried out numerous suicide bombings in Israel. Hamas's stated aim is the destruction of the state of Israel and the establishment of an islamic state in what is now Isreal, Gaza, and the West Bank.

Rockets have been fired into Israel since 2001. These attacks continued after Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and during the five-month cease-fire you're referring to. So, I don't know what point you're making, but it's pretty clear to me that there can be no peace with these people. The Arabs need to grow up and stop acting like little kids who run around provoking people and then complain when they get hit. Since that's not going to happen any time soon (if at all!), Israel needs a strong leader, like Netanyahu, who doesn't take any messing and knows how to kick ass!

Toadstool46

02-02-2009, 06:10 AM

You say that like it's a bad thing. Hand out machetes and let them do what comes naturally.

I agree, let them finish each other off.... They are a people who wouldn't know peace if it sent them a truck load of food, fuel, clothing, and other provisions right across their border.

Lets face it. People keeps saying the word peace.

In reality though, the Arabs won't allow it until Israel doesn't excist ( then its debateable even then because there will be the Christians next ) and Israel will never be conqured.

Peace will eventually come but it won't be by human hands, human dipolamacy or human wisdom.

maven

02-02-2009, 06:59 AM

This talk of peace makes my jaw drop. From recent events (to say nothing of the past), the Palestinian factions cannot even make peace amongst themselves.

Hamas is busily rounding up Fatah sympathisers in Gaza who are lucky if they get off with a severe beating for the smallest 'apparent' sign that they are not totally enamoured of Hamas.

Meanwhile on the West Bank, Fatah is kidnapping and torturing supposed Hamas sympathisers.

Forget Israel. The Palestinians need to move into the 21st century and find leaders that are less hell-bent on internal power struggles before peace in any shape or form can come to them.

Such violent everyday practices do not show anyone that peace is something they respect or desire.I just heard a good speech by Livni though I did'nt hear the end. She is saying that while the situation is now complex some major factors have altered in Israel's favour and the favour of Mahmood Abbas. i.e. the whole world has seen Hamas in action and major countries in the Middle East are now fighting the same enemy as Israel which is not Israel but Iran's support of the International Caliphation movement; Hamas, Hiz'bollah, Hizb ut Tahrir, the Muslim brotherhood etc who are in a battle to destroy Israel and bring down the leaders of the Arab world.

Livni believes that the bigger powers in the Arab world need Israel to resist the forces of Islamofascism which threatens the Region. She believes in undoing the complexities of the Israeli/Palestinian divide and isolating and seriously damaging Hamas in order to create a durable peace.

Having said that she just lost an opportunity along with Olmert and Barak to really get stuck in a hurt Hamas and destroy their leadership.

It's peace or nothing Sharona I'm afraid, this is a junction between two paths to the future. Either we defeat Hamas and make peace with the Palestinians or both ourselves and the Palestinians will lose everything to the Islamists who will behead everyone who does not suscribe to their brand of Islam, a brand not yet embraced by most Palestinians.

CanDo

02-02-2009, 10:23 AM

... AND israel is still occupying large parts of Palestine, ...

All of Palestine legally belongs to Israel. Any civilized, impartial court would determine, without any doubt, that ALL of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan should belong to Israel.

The fact that Arabs/Muslims do not have any true legal claim to the area doesn't bother a dishonest creep like you.

so it means war goes on,

War goes on because the huge, violent, backward, uncivilized Arab/Muslim world is extremely racist and intolerant of other religions. If Arabs/Muslims aren't killing Christians, Jews or Hindus, they are killing each other.

... it was not a part of some kind of peace plan which would end with the liberation of the West bank and Eastern Jerusalem as well, with recognition of Israel and a Palestinian state.

In order to legally liberate the West Bank, Eastern Jerusalem and Gaza, Israel would have to drive ALL Muslims/Arabs off of the Jewish land, back where they came from. I call it "Taking out the garbage"! :D

There's no other way.

I agree. The ONLY way to have true and lasting peace, and to provide justice to both Christians and Jews, for 60+ years of Arab/Muslim crimes against humanity, is to drive every last one of those illegal, backward, violent, uncivilized Muslims/Arabs off Jewish land...... Out of Israel! :clap:

Reffo

02-02-2009, 10:59 AM

takeo

02-02-2009, 11:10 AM

Reffo

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!

No, but either didn't he say the contrary.

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?[/QUOTE]

Why are you such a liar? You maintain that Hamas wants to destroy Israel, and there's no mentioning of it in the prementioned link.

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.

And further Hamas might have a point here:
"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.

It all boils down to the same: Hamas will recognise Israel, once a Palestinian state is established. Which is something entirely different that what you are proclaiming: that Hamas wants to destroy Israel and every Jew living there.

codedvirus

02-02-2009, 11:23 AM

Reffo
It all boils down to the same: Hamas will recognise Israel, once a Palestinian state is established.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terror+Groups/Anti-Israel+statements+by+Hamas+leaders+after+Palestini an+government+15-Apr-2007.htm

"Hamas rejects the Arab [peace] initiative and wants Palestine from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea. If today Israel cannot be beaten militarily, it will be possible in the future."

takeo

02-02-2009, 11:33 AM

maven

at last an interesting post.

This is the LAST chance for peace with the Palestinians. It is also the last chance for the Palestinians to have a State and for Israel to contimue to exist. New forces are rising which are much more powerful than the existing Arab States.

It is not the last chance, but indeed if the current situation continues there is a serious risk involved. Obama knows that as well.

International Muslim opinion is now in a fine balance. Who will win? the old or the younger generation? If we don't make peace now, then just as the Shah was swept aside, the leaders of Egypt and Jordan will be swept aside within the next possibly five to ten years.

A very real possibility. Of course it doesn't only depend on the Israeli-Palestinian problem, but it is certainly part of it. In any case it will be much more difficult dealing with the Islamic brotherhood than with Assad, Mubarak or the king.

We can save the stability of the ME now and avoid the Islamist threat or face a hopeless World War that the West simply cannot win because the West is not located in the ME.

I agree.

Ariel Sharon was on the verge of making peace when sadly he was struck down, Bibi Netanyahu must be firm, be strong, face up to Hamas the way our current cabinet did not have the courage to do and then make a good peace that makes the majority on both sides happy and is endorsed by the Arab world and the world community.

I hope he will, but I doubt it. He boycotted peace in the 90's and didn't proove to be a strong leader like Rabin. And today he's against a two-state solution, so is his party.
I also don't think that a slaughter in gaza will bring an agreement with the Palestinians any closer, on the contrary.

Bibi may think in far off Israel cut off from the real world that he can put his finger in the dyke and say no to all Palestinian demands and all will be well. But that dam will burst and wash him and Israel away.

of course. Without peace the problem won't just disappear. It will become more rotten, and sooner or later explode.

I am supporting Bibi because Israel needs a strong leader, But he needs to bring peace through strenght. If he throws away the opportunity then I believe that he will throw away the future of Israel itself.

Yes, but in that case, why don't you support someone who is in favor of peace and negociations?
He might be a strong leader, but he doesn't want peace.

Of course, he might change his opinion once in power and become a strong supporter of peace. That happened to other hawks as well, such as Begin.
Let's hope so. I think it will be the task of Obama to convince him, if necessary by subtle or not so subtle pressure.

takeo

02-02-2009, 11:40 AM

codedvirus

02-02-2009, 11:43 AM

that's really a neutral credible source :rolleyes:
I would rather believe what Hamas leaders say themselves...

There are videos inside ..........:stick:

CanDo

02-02-2009, 11:45 AM

... It all boils down to the same: Hamas will recognise Israel, once a Palestinian state is established. ...

More stupid nonsense from the antiSemite takeo. First of all, this group that you support, Hamas, is a brutal gang of killers. Why would you support their cause? Why back a bunch of blood thirsty racists, who have attacked civilians for decades?

You now speaking for Hamas, and proclaiming exactly what they would do.

You are no better than these child killers because you enable their vile, hateful, racist, barbaric behavior.

dayag

02-02-2009, 11:47 AM

that's really a neutral credible source :rolleyes:
I would rather believe what Hamas leaders say themselves...

Then cite a source where Hamas leaders say that they "will recognise Israel, once a Palestinian state is established."

I have not seen them offer anything but temporary truces.

CanDo

02-02-2009, 12:30 PM

Posted to takea, :Then cite a source where Hamas leaders say that they "will recognise Israel, once a Palestinian state is established."

takeo is a sly, pro-hamas creep. Hamas considers their Palestinian State the entire area, and takeo knows that. He just finds different dishonest ways to push his racism and brand of hate.

Reffo

02-02-2009, 12:38 PM

Before reading my response, please refer to my previous post for background information: Post #1041 Click Here

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!

No, but either didn't he say the contrary.Yes he does! This is what Meshal said:

"Formal recognition of Israel could only be considered by Hamas once such a
Palestinian state is established, Reuters quoted Meshal as saying."
Does that sound like your reply to me was correct? I quote your reply below .....

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.
And if you say yes, then please explain to us how it would be possible to establish a Palestinian state without Israel handing over land first? And then have to rely on Hamas to keep it's vague promise to recognize Israel?

Why are you such a liar? You maintain that Hamas wants to destroy Israel, and there's no mentioning of it in the prementioned link.No, but there is a mention of it in Hamas's own charter. Moreover your own link clearly demonstrates that Hamas is not seriously contemplating Israel's recognition any time soon, in spite of your shoddy attempts to try and convince everyone that it does :tdown:

Madeline

02-02-2009, 12:44 PM

takeo is a sly, pro-hamas creep. Hamas considers their Palestinian State the entire area, and takeo knows that. He just finds different dishonest ways to push his racism and brand of hate.

CanDO, with all due respect, I believe that you have read takeo wrong. He isn't pro Hamas, or pro Palestine, he is just pro takeo...likes to listen to his own drummer, so to speak.

CanDo

02-02-2009, 12:57 PM

CanDO, with all due respect, I believe that you have read takeo wrong. He isn't pro Hamas, or pro Palestine, he is just pro takeo...likes to listen to his own drummer, so to speak.

I disagree. takeo is pro Hamas. takeo is also obviously against Israel and is antiSemitic. He is typical of all antiSemites. He ignores all past Muslim racism, religious intolerance, violence and wars against others, and puts all of the impetus against the Jews of Israel.

Hell! takeo wants a Palestinian State created, even though it is run, and would be run, by some of the worst barbarians of this world, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Iran, Islamic Jihad, etc. How sick is that!?

If the takeos of the world had their way, it would obviously lead to Israel's destruction and the murder of all Jews, which is exactly what Hamas, takeo and Israel's other enemies have always wanted and tried to do.

maven

02-02-2009, 01:04 PM

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terror+Groups/Anti-Israel+statements+by+Hamas+leaders+after+Palestini an+government+15-Apr-2007.htm

"Hamas rejects the Arab [peace] initiative and wants Palestine from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea. If today Israel cannot be beaten militarily, it will be possible in the future."I was reading today Codevirus that The Hashemite kingdom is now becoming very concerned that Hamas, yes Hamas, may overrun them and seize Jordan because the jew-haters in Jordan hate Israel more than they love their monarchs.

Hamas has gained in popularity in the Kingdom by bringing destruction on Gaza.

I thought the Intefadah was bad but I have never seen so much instability surrounding Israel since the six-day-war and in those days the threat was minimal compared to now.

Everything is up in the air until after the election, racist Paki thugs are walking the streets looking to drink my blood and Olmert is set on making every country in the world including the US an enemy.

I'm going to bed early with a panic headache :unsure:. I'm actually feeling quite sick:vomit:

Madeline

02-02-2009, 01:09 PM

I disagree. takeo is pro Hamas. takeo is also obviously against Israel and is antiSemitic. He is typical of all antiSemites. He ignores all past Muslim racism, religious intolerance, violence and wars against others, and puts all of the impetus against the Jews of Israel.

Hell! takeo wants a Palestinian State created, even though it is run, and would be run, by some of the worst barbarians of this world, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Iran, Islamic Jihad, etc. How sick is that!?

If the takeos of the world had their way, it would obviously lead to Israel's destruction and the murder of all Jews, which is exactly what Hamas, takeo and Israel's other enemies have always wanted and tried to do.
Yes indeed, but all is done to benefit takeo:lol:

CanDo

02-02-2009, 01:25 PM

Yes indeed, but all is done to benefit takeo:lol:

Agreed! But, since I think that takeo is mentally unstable, I don't really think that he knows what would benefit himself, or why he would chose a barbaric, terrorist state over a civilized state.

I really feel that, like most mentally diseased antiSemites, takeo's ego inflates by arguing with Jews. It makes him feel big and important rather than the puny, worthless creep that he actually is.

takeo

02-02-2009, 01:28 PM

Yes indeed, but all is done to benefit takeo:lol:

You can continue your little private conversation about me, in the meanwhile I'm going to respond only to posts concerning the Palestinian-Israeli problem.
:rolleyes:

takeo

02-02-2009, 01:32 PM

Then cite a source where Hamas leaders say that they "will recognise Israel, once a Palestinian state is established."

I have not seen them offer anything but temporary truces.

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

Reffo

02-02-2009, 01:33 PM

And therefore Israel too will respond with violence. Have you got a problem with Israel's response?

No, as long as they don't target civilians.Israel does not target civilians deliberately but since Hamas chooses to deliberately use civilians as human shields, civilians do get hurt. Only Hamas is to blame for that.

What compromise? You admitted that Abbas never indicated how many refugees he expects Israel to let in. And Arafat certainly didn't mention any numbers. So, what do you want Israel to agree to?

That is exactly what needs to be negociated with Israel, preferably behind closed doors. Because this is very sensitive matter, both in palestine and Israel. If both parties start to make claims before the negociations actually happen, it will poison the negociations.And I assume that you'd like to see the negotiations proceed as follows:

Israeli negotiator: We offer to let in 1,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli negotiator: We offer to let in 10,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli negotiator: We offer to let in 100,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli negotiator: We offer to let in 1,000,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli negotiator: We offer to let in 4,000,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: OK

Right Takeo?

Are you saying that the Arabs were not the ones who started the war in 1948? Are you saying that they didn't threaten to drive the Jews into the sea?

It's more complicated than that .....Yes Takeo we know, when it comes to Palestinian wrongdoings, it's more complicated but when it comes to Israel, there is only the "Occupation".

Well, but you were the one who coined the term "Blame Game" when you preached to me not to do it?

I repeat: it's not about blame, it's about a solution for the conflict.And the solution is? ...... don't tell me Takeo ..... I know, I know ....... blame Israel for the occupation and therefore Israel should try and beg Hamas to talk with it and it really is all up to Israel. Isn't it Takeo?

Of course, but one is too many in Gaza either, let alone 1000. Israel was not very carefull to avoid civilian victims in Gaza. And one hungry Palestinian is too many as well. Why couldn't Israel just lift the embargo?But aren't the Gazans, who are the sons, fathers and brothers of Hamas, aren't they the ones who insist that war and violence is their right and indeed duty? So why complain when they get hurt in the violence of their own making?

It couldn't possibly be that Israel holds onto the land because of how Hamas behaves? And perhaps because Fatah has not been willing to compromise too about renouncing their past pretexts for war? Could it Takeo?

I don't think so.....Yes, we know Takeo, it's ALL Israel's fault....

I think that if Hamas would offer to talk to Israel directly, Israel SHOULD agree. And I think that Israel WOULD agree..

OK, but why can't Israel offer to talk first? ...Israel has stated many times that it is willing to negotiate peace with any Arab party who is serious about peace... Do you think that Hamas qualifies?

Are you saying that Ehud Barak's 2001 offer to withdraw from 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank and offsets for the remaining 3% would not have amounted to a TOTAL WITHDRAWAL?

No, according to many sources he would, for example, hold on the Jordan river bank and the death sea banks as well as many other settlemens on the Westbank. Israel would also continue to controll Palestinian external borders.What sources? Quotes and links please.

But it seems that the Palestinians don't want to agree to terms that would make Israelis feel secure and therefore the occupation WILL continue and as you say, the Palestinian violence will continue and therefore Israel's harsh responses will continue too...

They want to, but Israel doesn't want to compromise over issues which are vital to the Palestinians, such as the refugee-question. You don't say ..... Israel is not compromising about the refugee question? ...... What is the specific offer, by the Palestinian Arabs, about the refugees again? You keep on forgetting to tell me ....:scratch:

It seems that Israel is not being given any choice in the matter, don't you think Takeo?

Of course they have a choice. The current talks with Abbas have to extended to Hamas, and other countries such as Syria, Egypt, Jordan, the US, Europe and others have to be involved as well. Israel can offer total withdrawel (minus some exchanges of land if Israel insists on keeping some settlements near Jerusalem), recognition of Palestine and a compromise concerning the refugees, acceptable to both parties. Palestinians can offer recognition of Israel and safety garantees. But isn't that what is happening already? Talk, talk, talk.... and fight, fight, fight.. that's what I was saying: Israel has no choice but to do both.

Madeline

02-02-2009, 01:43 PM

You can continue your little private conversation about me, in the meanwhile I'm going to respond only to posts concerning the Palestinian-Israeli problem.
:rolleyes:

So why are you responding to this then?:rofl:

Mediocrates

02-02-2009, 01:47 PM

It's irrelevant what Hamas says they may or may not promise to say in the future. They are unreliable. They openly say there is nothing to compel them to even follow their own promises. Whatever happens Hamas will not stop because it is not to Hamas own political advantage to stop. They are not a country or a government, they are a gang. A militia. They exist because they fight they fight to exist. It's stupid and naive to imagine that if we allowd Hamas to print their own money, enter into their own treaties, pick up their own trash, operate the post office, pave the streets and fly their flag at the UN as genuine country they would stop attacking Israel for more than a week. And then what? Hamas the country is no less responsibile for its own action than Hamas the Jew hating terrorist gang of fascists. The UN would again sit up on its hind legs and bark that Israel is mean, unfair, disproportionate and whatnot. And the takeos of the world would be the first to demand All Jews Out of Israel is order to let the flowers of freedom breathe free in a Palestinian Paradise.

In short, how you get there is to simply unilaterally declare when Israel will stop providing goods and services to Gaza such as water sewer gas lights and that after that date either they have to provide for themselves or trade like any other country. Close the border much as it is closed now, declare that the two states will have no diplomatic relations and the Gazans are free to sit in the filth screaming however they see fit. They can have their airspace, their coastline and whatever agreement they can hammer out with Egypt and any other country. Perhaps one day Hamas will decide that shooting down an El Al airliner or a a dirty bomb or chemical weapons or some other WMD is something they want to use on the Jews. Ok, it will probably invite a response like they've never seen. That will be the calculated risk they will have to evaluate just like any other country making a strategic decision that could result in their own extermination. At that point the takeos of the world will blame the Jews anyway, nothing new there. So you can safely ignore them.

Y. Shulamith

02-02-2009, 01:52 PM

ItsMyJewty

02-02-2009, 02:14 PM

Y. Shulamith: Pffffttttt.........should a Palestinian State be declared, then the shit will hit the fan, and all terrorist groups will dig in for their piece of the pie and power, and try to effectively beat the bejezus out of Israel, like nothing ever seen before.

The Pals want the whole of Israel. They even teach kids in Gaza to fill in maps of Israel with the Palestinian flag. If they ever got the West Bank, it would simply become another staging post for attacks. Israel would then face attacks from both Gaza and the West Bank and probably Lebanon. The aim is to drive the Israelis out. They don't want Israel there.

The Pals in the West Bank need to go and live in Jordan, which is where they belong. The bogus claims for a state and the Palestinian occupation must end!

Reffo

02-02-2009, 02:20 PM

This whole embargo is just a collective punishment against the entire Gazan population.But didn't your much admired mentor, Uri Avnery, say that all Gazans are the sons, fathers and brothers of Hamas (or something like that)? And Didn't a majority of Palestinians in Gaza vote for Hamas at the last elections?

And since they haven't but they rejected Ehud Barak's offer, what do you expect Israel to do if they don't even know what number of refugees they are expected to let in?

Negociate and compromise.About what? Thin air?

Nonsense, I think a full right of return would be a recipee for Israel's destruction.

yes, but as both Arafat and Abbas said, that's not what they want.Both Abbas and Arafat said that they will not give up the right of return demand.

OK, I could live with that statement but Ehud Barak's offer WAS a serious and good offer which would have redressed most if not all of the stated Arab grievances. Yet it seems even that wasn't good enough for the Palestinian Arabs.

As I said it was an imposition, what Palestinians wanted was a negociated solution, not only on Israel's terms.Which bit of it was an imposition?

That's why even moderate Israelis and Jews have come to doubt the intentions of Palestinian Arabs. Because anything MORE than Ehud Barak offered would endanger the security of Israel and Israelis.

That's BS. That's NOT BS.

CanDo

02-02-2009, 02:24 PM

Israel does not target civilians deliberately but since Hamas chooses to deliberately use civilians as human shields, civilians do get hurt. Only Hamas is to blame for that.

...

But isn't that what is happening already? Talk, talk, talk.... and fight, fight, fight.. that's what I was saying: Israel has no choice but to do both.

Neither the takeos of this world, or Hamas, or Fatah, or any of the other rabid, hateful racists will hear what you say, but what you say is certainly worth saying! To the point and correct!

You are like a pit bull, exposing takeo and drawing his blood! Keep up the good work! :clap:

ItsMyJewty

02-02-2009, 02:25 PM

takeo: Why are you such a liar? You maintain that Hamas wants to destroy Israel, and there's no mentioning of it in the prementioned link.

In April 2006, Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar stated that he dreamed "of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it . . . . I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (will materialize). . . . This dream will become real one day. I'm certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land".
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Reffo

02-02-2009, 02:28 PM

But Hamas and Hezbollah don't want to negotiate directly with Israel. So it seems that violence is their choice and Israel has the right to up the ante with their violent response till it will begin to hurt Hamas and Hezbollah so much that they will be willing to choose a more peaceful path.

I don't think that's the right strategy....The problem is that you DON'T THINK ...... period!

They showed bland 1 minute segments about Sderot about once every three months (if that). Compare that to their saturation coverage of endless gory images of alleged Israeli atrocities 24 by 7!

nonsense: during the war I saw constant images of Sredot...OH Takeo.... please accept my commiseration for having to endure some images of Sderot DURING the war...... How much of that did you have to endure in the 7 years before the war though ? Hmmmmmmmmm?

ItsMyJewty

02-02-2009, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by ItsMyJewty
There have been rocket attacks since 2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rocket_attacks, well before Israel's blockade of Gaza, which started in June 2007 (after Hamas took control). The blockade was a security measure. So, as usual, your argument is without foundation.

takeo: The blockade was stated by Hamas as a breach of the cease-fire.
Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.

ItsMyJewty: The blockade was a security measure - Hamas is an anti-Semitic Islamic terrorist organization that has carried out numerous suicide bombings in Israel. Hamas's stated aim is the destruction of the state of Israel and the establishment of an islamic state in what is now Isreal, Gaza, and the West Bank.

Rockets have been fired into Israel since 2001. These attacks continued after Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and during the five-month cease-fire you're referring to. So, I don't know what point you're making, but it's pretty clear to me that there can be no peace with these people. The Arabs need to grow up and stop acting like little kids who run around provoking people and then complain when they get hit. Since that's not going to happen any time soon (if at all!), Israel needs a strong leader, like Netanyahu, who doesn't take any messing and knows how to kick ass!

Why haven't you answered my post, takeo? Is it not to your liking?

Mediocrates

02-02-2009, 02:38 PM

Pffffttttt.........should a Palestinian State be declared, then the shit will hit the fan, and all terrorist groups will dig in for their piece of the pie and power, and try to effectively beat the bejezus out of Israel, like nothing ever seen before.

:stick:

Every Arab state will empty themselves of all Palestinians as quickly as they can. Several million will come to Gaza or Palestine right away. The UN and the west will pressure Israel to take them in. But Israel will refuse. That's was free states for the Palestinians are for. Of course Israel will be able to take in token number of refugees but they should refuse as well because these will be soldiers. Hamas will have their hands full. It will erupt in violence and rockets flying into Israel. The bloggers on the left will of course declare it a prison camp. But they do that anyway. In order to manage the logistics of this Israel should be able to provide some kind of controlled passage from Gaza to the West Bank so that some of these new Gazans are sent east to resettle there. The natives won't like these foreigners but so what? That's their problem.

Reffo

02-02-2009, 02:38 PM

Neither the takeos of this world, or Hamas, or Fatah, or any of the other rabid, hateful racists will hear what you say, but what you say is certainly worth saying! To the point and correct!

You are like a pit bull, exposing takeo and drawing his blood! Keep up the good work! :clap:Bingo! A mirror image to make him feel what he dishes out in this forum :D

Madeline

02-02-2009, 02:38 PM

takeo

02-02-2009, 02:41 PM

In April 2006, Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar stated that he dreamed "of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it . . . . I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (will materialize). . . . This dream will become real one day. I'm certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land".
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

The supreme leader of Hamas said he was willing to recognise Israel in 2007.
Anyway, since your kind doesn't want peace at all, why do you care?

If you want I can quote plenty of Israeli politicians which declared that they don't want a Palestinian state, and that they want a Great-Israel.

takeo

02-02-2009, 02:43 PM

Every Arab state will empty themselves of all Palestinians as quickly as they can. Several million will come to Gaza or Palestine right away. The UN and the west will pressure Israel to take them in. But Israel will refuse. That's was free states for the Palestinians are for. Of course Israel will be able to take in token number of refugees but they should refuse as well because these will be soldiers. Hamas will have their hands full. It will erupt in violence and rockets flying into Israel. The bloggers on the left will of course declare it a prison camp. But they do that anyway. In order to manage the logistics of this Israel should be able to provide some kind of controlled passage from Gaza to the West Bank so that some of these new Gazans are sent east to resettle there. The natives won't like these foreigners but so what? That's their problem.

It appears you can predict the future? Do you also know the winning number of next lotery?
According to me that's not what's going to happen. Ennemies of peace with Egypt said the same in the 70's, and it didn't happen. And even if it does, Israel can conquer Palestine in a matter of days and so the situation will be the same as today. But "you have to give peace a chance". (of course warmongering hawks like you don't want to give peace a chance) And the only way to give peace a chance is by establishing a Palestinian state. Besides: about the refugees, as these will be subject of the negociations, exact numbers will be decided upon.

Reffo

02-02-2009, 02:49 PM

The supreme leader of Hamas said he was willing to recognise Israel in 2007.

"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."

"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."

Sounds like double talk to me Takeo :D

takeo

02-02-2009, 02:54 PM

Reffo

OH Takeo.... please accept my commiseration for having to endure some images of Sderot DURING the war...... How much of that did you have to endure in the 7 years before the war though ? Hmmmmmmmmm?

I don't care about those images. News is news, and suffering is suffering, wether Israeli or Palestinian. But you seem to care about images of Palestinian suffering in Gaza, they disturb you, you don't want to see them, you don't want other people to see them, it's antisemitism to broadcast those images! :rolleyes:

You are so utterly biased, and you still didn't answer my question. So let me answer it for you, because I think I know your answer, based on all your previous posts: (please correct me if I'm wrong) "No! Palestinians don't have the right to resist, even if Israel declares that it doesn't want a two-state solution and colonisation and occupation will go on forever, they have to just accept that Israeli decision, and please suffer quietly, without any camera's, because showing Palestinian suffering is antisemitic!"

Mediocrates

02-02-2009, 02:55 PM

It's axiomatic based on what they've done up to this point. Just as I can predict you'll blame Israel for the next crop failure. People act in very predictable narrow ways over and over. Every opportunity that Arab states have had either to savage their own Palestinians or kick them out, they have. And no one like you in the west ever bothers with it or care. It's always and always will be unto the end of time, the Jews' fault. So Kuwait, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen will all kick out all their Palestinians. Arabs doing bad things to other Arabs gets a pass even when it's noticed at all. Eventually the out of work and overeducated will roil out into the streets of London and Paris to smash windows in the name of humanitarian disasters and peace as they always do. Someone will boycott Israel. Iran will declare it a Zionist genocide etc etc. If you look far enough into the future you'll see that Palestinians at that point will be passed over for some other more worthy group of foot-shooters. Then they will be the failed state they've always dreamed of. My hope is that at that point the Palestinians become a permanent protectorate of our moral angels in the west. A kind of Palestinian autonomous zone inside the greater EU.

takeo

02-02-2009, 03:04 PM

"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."

"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."

Sounds like double talk to me Takeo :D

Well yes, of course, they don't like to recognise Israel, but they know it's a reality they have to accept. And they said they will accept it if there'll be a Palestinian state. (or do you deny that too?)
Double-speak is by the way also an Israeli speciality: Olmert says he wants peace and a Palestinian state, and against colonisation, but is enlarging settlements and admitting radical anti-Palestinian parties in his government, Sharon said the same but refused to talk to the Palestinian autority, Netanyahu said he was against Oslo, than formally declared he would abide to it, but than did everything to sabotage it, etc.

Reffo

02-02-2009, 03:05 PM

OH Takeo.... please accept my commiseration for having to endure some images of Sderot DURING the war...... How much of that did you have to endure in the 7 years before the war though ? Hmmmmmmmmm?

I don't care about those images.You mean you don't care about the suffering of Sderot's civilians? What a surprise ...

But you seem to care about images of Palestinian suffering in Gaza, they disturb youYes they do disturb me and I blame Hamas for their suffering! :rolleyes:

you don't want to see them, you don't want other people to see them, it's antisemitism to broadcast those images!I don't want to see those images used as a means of anti Israel propaganda.

By all means, show the images but provide context. But don't saturate the TV set with it 24 by 7, especially since even more horrific conflicts (recent ones) hardly make the news. And that makes me feel that somehow Palestinian Arabs have a greater worth than anyone else....

Reffo

02-02-2009, 03:09 PM

Well yes, of course, they don't like to recognise Israel, but they know it's a reality they have to accept. And they said they will accept it if there'll be a Palestinian state. (or do you deny that too?) Accept as long as they have to ...... and once they get strong enough, Hamas will try to implement their charter which PLAINLY states that the destruction of Israel IS their ULTIMATE AIM!

takeo

02-02-2009, 03:17 PM

Why haven't you answered my post, takeo? Is it not to your liking?

I've already answered to all these, I don't like to repeat it over and over again.
The blockade was a reaction to Hamas taking control of Gaza. Hamas, by the way, who won the free elections Israel and the US asked for and stated as a reason not to talk to Arafat (supposedly a dictator because he didn't organise new elections)!
I demonstrated to you that Hamas is willing to recognise Israel in return for a Palestinian state. I also proved that they caused a 98% reduction of rockets fired into Israel during the cease-fire, and even prosecuted Palestinians who did. Israel was not willing to end the blockade, and attacked Hamas at one occasion, which caused 6 casualties. According to one IDF-source they attacked Hamas defensive positions. This ended the cease-fire.

So it's possible to take Hamas seriously as a negociating partner, but that's not what Israel choose to do, refusing to directly talk to Hamas and not abiding to the cease-fire.
If Israel wants peace, it should offer direct talks to Hamas just like with Abbas. Israel is talking with Abbas and now there's peace in the Westbank eventough colonisation and occupation (acts of war) are continuing. So yes, peace with palestinians is possible.

.

takeo

02-02-2009, 03:19 PM

Reffo

02-02-2009, 03:21 PM

I demonstrated to you that Hamas is willing to recognise Israel in return for a Palestinian state.No you didn't! Show us where you demonstrated it?

"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."

"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."

What you demonstrated was Hamas's double talk! :D

takeo

02-02-2009, 03:27 PM

Reffo

You mean you don't care about the suffering of Sderot's civilians? What a surprise ...

don't twist my words! We were talking about the images of Palestinian suffering which are disturbing you (not the Palestinian suffering but the images are disturbing you). Pictures of Sderot suffering are not disturbing me, the suffering however is disturbing me.

Yes they do disturb me and I blame Hamas for their suffering! :rolleyes:

You like to blame the Arabs for everything. Blame blame blame. But they weren't killed by Hamas but by Israel, that's a fact, the rest is interpretation. And why do you object to showing those images to the world?

I don't want to see those images used as a means of anti Israel propaganda.

They are not used as anti-Israeli propaganda on BBC, they were just broadcasted, because they are news. And do you think images of Sderot can be used as anti-Palestinian propaganda? Because that's what all the Israeli and pro-Israeli media did, on this forum as well.

By all means, show the images but provide context. But don't saturate the TV set with it 24 by 7, especially since even more horrific conflicts (recent ones) hardly make the news. And that makes me feel that somehow Palestinian Arabs have a greater worth than anyone else....

It's not 24 by 7, but during the Gaza war it was the most important news. Other conflicts get attention as well by the way. For example the Russian-Georgian conflict got a lot of attention, even more than the Gaza war. Is the BBC anti-Russian as well?

CanDo

02-02-2009, 03:31 PM

As a part of a final peace-deal, they'll have to change this charter. ... But for this to materialise, both parties should start to talk.

A completely stupid statement by an obvious imbecile. Hamas has NEVER shown a desire to talk, only to kill and attack. They are building up offensive weapons, and targeting civilians daily, hiding behind civilians while fighting, putting men, women and children in harms way for propaganda and NEVER showing the slightest sign of wanting peace with Jews.

You might want to offer concessions to sadistic, hateful, vile barbarians, but that is the type of infantile nonsense that goes through your skull.

Reffo

02-02-2009, 03:35 PM

Accept as long as they have to ...... and once they get strong enough, Hamas will try to implement their charter which PLAINLY states that the destruction of Israel IS their ULTIMATE AIM!

As a part of a final peace-deal, they'll have to change this charter. I already told you. But not before. But for this to materialise, both parties should start to talk. "Have to"? Who will force them? People like you? :lol:

You do realise your track record, don't you? There would be talks and more talks and then more talks .... ending in a stalemate about Hamas's charter. And then, you and your kind will expect Israel to give in .... for the sake of peace ..... and if Israel will not give in ..... No problems, you'll just blame Israel, like you ALWAYS DO :rolleyes:

takeo

02-02-2009, 03:36 PM

CanDo

02-02-2009, 03:44 PM

... Pictures of Sderot suffering are not disturbing me, ...

Of course not. You lack the ability to comprehend the suffering of others unless you see it in a picture. You don't have the intellect to visualize living in a place that is bombed every day for eight years, waiting for one to hit your home while you are sleeping, or eating or going to school, etc.

Or...... waiting for a vile, brutal barbarian to blow up your bus while you are riding to school, or explode a bomb in a pizza place while grabbing something to eat, or having a car stopped, filled with a pregnant mother, and her four little girls and brutally murdering them! (The Hatuel family May 2, 2004)

These despicable Hamas beasts, whom you want to rule their own state, handed out candy and celebrated the brutal murders of the Hatuels. Your standards are in the sewer along with your mind.

Reffo

02-02-2009, 03:44 PM

don't twist my words! But it's OK for you to twist other people's words?

You like to blame the Arabs for everything. Blame blame blame. But they weren't killed by Hamas but by Israel, that's a fact, the rest is interpretation. Don't get emotional ;), I said blame Hamas because it's a war that they insist on and they use civilians as shields.

I don't want to see those images used as a means of anti Israel propaganda.

They are not used as anti-Israeli propaganda on BBCYes they are!

By all means, show the images but provide context. But don't saturate the TV set with it 24 by 7, especially since even more horrific conflicts (recent ones) hardly make the news. And that makes me feel that somehow Palestinian Arabs have a greater worth than anyone else....

It's not 24 by 7It was!

Other conflicts get attention as well by the way. For example the Russian-Georgian conflict got a lot of attention, even more than the Gaza war. Is the BBC anti-Russian as well?No it didn't! nowhere NEAR AS MUCH!

takeo

02-02-2009, 03:48 PM

Reffo

Israel does not target civilians deliberately but since Hamas chooses to deliberately use civilians as human shields, civilians do get hurt. Only Hamas is to blame for that.

Israel could easily avoid such a number of civilian casualties according to HRW and other human rights organisations. For example not bombing civilian buildings from the air, bombs are always indiscriminate.

And I assume that you'd like to see the negotiations proceed as follows:

Israeli negotiator: We offer to let in 1,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli negotiator: We offer to let in 10,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli negotiator: We offer to let in 100,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli negotiator: We offer to let in 1,000,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli negotiator: We offer to let in 4,000,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: OK

Right Takeo?

nonsense, I already proved that both Abbas and Arafat said that Israel should have a Jewish majority and that Palestinians should take Israel's demographic concerns in consideration. You choose to ignore that, since it doesn't fit in your twisted view of the Palestinians as evil barbarians who eat Jewish babies for breakfast.

Yes Takeo we know, when it comes to Palestinian wrongdoings, it's more complicated but when it comes to Israel, there is only the "Occupation".

No, occupation is complicated too. But you seem to think all the way in "good ones" and "bad ones". In reality there are facts, which lead to other facts, etc. All the rest is interpretation.

And the solution is? ...... don't tell me Takeo ..... I know, I know ....... blame Israel for the occupation and therefore Israel should try and beg Hamas to talk with it and it really is all up to Israel. Isn't it Takeo?

No, Hamas has to talk to Israel as well, and stick to its promises they make on the negociating table, as should Israel.

But aren't the Gazans, who are the sons, fathers and brothers of Hamas, aren't they the ones who insist that war and violence is their right and indeed duty? So why complain when they get hurt in the violence of their own making?

Targetting civilians is a warcrime, even if those civilians sympathise with a party, don't you think so? If not, it means you agree with indiscriminate suicide bombing as well...

Yes, we know Takeo, it's ALL Israel's fault....

I didn't say that, you consantly twist my words.

Israel has stated many times that it is willing to negotiate peace with any Arab party who is serious about peace... Do you think that Hamas qualifies?

why not?

takeo

02-02-2009, 03:50 PM

Yes they are!

It was!

No it didn't! nowhere NEAR AS MUCH!

great arguments!

takeo

02-02-2009, 03:56 PM

Reffo

02-02-2009, 06:17 PM

Israel does not target civilians deliberately but since Hamas chooses to deliberately use civilians as human shields, civilians do get hurt. Only Hamas is to blame for that.

Israel could easily avoid such a number of civilian casualties according to HRW and other human rights organisations. For example not bombing civilian buildings from the air, bombs are always indiscriminate. But what if Hamas fighters fire on Israel and Israelis from civilian buildings? Israel should just let them?

And I assume that you'd like to see the negotiations proceed as follows:
Israeli negotiator: We offer to let in 1,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli negotiator: We offer to let in 10,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli negotiator: We offer to let in 100,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli negotiator: We offer to let in 1,000,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli negotiator: We offer to let in 4,000,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: OK

Right Takeo?

nonsense, I already proved that both Abbas and Arafat said that Israel should have a Jewish majority and that Palestinians should take Israel's demographic concerns in consideration. You choose to ignore that, since it doesn't fit in your twisted view of the Palestinians as evil barbarians who eat Jewish babies for breakfast.You did not prove anything clearly. All you proved is that they uttered some meaningless platitudes for the benefit of some gullible western journalists, after the Oslo talks failed. Just tell us Takeo, what did they (does he) say in the actual peace negotiations?

Yes Takeo we know, when it comes to Palestinian wrongdoings, it's more complicated but when it comes to Israel, there is only the "Occupation".

No, occupation is complicated too. But you seem to think all the way in "good ones" and "bad ones". In reality there are facts, which lead to other facts, etc. All the rest is interpretation.Who? Moi? ..... Never! But you on the other hand seem to think only of bad ones and you want only one side to set everything right while the other side just sits back and says no, no, no...... endlessly to peace offers based on compromise. And I won't give you any prizes for identifying who I am talking about :rolleyes:

And the solution is? ...... don't tell me Takeo ..... I know, I know ....... blame Israel for the occupation and therefore Israel should try and beg Hamas to talk with it and it really is all up to Israel. Isn't it Takeo?

No, Hamas has to talk to Israel as well, and stick to its promises they make on the negociating table, as should Israel.Did you tell that to Hamas? What was their reaction?

But aren't the Gazans, who are the sons, fathers and brothers of Hamas, aren't they the ones who insist that war and violence is their right and indeed duty? So why complain when they get hurt in the violence of their own making?

Targetting civilians is a warcrime, even if those civilians sympathise with a party, don't you think so? If not, it means you agree with indiscriminate suicide bombing as well... See? There You go again with your baseless accusations .....For your information: Targeting terrorists who happen to use civilians as shields is NOT A WAR crime, it is permitted by the Geneva Conventions.

On the other hand, hiding out amongst civilians and shooting at the enemy from their midst, as Hamas does, IS A WARCRIME according to the Geneva conventions! :rolleyes:

Yes, we know Takeo, it's ALL Israel's fault....

I didn't say that, you consantly twist my words.Yes you did!

Israel has stated many times that it is willing to negotiate peace with any Arab party who is serious about peace... Do you think that Hamas qualifies?

why not? I told you why not ..... because of Hamas's own charter in which they specifically state that their ultimate aim is Israel's destruction....No matter how long it takes..... Now you answer my question.... Why do you think they qualify?

Reffo

02-02-2009, 06:22 PM

Yes they are!

It was!

No it didn't! nowhere NEAR AS MUCH!

great arguments! I thought you'd like my arguments since that's exactly how you assert your constant mantra ....

How does it feel to confront your own mirror image Takeo? :D

Reffo

02-02-2009, 06:31 PM

"Have to"? Who will force them? People like you? :lol:

You do realise your track record, don't you? There would be talks and more talks and then more talks .... ending in a stalemate about Hamas's charter. And then, you and your kind will expect Israel to give in .... for the sake of peace ..... and if Israel will not give in ..... No problems, you'll just blame Israel, like you ALWAYS DO

Talks should materialise in a peace-deal, which ends colonisation and occupation, finds a compromise concerning the refugees and Jerusalem, establish a Palestinian state which recognises Israel as a mainly Jewish state and garantees its security. And all the rest is just nonsense. Then there will be two states. If one state or citizens of one state attacks Israel, than Israel has the legal right to retaliate, without breaching international law is right now. I only see advantages, and it's the only possible way to achieve peace.They should? I agree .... But you didn't answer my question:

Who will force Hamas to remove their stated objective of destroying Israel from their charter? People like you? :lol:

You do realise your track record, don't you? There would be talks and more talks and then more talks .... ending in a stalemate about Hamas's charter. And then, you and your kind will expect Israel to give in .... for the sake of peace ..... and if Israel will not give in ..... No problems, you'll just blame Israel, like you ALWAYS DO

There are israeli parties too which don't recognise the right of Palestinians to have their own state, one of them is Likud I think. Should they also change their charter?But they are not the government but Hamas controls Gaza!

Reffo

02-02-2009, 07:18 PM

Every Arab state will empty themselves of all Palestinians as quickly as they can. Several million will come to Gaza or Palestine right away. The UN and the west will pressure Israel to take them in. But Israel will refuse. That's was free states for the Palestinians are for. Of course Israel will be able to take in token number of refugees but they should refuse as well because these will be soldiers. Hamas will have their hands full. It will erupt in violence and rockets flying into Israel. The bloggers on the left will of course declare it a prison camp. But they do that anyway. In order to manage the logistics of this Israel should be able to provide some kind of controlled passage from Gaza to the West Bank so that some of these new Gazans are sent east to resettle there. The natives won't like these foreigners but so what? That's their problem.

According to me that's not what's going to happen.....And even if it does, Israel can conquer Palestine in a matter of days and so the situation will be the same as today..... Yes the same! You and your kind will scream the place down about "Israel the Aggressor" and "Israel the Occupier".....:rolleyes:

Reffo

02-02-2009, 07:49 PM

I don't like to repeat it over and over again.Could have fooled me ....:rofl:

Reffo

02-02-2009, 08:02 PM

This is also the first time that a Hamas official has raised the possibility
of full and official recognition of Israel in the future.Yeah .... right.... and pigs fly too, right Takeo? :lol:

The following statements, from your own source, put the REAL perspective...

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

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.
Salah Bardawil, head of Hamas's parliamentary faction, told Haaretz that after
checking with Meshal, it seems to be that his words were twisted and
distorted.
"He didn't speak about any recognition of Israel, only a cease-fire with
Israel," Bardawil said.

Seems like Hamas Double talk to me ..... they say one thing from the corner of their mouth and then a diametrically opposite thing from the other corner of their mouth :rolleyes:

Toadstool46

02-03-2009, 03:27 AM

You can continue your little private conversation about me, in the meanwhile I'm going to respond only to posts concerning the Palestinian-Israeli problem.
:rolleyes:

Takeo you are the problem... or people like yourself that believe all of what you say.

You still beleive that there are "palestinians"

You still believe that this group of arabs deserve a state of their own.

You still believe that there will be a peaceful relationship with Israel.

You still believe that its ok to fire rockets at random into a peaceful country.

You still believe that Israel has no right to defend itself.

You still believe that you have credibility on this forum.

Here is some advice..... get your filthy, ignorant, arrogant, infantile, backward, archaich, violent, murderous, puppets of a people to 1/ get educated, 2/ find some work, 3/ start to contribute to this earth in a positive way instead of killing random innocent people over a tiny piece of land that your people abused for centuries.

Otherwise you are like they say part of the problem as you are not part of the solution. You cancerous :vomit:

ItsMyJewty

02-03-2009, 05:16 AM

Takeo: So it's possible to take Hamas seriously as a negociating partner, but that's not what Israel choose to do, refusing to directly talk to Hamas and not abiding to the cease-fire.
If Israel wants peace, it should offer direct talks to Hamas just like with Abbas. Israel is talking with Abbas and now there's peace in the Westbank eventough colonisation and occupation (acts of war) are continuing. So yes, peace with palestinians is possible.

How can Israel possibly negotiate with an anti-Semitic Islamic terrorist organization (funded and backed by Iran) like Hamas?!!

The West Bank IS NOT and HAS NEVER BEEN Arab land. The "Palestinian" occupation must end! Arabs have a landmass 640 times (how much land do they need?!) that of Israel, so it's not as if these people haven't got anywhere else to go. Most Arabs in the West Bank have Jordanian passports â€“ Jordan is much larger than Israel and 60% of the population is "Palestinian". That would solve the problem.

There's only "peace" in the West Bank because of the wall (perhaps the Arabs would like to pay for that, would they?) that's being constructed â€“ Israel has had to do this to protect its citizens from the backward, barbaric, morally depraved Pals who have nothing in their heads but violence and a hate of Israel. They hate Israel because it shows them how backward they are. Instead of looking in the mirror and deciding to do something about this, they've decided to smash it instead. And when they get "bits of glass in their hands" they run around complaining about Isreali aggression and injustice â€“ they're infantile!

ItsMyJewty

02-03-2009, 05:25 AM

takeo: I've already answered to all these, I don't like to repeat it over and over again.

You didn't answer my last post, takeo. You don't like answering posts you find awkward or that conflict with your very fixed views on this topic.

ItsMyJewty

02-03-2009, 05:27 AM

Toadstool46: Here is some advice..... get your filthy, ignorant, arrogant, infantile, backward, archaich, violent, murderous, puppets of a people to 1/ get educated, 2/ find some work, 3/ start to contribute to this earth in a positive way instead of killing random innocent people over a tiny piece of land that your people abused for centuries.

Otherwise you are like they say part of the problem as you are not part of the solution. You cancerous

:clap::clap::clap: Well said! The best post I've seen in here for a long time!

Mediocrates

02-03-2009, 05:48 AM

http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/perspectives63.html

No to the Reconstruction of Gaza
by Efraim Inbar
The developing international campaign to reconstruct Gaza is strategic folly. It is also unlikely to be effective. And, under current circumstances, it is also immoral.

Since the Hamas takeover of Gaza in June 2007, most of the international community has argued that the best way to prop up the more moderate Palestinian Authority (PA) leader, Mahmoud Abbas, was to ensure economic support for his fiefdom in the West Bank. This, it was said, would make it clear to every Palestinian that Hamas is the גbad guyג unable to bring prosperity. This path would convince Palestinians that it is unwise to support the radical Islamist organization. Under this rationale, the PA has continued to draw unprecedented economic support from the world.
Israel's recent military offensive against Hamas inflicted heavy damage on Gaza. Aside from punishing Hamas for its rocket attacks on Israel, the beating was meant to demonstrate to reasonable Palestinians that Hamas attacks on Israel would only bring them havoc and suffering. Theoretically, the results of Operation Cast Lead would seem to complement the international community's efforts to make the lives of the Palestinians under Mahmoud Abbas better then those of the Gazans.

Yet, this rationale seems to evaporate in a mush of sentimentalist manipulation. Instead of using the tough pictures coming out of Gaza to tell Gazans: "We told you all along that Hamas leadership would only make things worse" (just as it has in other places where radical Islamists gain power), Western leaders seem to have foolishly decided that Gaza should speedily be rebuilt!

This, of course, sends the wrong signal. It tells Palestinians that their leadership can make grave, deadly mistakes, and nevertheless gullible Westerners will bail them out. It also signals to Hamas that it can continue shooting at Israel; for if Israel repeats its military action, merciful Westerners again will repair the damage.

There is no way to reconstruct Gaza without strengthening Hamas. The PA has no standing in the Strip anymore. Aid through the UN is less objectionable, but Hamas will benefit from this too. Which leads us back to square one, because Hamastan must not be rebuilt by the world. The reconstruction of Hamastan in Gaza גâ€œ an Iranian base that threatens Israel and many moderate Arab regimes גâ€œ makes no strategic sense.
America helped reconstruct Western Europe and Japan after World War II to make sure they would be ruled by friendly democratic regimes. Hamas is authoritarian and anti-Western. It is simply daft to facilitate the continuation of Hamas rule.

Does the enlightened international community really believe that Mahmoud Abbas is interested in the reconstruction of Gaza and consolidation of the Hamas regime? Is this what the Egyptians and the Saudis are after? Is it not clear that they also prefer the fall of Hamas and will be ready to cooperate against Iranian attempts to channel support to Gaza?
Looking at Palestinian economic performance, it is also clear that reconstruction of Gaza is unlikely to be successful. Since the Oslo process started in 1993, the Palestinians received many billions of euros and dollars, scoring the highest per capita aid in the world. Much of it was squandered by corruption and ineptitude. Very little aid filtered down to the people. Like many Third World countries, the Palestinians lack the legal and institutional infrastructure needed for effective dispersal of economic aid. Gaza is behind the West Bank in its development, making it an even less suitable candidate for effective international aid. Nevertheless, the standard of living of the Gazans is still higher than the Egyptians.

From what we know of the fortunes of the humanitarian aid transferred to Gazans in recent years, it is clear that a large proportion of the benefits of the external aid will be siphoned off to the Hamas leadership, followed by Hamas activists; and only what is left will go to the destitute. Those with arms always get the first and best cut from international aid sent to the suffering.

Finally, the morality of pouring money so that Gazans can live better is questionable as long as Hamas does not stop its terrorism against Israel and the smuggling of weapons. Unfortunately, Hamas was popular among the Gazans and continues to be so. Moreover, all polls show staggering support among Gazans for violence against Israelis. What moral justification exists for helping people that support an organization intent on destroying the Jewish state and who are actively engaged in killing innocent Israeli citizens?

The international community must think strategically with regard to Gaza, and not be drawn into sentimental escapades of rebuilding and humanitarian assistance that undercut our paramount strategic goals. It is time for tough love for Gaza.

Prof. Inbar is director of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University.

maven

02-03-2009, 09:31 AM

How can Israel possibly negotiate with an anti-Semitic Islamic terrorist organization (funded and backed by Iran) like Hamas?!!

The West Bank IS NOT and HAS NEVER BEEN Arab land. The "Palestinian" occupation must end! Arabs have a landmass 640 times (how much land do they need?!) that of Israel, so it's not as if these people haven't got anywhere else to go. Most Arabs in the West Bank have Jordanian passports â€“ Jordan is much larger than Israel and 60% of the population is "Palestinian". That would solve the problem.

There's only "peace" in the West Bank because of the wall (perhaps the Arabs would like to pay for that, would they?) that's being constructed â€“ Israel has had to do this to protect its citizens from the backward, barbaric, morally depraved Pals who have nothing in their heads but violence and a hate of Israel. They hate Israel because it shows them how backward they are. Instead of looking in the mirror and deciding to do something about this, they've decided to smash it instead. And when they get "bits of glass in their hands" they run around complaining about Isreali aggression and injustice â€“ they're infantile!~Bibi vows to topple Hamas if elected~:clap:

Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu on Tuesday promised that a government under his leadership would topple the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip.

"Tzipi Livni and the people of Kadima scoffed at the predictions regarding rocket fire. A government under my leadership will overthrow the Hamas rule in Gaza and bring about a cessation of rocket fire," Netanyahu said during a tour of Ashkelon following the first Grad rocket attack since the conclusion of Operation Cast Lead some two weeks ago.

"The policy of blindness followed in the past years has brought us to this situation," Netanyahu continued. "Residents can no longer count on miracles and Kadima policy."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304671028&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

takeo

02-03-2009, 05:20 PM

Toadstool46

you are the problem... or people like yourself that believe all of what you say.

No, I'm not the problem. The problem is in the Middle East, between Israel and its neighbours.

You still beleive that there are "palestinians"

So do 99% of the world, including president Clinton, Bush, Obama, Sharon, Olmert, etc.
You choose to ignore reality like an austrich, that's your choice, but they won't go away.

You still believe that this group of arabs deserve a state of their own.

So do Clinton, Bush, Sharon, Olmert, Obama and 99% of the rest of the world.
Only lunatics like you oppose that right.

You still believe that there will be a peaceful relationship with Israel.

So do .................. (see above) It's possible, if both sides sit together and find a compromise. (which you don't want, so if it's up to you, there can never be peace)

You still believe that its ok to fire rockets at random into a peaceful country.

A country which occupies and colonises is not peaceful. These are acts of war.

You still believe that Israel has no right to defend itself.

Israel has the right to defend itself and resist any attempt to destroy their state, but so have the Palestinians.

You still believe that you have credibility on this forum.

Not on this forum, which is only logical if you know that the large majority here consists of lunatics who advocate ethnic cleansing.

Here is some advice..... get your filthy, ignorant, arrogant, infantile, backward, archaich, violent, murderous, puppets of a people to 1/ get educated, 2/ find some work, 3/ start to contribute to this earth in a positive way instead of killing random innocent people over a tiny piece of land that your people abused for centuries.

OK, give them their state so they can prove it.

Otherwise you are like they say part of the problem as you are not part of the solution. You cancerous :vomit:

thank you for your civilised post, you seem like a real nice person... :rolleyes:

takeo

02-03-2009, 05:22 PM

:clap::clap::clap: Well said! The best post I've seen in here for a long time!

all lunatics in the world, unite!

takeo

02-03-2009, 05:36 PM

ItsMyJewty

How can Israel possibly negotiate with an anti-Semitic Islamic terrorist organization (funded and backed by Iran) like Hamas?!!

That's what you people said about Fatah as well, and about Egypt.
It's necessary to negociate, even if you strongly dislike them. And there should be debate with Iran as well. The policy of isolating Hamas and Iran clearly failed, they got stronger. If you want them to give up the armed struggle, negociation is the only way.

The West Bank IS NOT and HAS NEVER BEEN Arab land.

that's a historical lie. Arabs are in the majority at least since the middle Ages.
Of course if you use religious irrational arguments as the colonists, Al-Quaida and some Hamas-members do, than debate stops here and then christians can claim their "holy land" as well.

The "Palestinian" occupation must end! Arabs have a landmass 640 times (how much land do they need?!) that of Israel, so it's not as if these people haven't got anywhere else to go.

in analogy to this logic i can say that all anglosaxons should evacuate the US and give it to the gypsies, who don't have their own land, there are enough anglosaxon countries left with lots of landmass. (canada, Australia, etc.)

Most Arabs in the West Bank have Jordanian passports â€“ Jordan is much larger than Israel and 60% of the population is "Palestinian". That would solve the problem.

60 % is Palestinian refugee since 1948. The original inhabitants of Jordan are the hashemite bedouins, who have all the power.
And your plan of ethnic cleansing is not going to work. The US would never accept it, and even the public opinion in Israel isn't without any moral standard as you are and would not support that.

There's only "peace" in the West Bank because of the wall (perhaps the Arabs would like to pay for that, would they?) that's being constructed â€“

The funny thing is that many Palestinians live on the OTHER side of the wall as well, in Eastern Jerusalem for example. Israel can build all the walls it want, but only on its own border, the only recognised legal border of Israel which is the green line. Everything behind that is occupied and not recognised, not even by a single country, as being part of Israel.

takeo

02-03-2009, 05:42 PM

~Bibi vows to topple Hamas if elected~:clap:

Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu on Tuesday promised that a government under his leadership would topple the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip.

"Tzipi Livni and the people of Kadima scoffed at the predictions regarding rocket fire. A government under my leadership will overthrow the Hamas rule in Gaza and bring about a cessation of rocket fire," Netanyahu said during a tour of Ashkelon following the first Grad rocket attack since the conclusion of Operation Cast Lead some two weeks ago.

"The policy of blindness followed in the past years has brought us to this situation," Netanyahu continued. "Residents can no longer count on miracles and Kadima policy."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304671028&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I'm very interested to see how he's going to achieve that. My prediction: a lot of bloodshet, many 1000's of casualties, more international condemnation and isolation for Israel, even less friends remaining, and Hamas will still not be destroyed and continue its guerilla warfare.

I think what would be wise is to support Fatah, conclude a deal with Fatah, recognise a Palestinian state with Abbas as president, and watch how support for Hamas in impoverished Gaza will crumble. (I saw a documentory from mid 2008 on BBC tonight, there was growing resistence against Hamas, and if elections would be held then, Hamas would probably loose. Of course this was before the latest war)

Yala

02-03-2009, 05:46 PM

The original inhabitants of Jordan are the hashemite bedouins, who have all the power.
.

:lol:
Are you ignorant or lying? I'll give you a chance to tell the truth on where the Hashemites are REALLY the original inhabitans of. I'll give you a hint - it's not Jordan.

Board members and moderators - don't let this one go. This is one of the BIG LIES the propagandists are telling people. I don't think it should be allowed on this forum.

takeo

02-03-2009, 06:01 PM

Reffo

But what if Hamas fighters fire on Israel and Israelis from civilian buildings? Israel should just let them?

Than Israel has to confront them on the ground, not from the air, which will kill everyone in the neighbourhood as well.

You did not prove anything clearly. All you proved is that they uttered some meaningless platitudes for the benefit of some gullible western journalists, after the Oslo talks failed. Just tell us Takeo, what did they (does he) say in the actual peace negotiations?

Both Arafat AND Abbas said they want to take Israel's demographic concerns in consideration, Abbas said that Israel should have a Jewish majority, I provided links to that quote on this thread. That's clear enough, and disproves everything you said of the "right of return" being used as a tool to destroy Israel.

Who? Moi? ..... Never!

Of course, you didn't stop criticising and blaming Palestinians and Arabs, NEVER Israel. I criticised both sides. And you even refuse to answer my question that if Israel ends all negociations and continue occupation, would the palestinians have the right to resist.

But you on the other hand seem to think only of bad ones and you want only one side to set everything right while the other side just sits back and says no, no, no...... endlessly to peace offers based on compromise. And I won't give you any prizes for identifying who I am talking about :rolleyes:

That's not what I said. I said negociations and compromise, by both sides.

See? There You go again with your baseless accusations .....For your information: Targeting terrorists who happen to use civilians as shields is NOT A WAR crime, it is permitted by the Geneva Conventions.

Yes, but the collateral damage should be minimal, from the air that's impossible. Why did Israel refuse to publish the names of its officers? According to Israeli sources it is afraid of international prosecution.
Also what's equally a violation of the Geneva conventions: transfering your own population into occupied territory, blocking acces to aid-transport, etc. .

On the other hand, hiding out amongst civilians and shooting at the enemy from their midst, as Hamas does, IS A WARCRIME according to the Geneva conventions! :rolleyes:

Do you have any link to that? Than ALL guerilla organisations are warcriminals, including the resistence during WWII.

I told you why not ..... because of Hamas's own charter in which they specifically state that their ultimate aim is Israel's destruction....No matter how long it takes..... Now you answer my question.... Why do you think they qualify?

I told you they can and will change that as a part of a general peacedeal. But as the Hamas-leader said himself, why change it if Israel didn't recognise yet Palestine?

takeo

02-03-2009, 06:07 PM

Reffo

They should? I agree .... But you didn't answer my question:

Who will force Hamas to remove their stated objective of destroying Israel from their charter? People like you? :lol:

Syria, for example. Assad said during the BBC-interview that Hamas should and will recognise Israel as part of a general peace-deal. Other Arab countries as well. And the Palestinians themselves, they are sick and tired of war, they want peace.

You do realise your track record, don't you? There would be talks and more talks and then more talks .... ending in a stalemate about Hamas's charter. And then, you and your kind will expect Israel to give in .... for the sake of peace ..... and if Israel will not give in ..... No problems, you'll just blame Israel, like you ALWAYS DO

No, Hamas should change its charter.

But they are not the government but Hamas controls Gaza!

So if likud comes to power, they have to change their charter, according to you? (another question I know you will not answer, since you are utterly biased, and impose demands on Palestinians which Israeli don't have to meet)

takeo

02-03-2009, 06:26 PM

:lol:
Are you ignorant or lying? I'll give you a chance to tell the truth on where the Hashemites are REALLY the original inhabitans of. I'll give you a hint - it's not Jordan.

Board members and moderators - don't let this one go. This is one of the BIG LIES the propagandists are telling people. I don't think it should be allowed on this forum.

Jordan's ruling class is made up of people of Bedouin Arab descent, but another big portion of the population are Palestinians (almost 50%).Most of the immigrant population is Palestinian in origin, having fled the former Mandate of Palestine in the wake of the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jordan

Hashemites come from Saudi Arabia, but where already ruling transjordan (which consisted of bedouins, just like in Saudi Arabia) before the arrival of the Palestinian refugees. In any case the Palestinians are NOT the original inhabitants of Jordan, they came in 1948, bedouins are.

Reffo

02-03-2009, 07:53 PM

Than Israel has to confront them on the ground, not from the air, which will kill everyone in the neighbourhood as well.And that would lead to smaller numbers of civilian casualties? I don't think so :rolleyes:

Both Arafat AND Abbas said they want to take Israel's demographic concerns in consideration, Abbas said that Israel should have a Jewish majority, I provided links to that quote on this thread. That's clear enough, and disproves everything you said of the "right of return" being used as a tool to destroy Israel.Not during the actual negotiations. But in any case, what does that mean? How many refugees did they expect Israel should let in? Israel offered to let in a small number but they said it wasn't enough. So how many would be enough? It's very vague isn't it? What kind of a response is that to the very detailed specific offer of Ehud Barak?

Of course, you didn't stop criticising and blaming Palestinians and ArabsI didn't? And do you think I was unjustified?

NEVER Israel.Never? Never say never!

I criticised both sides.Did you? Or did you just go through the motion of doing so and then proceeded with all your demands of what you expect Israel to do?

And you even refuse to answer my questionOhhhhhh, poor Takeo.... you seem to see a splinter in my eye but you can't even see a log in your own. So tell me: When are you going to answer this post of mine?

Post #1050 Click Here

hmmmmmmmmmm?

that if Israel ends all negociations and continue occupation, would the palestinians have the right to resist. Resist how? Murder Israeli civilians like they have been doing for nearly 100 years now?

But you on the other hand seem to think only of bad ones and you want only one side to set everything right while the other side just sits back and says no, no, no...... endlessly to peace offers based on compromise. And I won't give you any prizes for identifying who I am talking about :rolleyes:

That's not what I said. I said negociations and compromise, by both sides.That is what you ACTUALLY said but you added the word "compromise" to make it sound prettier :rolleyes:

To be continued..

Yala

02-03-2009, 08:41 PM

Jordan's ruling class is made up of people of Bedouin Arab descent, but another big portion of the population are Palestinians (almost 50%).Most of the immigrant population is Palestinian in origin, having fled the former Mandate of Palestine in the wake of the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jordan

Hashemites come from Saudi Arabia, but where already ruling transjordan (which consisted of bedouins, just like in Saudi Arabia) before the arrival of the Palestinian refugees. In any case the Palestinians are NOT the original inhabitants of Jordan, they came in 1948, bedouins are.

You said Hashemites are the original inhabitants and now you admit it was a lie. I'm happy you admitted it. We should also mention how the Jews who lived in Jordan, which was also 75% of the Palestinian Mandate, were kicked out or ethnically cleansed (or should I call it genocide which you always equate with ethnic cleansing) when Transjordan (current day Jordan) was created and moved to the other part of the mandate which later became Israel. There was a population exchange of sorts.

Reffo

02-03-2009, 08:49 PM

See? There You go again with your baseless accusations .....For your information: Targeting terrorists who happen to use civilians as shields is NOT A WAR crime, it is permitted by the Geneva Conventions.

Yes, but the collateral damage should be minimal, from the air that's impossible. And since Hamas fighters hide behind women and children, from the ground that's impossible too ....

On the other hand, hiding out amongst civilians and shooting at the enemy from their midst, as Hamas does, IS A WARCRIME according to the Geneva conventions! :rolleyes:

Do you have any link to that? This is one of the provisions of the Geneva conventions:

"The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."
Go look it up Takeo!

Than ALL guerilla organisations are warcriminals, including the resistence during WWII.Do you really want to compare the situation to WW2? If you do, then I think that you'll find Israel's behaviour to be like that of choir boys compared to all the major parties of WW2. You don't believe me? Then just think of Dresden, Hiroshima Nagasaki, the blitz on London, the levelling of Stalingrad and Berlin ... You are talking of millions of civilians killed as collateral damage ...

I told you why not ..... because of Hamas's own charter in which they specifically state that their ultimate aim is Israel's destruction....No matter how long it takes..... Now you answer my question.... Why do you think they qualify?

I told you they can and will change that as a part of a general peacedeal. Who is going to make them change it? You? :unsure:

But as the Hamas-leader said himself, why change it if Israel didn't recognise yet Palestine?Are you kidding me? Every Israeli leader since Rabin already agreed to the idea of a two state solution!

Reffo

02-03-2009, 08:58 PM

So if likud comes to power, they have to change their charter, according to you? What charter is that Takeo? I don't think Likud has a charter .... what it has are policies which it utters before elections and which it may or may not keep after the elections, depending on circumstances. Get a clue Takeo.. :rolleyes:

(another question I know you will not answer, since you are utterly biased, and impose demands on Palestinians which Israeli don't have to meet)Have you answered my question of Post #1050 Click Here yet?

takeo

02-04-2009, 03:37 AM

You said Hashemites are the original inhabitants and now you admit it was a lie. I'm happy you admitted it. We should also mention how the Jews who lived in Jordan, which was also 75% of the Palestinian Mandate, were kicked out or ethnically cleansed (or should I call it genocide which you always equate with ethnic cleansing) when Transjordan (current day Jordan) was created and moved to the other part of the mandate which later became Israel. There was a population exchange of sorts.

What population exchange? How many Jews lived in Jordan in 1948 or before, when the country was overrun with 100's of 1000's of Palestinians.

hashemites were there BEFORE the arrival of the Palestinians. They are also bedouin in origin, just like the original population of Jordan. Saying that Jordan is Palestinian, is a lie. The Palestinians are in the majority, but they are recent immigrants, and the power lies with the hashemites and the bedouins.

takeo

02-04-2009, 03:48 AM

Reffo

And that would lead to smaller numbers of civilian casualties? I don't think so :rolleyes:

Yes, the rate of civilians dropped once Israel fought Hamas on the ground. Air rades are indiscriminate.

Not during the actual negotiations. But in any case, what does that mean? How many refugees did they expect Israel should let in? Israel offered to let in a small number but they said it wasn't enough. So how many would be enough? It's very vague isn't it? What kind of a response is that to the very detailed specific offer of Ehud Barak?

Again, and for the very last time, the response was that they wanted to negociate with Israel about this and other subjects, and wouldn't accept unilateral demands.

I didn't? And do you think I was unjustified?

ONLY blaming the Palestinians is indeed unjustified and biased, but that's what you are doing, and that's what you are, biased. Israel made a lot of mistakes, for example the ethnic cleansing and the colonisation, among many others. i said the Palestinians and Arabs made mistakes too. You said Israel made no mistakes. It's clear who is biased and onesided.

Never? Never say never!

never

Did you? Or did you just go through the motion of doing so and then proceeded with all your demands of what you expect Israel to do?

of course, because the the solution lies with both parties, not only the palestinians.

Ohhhhhh, poor Takeo.... you seem to see a splinter in my eye but you can't even see a log in your own. So tell me: When are you going to answer this post of mine?

Post #1050 Click Here

I'm going to answer it whenever you answer my question.

Resist how? Murder Israeli civilians like they have been doing for nearly 100 years now?

No, killing occupation soldiers is a justified response to continued occupation and colonisation, don't you think so?

That is what you ACTUALLY said but you added the word "compromise" to make it sound prettier :rolleyes:

that's not what I said, stop twisting.

takeo

02-04-2009, 03:55 AM

Reffo

And since Hamas fighters hide behind women and children, from the ground that's impossible too ....

No, from the ground they can directly confront the warriors. From the air that's impossible, without equally killing many civilians.

This is one of the provisions of the Geneva conventions:

"The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."
Go look it up Takeo!

Yes, but the Geneva- conventions also say:

Richard Falk, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, described the sealing off of the Gaza Strip in order to ensure that nobody could flee it as "a distinct, new and sinister war crime."

"For the first time in a military operation, the civilian population as a whole has been locked into a war zone," he told a meeting of the European Parliament by telephone. "No children, women, sick people or disabled people were allowed to leave. For the first time, the option of becoming a refugee has been withheld."

Arguing that the conduct of the three-week offensive against Gaza could amount to a "horrible abuse of Israel's role as the occupying power," he noted that international law -- particularly the 1949 Geneva convention -- obliges the occupier to provide adequate food and medical facilities to the population it seeks to control. The 18-month blockade which preceded Operation Cast Lead was "unlawful," he added.

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0901a/copyright/gazacivilianattack.html

Are you kidding me? Every Israeli leader since Rabin already agreed to the idea of a two state solution!

Netanyahu never agreed to it, and still doesn't.

ItsMyJewty

02-04-2009, 04:03 AM

Takeo: That's what you people said about Fatah as well, and about Egypt.
It's necessary to negociate, even if you strongly dislike them. And there should be debate with Iran as well. The policy of isolating Hamas and Iran clearly failed, they got stronger. If you want them to give up the armed struggle, negociation is the only way.

Hamas is an anti-Semitic Islamic terrorist organization that has carried out numerous suicide bombings in Israel. Hamas's stated aim is the destruction of the state of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in what is now Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. Where's the room for negotiation?

In April 2006, Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar stated that he dreamed "of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it . . . . I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (will materialize). . . . This dream will become real one day. I'm certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land".source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

ItsMyJewty: The West Bank IS NOT and HAS NEVER BEEN Arab land.
Takeo: that's a historical lie. Arabs are in the majority at least since the middle Ages.

The West Bank was formerly the Kingdom of Judah. It's part of the original biblical Israel.

Takeo: The funny thing is that many Palestinians live on the OTHER side of the wall as well, in Eastern Jerusalem for example.

In that case, there's no need for a state, is there? :)

takeo

02-04-2009, 04:04 AM

Reffo

What charter is that Takeo? I don't think Likud has a charter .... what it has are policies which it utters before elections and which it may or may not keep after the elections, depending on circumstances. Get a clue Takeo.. :rolleyes:

It has a program, a program which says that there can't be any Palestinian state. So if Hamas should change their charter as a condition of peace, so should Likud, and ALL parties in power, accept a Palestinian state, right?

And I cought you lying again, Likud HAS a charter:

The 1999 Likud charter emphasized the right of settlement in "Judea (and) Samaria" (more commonly known as the "West Bank") and Gaza,"[2] and as such, brings it into direct conflict with Palestinian claims on the same territory. Similarly, their claims of the Jordan river as the permanent eastern border to Israel and Jerusalem as "the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel," do the same.
The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform â€œflatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.â€ The chapter continued: â€œThe Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.â€[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likud

according to this charter, peace with the Palestinians and arab world is impossible, if Likud doesn't change the charter peace will be impossible, do you agree with me? Or are you going to deny that question like you denied all the difficult questions I asked you?

Have you answered my question of Post #1050 Click Here yet?[/QUOTE]

takeo

02-04-2009, 04:14 AM

My answer to post 1050

unlike you, I'm not a coward who avoids to answer difficult questions.

Yes he does! This is what Meshal said:

"Formal recognition of Israel could only be considered by Hamas once such a
Palestinian state is established, Reuters quoted Meshal as saying."
Does that sound like your reply to me was correct? I quote your reply below .....

So let's analyse this sentence: formal recognition ONCE such a Palesitnian state is established.

ONCE : As soon as
"once we are home, we can rest"

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/ONCE

So if we get home, we rest. It can be at the same time.:rolleyes:

This crasy semanthic discussion reminds me of the discussion we had about security council resolution 242, about the word "the".

And then have to rely on Hamas to keep it's vague promise to recognize Israel?

As I repeated at nauseam, Hamas needs to recognise Israel as part of a major deal, which also includes the establishment of the Palestinian state. If it doesn't want, than it should be excluded. But at least there should be talks and negociations going on, without any pre-conditions.

No, but there is a mention of it in Hamas's own charter. Moreover your own link clearly demonstrates that Hamas is not seriously contemplating Israel's recognition any time soon, in spite of your shoddy attempts to try and convince everyone that it does :tdown:

It's in likud's charter as well. And Likud is not seriously contemplating recognising the right of a Palestinians state anytime soon. BOTH will have to change their charter and program, if they want to be part of any peace-deal. If they don't want, they have to be excluded. You agree?

takeo

02-04-2009, 04:27 AM

ItsMyJewty

Hamas is an anti-Semitic Islamic terrorist organization that has carried out numerous suicide bombings in Israel. Hamas's stated aim is the destruction of the state of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in what is now Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. Where's the room for negotiation?

Hamas leaders said they want to recognise Israel, if occupation of Westbank, east Jerusalem ends.

In April 2006, Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar stated that he dreamed "of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it . . . . I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (will materialize). . . . This dream will become real one day. I'm certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land".source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Yes, but clearly, current Hamas leaders have changed their opinion about that.

The West Bank was formerly the Kingdom of Judah. It's part of the original biblical Israel.

If you come up with irrational religious nonsense, we can't have a rational discussion. Jerusalem is also the most important christian city, should there be another crusade to "liberate" Jerusalem from the infidel Jews and muslims?
It's also one of the most important muslim Holy cities. The Al-Aqsa dominates the entire view of Jerusalem since many centuries.

In that case, there's no need for a state, is there? :)

OK, if you agree to make all Palestinians equal Israeli citizens, and include them in Israel, than you might be right.
But Israel is not doing that or even considerign that. Despite decades of Israeli occupaiton, none of them has received Israeli citizenship, they are still stateless.

codedvirus

02-04-2009, 04:45 AM

takeo

Air rades are indiscriminate.
Can you explain why?

No, from the ground they can directly confront the warriors. From the air that's impossible, without equally killing many civilians.

CAN ANYONEPLEASE Find me ONE incidence in this current fighting where the Israelis deliberately expected more than 10% collateral damage. PLease I am begging now.

Yes, but the Geneva- conventions also say: ........
Lol if you follow geneva conventions then most of the civilians were killed by HAMAS.

Hamas leaders said they want to recognise Israel.
It seems like you have not watched the videos.

Toadstool46

02-04-2009, 06:31 AM

Takeo said, and I quote.... "Air rades are indiscriminate."

Hey... what do ya call fireing random rockets into Israel......They have way less control over their target than any Israel air raid where the people in the area are warned before hand to get out of the area. In one case, I believe, warning shots were fired to get the human shields to leave before the air raid was carried out.

Man... Takeo..... you are so mixed up. The IDF has done nothing but bend over backward to avoid injuries to the people that Hamas purposely try to use to protect themselves. The cowards.....Lets see them put on some uniforms and distinguish themselves from the civilians. Fat chance of that.

And then you have the gall to quote the Geneva convention... Are you in an institution with a guy who talks to his toothbrush.????

takeo

02-04-2009, 06:54 AM

The United Nations,[353] Human Rights Watch,[354][296] B'Tselem,[355] Gazaâ€™s Ministry of Health,[356] International Red Cross,[357] UNRWA's John Ging,[358] and Amnesty International[359] said Israeli military used white phosphorus in the Gaza strip. Israel at first denied[360] yet later admitted[361] to using White phosphorus in the Gaza Strip, stating that it "wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics."[357] The use of white phosphorus against civilians or in civilian areas is banned under international law, but it is legal to use the substance in other conditions such as to illuminate areas during night[357] or as a smoke screen. After initially denying that white phosphorus shells were fired in Gaza, Israeli military officials have now acknowledged its use.[362]

Amnesty International has accused the Israeli army of using flechettes, an anti-personel weapon which spreads between 5000 and 8000 4cm long metal darts over an area 300m wide and 100m long, in civilian areas.[363]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict

The fighting in Gaza from December 27, when Israel began its military operation, until Israel and Hamas unilaterally declared ceasefires on January 18, left some 1,300 Palestinians dead and more than 5,000 wounded, 40 percent of them children and women.
Human Rights Watch called on all members of the Security Council to support the establishment of a UN commission of inquiry with the greatest possible expertise and authority and with a mandate to address serious violations by all parties to the conflict. In the absence of such action, Secretary-General Ban should immediately take the initiative to establish such an inquiry, Human Rights Watch said.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/27/israelgaza-international-investigation-essential

HRW is calling for an international investigation, why can't Israel agree to that, if you think they acted according international law?

Human Rights Watch said that an international commission of inquiry should also investigate serious violations of international humanitarian law prior to the Israeli military offensive that began on December 27. These should include rocket fire by Palestinian armed groups into Israeli civilian areas and Israel's blockade of people and essential goods and services into and out of Gaza, which is a form of collective punishment. The commission of inquiry should investigate who was responsible for ordering and carrying out violations, as well as those who knew or should have known of them but did nothing to halt them.

"The parties to the Gaza conflict have committed serious violations of the laws of war," Stork said. "The victims deserve nothing less than a legitimate and comprehensive impartial investigation that leads to full accountability and redress."

States have an obligation to investigate serious violations of the laws of war. When committed with criminal intent, such violations are war crimes. Where there is evidence that a war crime may have been committed, a state has an obligation to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects. Non-state armed groups should take appropriate disciplinary and judicial measures against members of their forces who commit laws-of-war violations.

Previous Israel Defense Forces (IDF) investigations into alleged serious violations of the laws of war, when they have occurred, have been deeply flawed. An IDF investigation into the killings of 27 people in the Lebanese village of Qana on July 29, 2006, for example, was incomplete and legally misguided, and its findings contradicted eyewitness testimonies.

Following Israeli military operations in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank in April 2002, Human Rights Watch provided Israeli officials with prima facie evidence of the use of civilians as human shields and other war crimes by Israeli forces. To Human Rights Watch's knowledge, Israel at no point investigated these incidents or held any of its military personnel accountable.

During Israel's previous major ground offensive in Gaza, in late February and early March 2008, Human Rights Watch found that Israeli forces carried out several targeted killings of persons not taking part in hostilities and other serious laws-of-war violations. To date, no IDF investigations have taken place into these incidents.

Hamas is not known to have investigated or punished any members of its military wing or other Palestinian armed groups who engaged in unlawful rocket attacks into Israel or other alleged laws-of-war violations.

Human Rights Watch focuses on international law governing the conduct of hostilities by each party to a conflict, especially with respect to sparing civilians the hazards of war. Human Rights Watch does not address whether Hamas or Israel is justified in resorting to armed force or in the extent of force deployed. Human Rights Watch believes this is the best way to promote the goal of encouraging all sides in armed conflicts to respect international humanitarian law.

Human Rights Watch said that a credible inquiry requires examining all aspects of the conflict and its impact on civilians, and investigating all alleged abuses. "Highlighting abuses of both sides does not, and should not, imply equating the conduct of both sides," Stork said.

takeo

02-04-2009, 07:05 AM

Part of the problem was the IDF's expansive definition of a military target. It attacked a range of civilian facilities, from government offices to police stations, on the theory that they all provided at least indirect support to Hamas militants. But by that theory, Hamas would have been entitled to target virtually any government building in Israel on the ground that its office workers indirectly supported the IDF. That would make a mockery of the distinction between civilians and combatants that lies at the heart of the laws of war, which require direct support to military activity before civilians become legitimate military targets. Behind the unsupportable legal claim seemed to lie a determination to make Gazans suffer for the presence of Hamas--a prohibited purpose for using military force.
The IDF's credibility probably took the biggest hit on the issue of its use of white phosphorous. A typical artillery shell of white phosphorous releases 116 phosphorus-soaked wedges which, upon contact with oxygen, burn intensely, releasing a distinctive plume of smoke. That smoke can be used legitimately to obscure troop movements, but white phosphorous can be devastating when used in urban areas, igniting civilian structures and causing people horrific burns. Its use by the IDF in densely populated sections of Gaza violated the legal requirement to take all feasible precautions during military operations to avoid harming civilians. It never should have been deployed.
The IDF has tried to defend itself with denial and obfuscation. It first denied using white phosphorous at all. Then, when that proved untenable, it claimed that use was limited to unpopulated areas of Gaza. Neither claim is true. On Jan. 9, 10 and 15, a Human Rights Watch military expert personally observed white phosphorous being fired from an artillery battery and air burst over Gaza City and the Jabalya refugee camp. Its telltale jellyfish-like plume was a dead giveaway, as can be seen from many photographs that are now emerging from Gaza of white phosphorous raining down on civilian areas.

The Times of London also photographed an IDF artillery battery firing white phosphorous shells. The shells are color coded and labeled with the IDF term for white phosphorous--"exploding smoke." They are also marked with the code used by the U.S. manufacturer of white phosphorous--M825A1. Similarly marked and color-coded shells and other evidence of white-phosphorous use have now been recovered from urban areas of Gaza where they fell to earth.

As for obfuscation, the IDF claimed that all weapons it used were "legal," but that begs the critical question of how they were used. The use of white phosphorous is legal in certain circumstances but illegal when deployed in a way that causes unnecessary or indiscriminate harm to civilians. The IDF cited press reports suggesting that the International Committee of the Red Cross supported its position, but in a rare public comment, the ICRC denied that claim.

Awful as it is to have white phosphorous raining down on you, the IDF probably caused more civilian casualties with its use of 155 mm high-explosive artillery shells in Gaza. These weapons can injure civilians from blast and fragmentation over an area with a radius of as much as 300 meters. That's roughly the equivalent of taking three football fields, lining them end to end and then rotating them around the point of the shell's impact. In the densely populated residential areas of Gaza, where Human Rights Watch saw these shells used on Jan. 15, they can cause extensive civilian casualties. Such use clearly violates the laws-of-war prohibition of indiscriminate attacks because the shells strike military targets and civilians without distinction.

Such unlawful endangering of civilian life in Gaza cannot be justified by Hamas' deliberate and indiscriminate attacks on Israeli cities and towns. Illegality by one side to a conflict does not excuse illegality by the other. And as should be obvious, it is hardly in Israel's interest to degrade international law protecting civilians.

Predictably, the IDF holds Hamas wholly responsible for civilian casualties in Gaza, alleging that Hamas combatants stored weapons in mosques and fought from among civilians. Those allegations may or may not be true. Long experience, as during the 2006 war in Lebanon, shows that we must take such ritual IDF pronouncements with a grain of salt. We will not know exactly how Hamas waged the war until human rights monitors can conclude the on-the-ground investigations that they are only just beginning because of the IDF's earlier refusal to let them into Gaza.

Israelis seem dismayed that the world has not embraced the justness of its latest war in Gaza. Of course Israel is entitled to defend itself from Hamas' rocket attacks, but when it does so in violation of its duty to spare civilians, and with so massive a civilian toll, public outrage is entirely predictable. Meanwhile, the IDF does itself no favor when it resorts to censorship, PR techniques and misrepresentation rather than subject its conduct to the open and independent scrutiny that should characterize any military that is genuinely committed to respecting the laws of war.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/22/incendiary-idf-kenneth-roth

Mediocrates

02-04-2009, 07:38 AM

Phosphorous is a flare. The Red Cross has already stated that this is neither wrong nor unusual. You really need to get a new script from indymedia.

And for the Record, HRW has never said word one on anything remotely wrong with terrorism perpetrated against Israelis. Nor has it seen fit to even comment on the hundreds of murders of Fatah staffers by Hamas right now, to say nothing of the routine torture Hamas perpetrates on other Palestinians.

"Grain of salt"? Please, tell me about it. That entire article by HRW is innuendo.

Kenneth

02-04-2009, 08:06 AM

ICRC: Israel's use of white phosphorus not illegal (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_re_eu/eu_red_cross_white_phosphorus_2)

Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_re_eu/eu_red_cross_white_phosphorus_2

But that news won't be discussed much.

ItsMyJewty

02-04-2009, 08:25 AM

Takeo: Hamas leaders said they want to recognise Israel, if occupation of Westbank, east Jerusalem ends.

I don't care if Hamas recognizes Israel or not. They can do what the hell they like as long as they don't attack Israel.

Takeo: If you come up with irrational religious nonsense, we can't have a rational discussion. Jerusalem is also the most important christian city, should there be another crusade to "liberate" Jerusalem from the infidel Jews and muslims?
It's also one of the most important muslim Holy cities. The Al-Aqsa dominates the entire view of Jerusalem since many centuries.

FYI, the West Bank also extends into the original Kingdom of Israel, which extended into parts of present day Jordan. Your refusal to acknowledge this fact doesn't mean it's "irrational religious nonsense" – it just means that you don't want to accept this as fact, because it conflicts with your very fixed ideas on this subject. It completely undermines your argument for a "Palestinian" state, which is why you don't want to accept these facts.

Anyway, why's a Communist like you so interested in religion? Religion was banned in Communist Russia.

Mediocrates

02-04-2009, 08:39 AM

"Recognize" actually means something. It means being bound by the rules of engagement and treaty. No one seriously believes that Hamas will act in accordance to that.

Yala

02-04-2009, 09:28 AM

What population exchange? How many Jews lived in Jordan in 1948 or before, when the country was overrun with 100's of 1000's of Palestinians.

hashemites were there BEFORE the arrival of the Palestinians. They are also bedouin in origin, just like the original population of Jordan. Saying that Jordan is Palestinian, is a lie.

You lied when you said the Hashemites were native to Jordan and you admitted the lie.
Hashemites came in the 1920's from Saudi Arabia to the Palestinian Mandate East of the river and this became Transjordan and later Jordan.
Jordan was part of the Palestinian Mandate. The Bedouins who lived there are as "Palestinian" as the Bedouins who lived West of the river. The truth is nobody who lived in the Palestinian Mandate referred to themselves as Palestinian except the Jews. The people who call themselves Palestinians today called themselves back then simply Arabs. I am not denying their existence and yes now they see themselves as Palestinians, but what I wrote are the facts. In Jordan today the power only lies with the Monarchy,a dictatorship whose origin is Saudi Arabian and not native to the land. The colonial powers gave Jordan to the prince from Saudi Arabia and this you have no problem with. Also, Jews were ethnically cleansed from the Palestinian Mandate East of the river, b/c this was originally going to the be the Arab half of the Palestinian Mandate.

The Palestinians are in the majority, but they are recent immigrants,

Jordan is 4 or 5 times bigger than Israel (the green line) and they have 6 mill population while Israel has 7 million people. I don't see what the big deal is. It is known that the Palestinian Mandate (all of it Jordan, PA territories, Israel) was underpopulated until the Jews came.

the power lies with the hashemites and the bedouins.
It is a Hashemite dictatorship and the Hashemites came to Jordan (the Palestinian Mandate east of the river) from Saudi Arabia in the 1920's. I want to make sure that everyone understands this.

Toadstool46

02-04-2009, 09:30 AM

Takeo on Jerusalem...It's also one of the most important muslim Holy cities

Only because the Jews have it and the muslims don't.

I don't have the name of the person or the date ( someone can help here ) but it was admitted that Islam has NO ties to Jerusalem and mohamad never went there.

Another lie to perpetuate their reasons for their sadistic treatment of Jews, Christians and other muslims in their quest for land that doesn't belong to them and the extermination of the Jewish people who would live in peace with them if they would get their heads out of each others @sses:banghead:

Y. Shulamith

02-04-2009, 09:38 AM

Jews/Hebrews had and occupied Jerusalem first.....first come, first gets.....howsabout that??????

dayag

02-04-2009, 09:57 AM

Jews/Hebrews had and occupied Jerusalem first.....first come, first gets.....howsabout that??????

Actually King David conquered it from the Jebusites.

I would claim the city based on the fact that it has had a Jewish majority since at least the mid-19th century and we captured both half of the cities in defensive wars.

Yala

02-04-2009, 10:07 AM

dayag

02-04-2009, 10:13 AM

Dayag, do u support dividing the city in the frame of a peace agreement or under any circumstances?

Under no circumstances would I agree to give up:
the Temple Mount,
the Old City,
the Ir David (city of David) and the Holy Basin,
nor the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.

Some of the other Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, many of which were not part of Jerusalem before 1967 could be negotiable in my opinion.

Yala

02-04-2009, 10:17 AM

I agree

Reffo

02-04-2009, 10:47 AM

Ohhhhhh, poor Takeo.... you seem to see a splinter in my eye but you can't even see a log in your own. So tell me: When are you going to answer this post of mine?

Post #1050 Click Here

hmmmmmmmmmm?

I'm going to answer it whenever you answer my question. I have already answered your question you lying sod but it seems that you find my question too difficult to answer hmmmmmmmmm, Takeo? So now you invented an excuse not to answer my question :rolleyes:

codedvirus

02-04-2009, 11:02 AM

takeo

You didnt answer any of my questions.
---------------------------------------
Fatah and Hamas Human Rights Violations in the Palestinian Occupied Territories from June 2007 to December 2007
http://www.phrmg.org/Fatah%20and%20hamas%20abuses%20since%20June%202007 %20report%20_2_.pdf

There are many more reports like that. And PLEASE have a look at the above link.
---------------------------------------------
Israel declared war it was HAMAS responsibility to keep their Civilians safe instead of using them as Human Sheilds.

dayag

02-04-2009, 11:14 AM

Another kid's show character killed by the "Zionists"! Make sure you check out the picture of Assud on his death bed:

"Assud the Bunny Dies in the Bombing of Al-Aqsa TV."
http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/12672.htm

Jerusalem Post: "Hamas' kids hero calls on his deathbed to liberate Tel Aviv, Haifa"

ItsMyJewty

02-04-2009, 11:16 AM

All the lies and violence... people are starting to believe that Muslims are backward, violent, and anti-Semitic.

Reffo

02-04-2009, 12:28 PM

Yes, the rate of civilians dropped once Israel fought Hamas on the ground. Air rades are indiscriminate.War is indiscriminate! Mistakes are made in war, period! You don't believe me? Then please explain to me how come some Israeli soldiers too were killed by their own "Friendly Fire", tank fire?

In answer to your assertion, NO the rate of civilian casualties didn't drop because Hamas fighters continued to use civilians as human shields.

Not during the actual negotiations. But in any case, what does that mean? How many refugees did they expect Israel should let in? Israel offered to let in a small number but they said it wasn't enough. So how many would be enough? It's very vague isn't it? What kind of a response is that to the very detailed specific offer of Ehud Barak?

Again, and for the very last time, the response was that they wanted to negociate with Israel about this and other subjects, and wouldn't accept unilateral demands. Negotiate my foot .... their idea of negotiations was:

Israeli Negotiator: We will let in 1,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli Negotiator:[/b] We will let in 10,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli Negotiator:[/b] We will let in 100,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli Negotiator:[/b] We will let in .......refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough..........

ONLY blaming the Palestinians is indeed unjustified and biased, but that's what you are doing, and that's what you are, biased. Israel made a lot of mistakes, for example the ethnic cleansing and the colonisation, among many others. i said the Palestinians and Arabs made mistakes too. You said Israel made no mistakes. It's clear who is biased and onesided.Both sides have been accused of ethnic cleansing that is history. Now, where did I say that Israel made no mistakes, you liar? I said that Israel too made mistakes but the root cause of the problem is Arab violence and intransigence.

Did you? Or did you just go through the motion of doing so and then proceeded with all your demands of what you expect Israel to do?

of course, because the the solution lies with both parties, not only the palestinians.Gotta laugh :lol: "the solution lies with both parties" but Israel alone has to solve it, right Takeo?

I'm going to answer it whenever you answer my question.You lying sod, why didn't you answer my question before? I posted it before you posted yours and in any case, I did answer your question. Your question was:

Should Palestinians be allowed to resist if Likud gets elected?
And my answer was: How? By continuing to murder innocent Israeli civilians like they have the last 100 or so years? So you know what my implication was: NOT THAT WAY!

By the way, your attempt to compare Likud to Hamas is shoddy. Why? Because Likud is the party that made peace with Egypt. Now tell me, what did Hamas ever do for peace?

To be continued...

maven

02-04-2009, 01:23 PM

I'm very interested to see how he's going to achieve that. My prediction: a lot of bloodshet, many 1000's of casualties, more international condemnation and isolation for Israel, even less friends remaining, and Hamas will still not be destroyed and continue its guerilla warfare.

I think what would be wise is to support Fatah, conclude a deal with Fatah, recognise a Palestinian state with Abbas as president, and watch how support for Hamas in impoverished Gaza will crumble. (I saw a documentory from mid 2008 on BBC tonight, there was growing resistence against Hamas, and if elections would be held then, Hamas would probably loose. Of course this was before the latest war)If the operation is a bit more intelligent than Baraks Cast Lead and pinpoints Hamas leaders, i.e. going into the bunker under the Rafah hospital to get Haniya and other leaders then it will not be so bad. we can leave whatever Hamas 'fighters' we can't get for Fatah to sort out. But we must first occupy the Philidelphia corridor to prevent escapes.

takeo

02-04-2009, 03:05 PM

I have already answered your question you lying sod but it seems that you find my question too difficult to answer hmmmmmmmmm, Takeo? So now you invented an excuse not to answer my question :rolleyes:

I already answered your post 1050. Before accusing me please check, liar.
You didn't answer my questions:
1) to my question if Palestinians have the right to resist if Netanyahu shuts the door to any two-state solution (as he should do if he follows the Likud-charter) you said "not with suicide-bombings". Than I replied, but any occupied nation can kill occupying soldiers, right? You didn't answer.

2) And I asked you another question. You said Hamas has to change its charter as part of any peace-plan, which mentions that the whole of the area between the sea and the Jordan river should be Palestinian, I said, OK, but in that case Likud, which mentions in its charter that the whole area between the sea and the Jordan river should be israeli, should change its charter as well. You didn't reply to that question.

takeo

02-04-2009, 03:15 PM

If the operation is a bit more intelligent than Baraks Cast Lead and pinpoints Hamas leaders, i.e. going into the bunker under the Rafah hospital to get Haniya and other leaders then it will not be so bad. we can leave whatever Hamas 'fighters' we can't get for Fatah to sort out. But we must first occupy the Philidelphia corridor to prevent escapes.

I don't think it will work. There will always be Hamas leaders left to replace them. And they will be heroes. I think if you want to defeat Hamas, make a serious deal with fatah, give them a Palestinian state, and put them in charge. I'm quite sure Palestine will quickly devellop into a typical Arab one-party dictatorship.

takeo

02-04-2009, 03:32 PM

Reffo

War is indiscriminate! Mistakes are made in war, period! You don't believe me? Then please explain to me how come some Israeli soldiers too were killed by their own "Friendly Fire", tank fire?

During fire on the ground there can occasionally be some innocent victims, but in the air it's impossible to differentiate between combattants and civilians. That's why so many Vietnamese civilians died during the Vietnam war.

Negotiate my foot .... their idea of negotiations was:

Israeli Negotiator: We will let in 1,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli Negotiator:[/b] We will let in 10,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli Negotiator:[/b] We will let in 100,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli Negotiator:[/b] We will let in .......refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough..........

Don't create a strawman, they have to find a solution acceptable to both parties.

Both sides have been accused of ethnic cleansing that is history. Now, where did I say that Israel made no mistakes, you liar? I said that Israel too made mistakes

I don't remember you saying so, this is the first time.

but the root cause of the problem is Arab violence and intransigence.

No! the root cause of the problem is NOT ONLY Arab violence and intransigence. There is more than one root cause. The original rootcause is course the zionist idea to establish a Jewish state in a land that was already inhabited. Than Palestinians and Arabs didn't like that idea, and the circle continued. There have been a few major mistakes, one was the Arabs not accepting the UN-partition plan and declaring war, others were the systematic ethnic cleansing during the war by Israel, and occupation and colonisation since 1967.

Gotta laugh :lol: "the solution lies with both parties" but Israel alone has to solve it, right Takeo?

No! as I said, they have to solve it together;

You lying sod

I try to keep it civilised, but apparently that's not your style. OK, as you want!

By the way, your attempt to compare Likud to Hamas is shoddy. Why? Because Likud is the party that made peace with Egypt. Now tell me, what did Hamas ever do for peace?

This is not about Egypt, this is about the conflict between Palestinians and Israel. You said Hamas should change its charter because it wants a Palestinian state from the Jordan river to the sea, I said, OK, but in that case Likud, which wants Israel from the sea to the Jordan river, should change its charter as well. You lied to me and said Likud doesn't have a charter.

I think if Likud is in power, and if they want a two-state solution, they have to change their charter just like Hamas if they want peace and a two-state solution, don't you think so? After all, how can palestinians trust a party which doesn't want a palestinian state and wants to continue occupation and colonisation eternally?

takeo

02-04-2009, 03:38 PM

Under no circumstances would I agree to give up:
the Temple Mount,
the Old City,
the Ir David (city of David) and the Holy Basin,
nor the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.

Some of the other Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, many of which were not part of Jerusalem before 1967 could be negotiable in my opinion.

The old city is mainly Palestinian, and belongs to Eastern Jerusalem, it wasn't part of Israel before 1967. Even according to the Barak-plan it belonged to the Palestinians. The green line was the base of any negociation so far, and not a single country recognises Eastern Jerusalem to be part of Israel. If you start to question that as well, than peace is absolutely impossible and war will go on.

takeo

02-04-2009, 03:40 PM

Actually King David conquered it from the Jebusites.

I would claim the city based on the fact that it has had a Jewish majority since at least the mid-19th century and we captured both half of the cities in defensive wars.

1967 was not a defensive war. And even if it was, it doesn't legitimise capturing any land. That's clearly stated in several UN-resolutions.

If 19th century demographics is the standard to divide the land, than all of Israel should become palestinian once again, except Jerusalem in a few villages.

Eastern Jerusalem is the condition sine quae non for Palestinians, the occupation of Eastern Jerusalem should stop as part of any peace-deal. Western-Jerusalem can continue to be the capital of Israel, as it was before 1967.

takeo

02-04-2009, 03:43 PM

Jews/Hebrews had and occupied Jerusalem first.....first come, first gets.....howsabout that??????

OK, stupid yankees, time to go and give the land back to the natives!
And you anglosaxons in GB should go back to Denmark and leave England to the Celts!

takeo

02-04-2009, 03:46 PM

Toadstool46

on Jerusalem...It's also one of the most important muslim Holy cities

I don't care about that, religion shoudln't play a role in this.

Only because the Jews have it and the muslims don't.

Jews have Western Jerusalem, Eastern Jerusalem is not recognised as part of Israel, not even by the US, and the majority living there is Palestinian.

I don't have the name of the person or the date ( someone can help here ) but it was admitted that Islam has NO ties to Jerusalem and mohamad never went there.

I don't care about religion. I know that religion is a major force behind many Eretz Israel fanaticism, which is a great obstacle to peace.

Reffo

02-04-2009, 03:48 PM

I already answered your post 1050. Before accusing me please check, liar.Really? Then what was your answer to this question of mine?

And if you say yes, then please explain to us how it would be possible to establish a Palestinian state without Israel handing over land first? And then have to rely on Hamas to keep it's vague promise to recognize Israel?

You didn't answer my questions:
1) to my question if Palestinians have the right to resist if Netanyahu shuts the door to any two-state solution (as he should do if he follows the Likud-charter) you said "not with suicide-bombings". Than I replied, but any occupied nation can kill occupying soldiers, right? You didn't answer.I see how you want it to work Takeo. I asked you a question in post #1050, you didn't want to answer it because it is too difficult for you, I understand :D

But then you tell lies by claiming that you answered it and if that doesn't work, you keep on asking me new questions and even though I respond, you claim that I haven't AND you use it as an excuse not to answer my question. OK, I understand you :vomit:

2) And I asked you another question. You said Hamas has to change its charter as part of any peace-plan, which mentions that the whole of the area between the sea and the Jordan river should be Palestinian, I said, OK, but in that case Likud, which mentions in its charter that the whole area between the sea and the Jordan river should be israeli, should change its charter as well. You didn't reply to that question.And I answered that one too, I said that Likud hasn't got a charter. It only has policies which change according to circumstances and to illustrate that, I reminded you that Likud was the party that gave up land for peace to make peace with Egypt. And I asked you what did Hamas ever do for peace?

Now are you going to answer BOTH my questions? No? I didn't think so .... You are so predictable .... :lol:

On second thoughts, you will probably answer something random but not my ACTUAL question. And then you'll pretend that you answered it. That's another one of your shoddy tactics! :rolleyes:

takeo

02-04-2009, 03:55 PM

ItsMyJewty

FYI, the West Bank also extends into the original Kingdom of Israel, which extended into parts of present day Jordan.

Yes, and Spain once belonged to the Arab empire, so what? Do you think that's an argument?

Your refusal to acknowledge this fact

I know this fact, but it can't be an argument in today's politics. If not, muslims can claim Spain, Germany can claim Alsace, Russia can claim Poland, Greece can claim Turkey, Ireland can claim GB, etc. etc.

doesn't mean it's "irrational religious nonsense" â€“ it just means that you don't want to accept this as fact

I accept it, but it's no argument in today's politics!

, because it conflicts with your very fixed ideas on this subject. It completely undermines your argument for a "Palestinian" state, which is why you don't want to accept these facts.

of course it doesn't. Palestinians or Arab-speaking people live in this area since at least the Middle Ages. It used to be a Jewish state (altough Jews weren't first either) before that. So what?
Again, if that's an argument, the US should cease to exist, give back Texas, california, etc. to Mexico, or even better Spain, etc. It's a stupid, crazy argument.

Anyway, why's a Communist like you so interested in religion? Religion was banned in Communist Russia.

I'm not interested in religion, and religion should certainly not play any role in today's politics. Not in Israel and not in Palestine. One of the reasons the conflict can't be resolved is because of religious fanactics, on both sides.

takeo

02-04-2009, 04:07 PM

Reffo

Really? Then what was your answer to this question of mine?

I see how you want it to work Takeo. I asked you a question in post #1050, you didn't want to answer it because it is too difficult for you, I understand :D

But then you tell lies by claiming that you answered it

1120 was my answer to your post 1050, I answered it, stop lying.

and if that doesn't work, you keep on asking me new questions and even though I respond, you claim that I haven't AND you use it as an excuse not to answer my question. OK, I understand you :vomit:

You didn't. Let me ask you again: Can Palestinians target IDF-forces if Netanyahu doesn't want further negociations or a two-state solution?

And I answered that one too, I said that Likud hasn't got a charter.

stop your little semanthic games. It has a charter, I provided quotes.

It only has policies which change according to circumstances

Likud has a charter and it clearly states that they don't want a two-state solution, I provided links, so stop lying.
Of course the charter can be changed according to circumstances, and this is the case for Hamas as well. But likud didn't yet change its charter.

and to illustrate that, I reminded you that Likud was the party that gave up land for peace to make peace with Egypt. And I asked you what did Hamas ever do for peace?

Likud made peace with Egypt, but doesn't want peace with the palesitnians apparently, according to its charter. Hamas didn't exist yet in the '70's, so that's not a fair comparison.

Now are you going to answer BOTH my questions? No? I didn't think so .... You are so predictable .... :lol:

I just did, I always answer your questions.

On second thoughts, you will probably answer something random but not my ACTUAL question. And then you'll pretend that you answered it. That's another one of your shoddy tactics! :rolleyes:

That's what you do. I asked you if palestinians have the right to resist, you didnt' answer, just changed the subject to suicide bombers.

Reffo

02-04-2009, 04:29 PM

Resist how? Murder Israeli civilians like they have been doing for nearly 100 years now?

No, killing occupation soldiers is a justified response to continued occupation and colonisation, don't you think so?But that's not what Hamas has been doing. Hamas has been targeting mainly civilians. I would accept their "resistance" if they would ONLY target soldiers. But I would still question the wisdom of that because they could have a two state solution if they would stop their violence and seriously negotiate with Israel.

But that's not what they really want is it Takeo? Their charter states that they are fighting for the land between the river (Jordan) and the sea (the Meditarranean). In other words, for Israel proper. In other words, they are NOT fighting against the "occupation", they are fighting for CONQUEST!

That is what you ACTUALLY said but you added the word "compromise" to make it sound prettier

that's not what I said, stop twisting.So you are NOT saying that Israel is to blame for the fact that there is no negotiations with Hamas because it didn't ask Hamas to negotiate with it?

And since Hamas fighters hide behind women and children, from the ground that's impossible too ....

No, from the ground they can directly confront the warriors. From the air that's impossible, without equally killing many civilians.Bravo Takeo, you are outdoing yourself, now you are calling Hamas terrorists (Islamo fascists), "WARRIORS"? :lol:

Some warriors! Targeting mainly Israeli civilians and fighting from behind the skirts of women and children.

And No, the casualties would not be reduced under such circumstances.

This is one of the provisions of the Geneva conventions:

"The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."
Go look it up Takeo!

Yes, but the Geneva- conventions also say:

Richard Falk, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights....Changing the subject again huh Takeo? Let's just skip over the fact that Hamas uses civilians as human shields, which is a war crime, and go on the offensive huh Takeo? :tdown:

But in any case, UN personnel have made allsorts of accusations against Israel, which in the light of further scrutiny seem to be unravelling for them. For instance, they claimed that Israel killed 43 civilians in a UN school and that has proven to be false. Go figure, that's the new UN for you :scratch:

I think that serious consideration should be given to sending the UN in the same direction as the old League of Nations went. They are a useless, bureaucratic, politicized organization that exists first and foremost for self interest and the interests of the larger powers and Arab/Islamic nations... Don't you agree Takeo?

Are you kidding me? Every Israeli leader since Rabin already agreed to the idea of a two state solution!

Netanyahu never agreed to it, and still doesn't.Actually he DID and indeed he handed over lands to Arafat as part of Oslo. But it seems that recently he has come to the conclusion that Israel's efforts have been useless because nothing positive that Israel did or does gets recognized. So his new policy, as a consequence of Hamas's ascendancy amongst Palestinians, has been to shelve the two state solution. But there is nothing to say that Likud's policy may not change again in the future if the Palestinians would show a REAL willingness to compromise.

Reffo

02-04-2009, 04:51 PM

My answer to post 1050

unlike you, I'm not a coward who avoids to answer difficult questions. Me a coward? :lol: I have answered all your questions.

So let's analyse this sentence [Mashal's]: formal recognition ONCE such a Palesitnian state is established.

ONCE : As soon as
"once we are home, we can rest"Yes, I agree that's what Mashal sort of said out of one corner of his mouth, but YOU STILL DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION! Why? Because earlier on you said that recognition of Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian state can occur AT THE SAME TIME. And then, in my post #1050 (as well as several times in previous posts), I asked you this:

please explain to us how it would be possible to establish a Palestinian state without Israel handing over land first? And then have to rely on Hamas to keep it's vague promise to recognize Israel?
AND YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED!: :rolleyes:

Why am I surprised? I predicted that you will do this and you have delivered! Good old trusty Takeo :lol:

Reffo

02-04-2009, 05:29 PM

During fire on the ground there can occasionally be some innocent victims, but in the air it's impossible to differentiate between combattants and civilians.Have you heard of ears and eyes on the ground?

But of course, if YOUR Hamas "WARRIORS" hide behind the skirts of women and children, then it does not matter whether they are fired on from planes or tanks. Either way, civilians will be hurt and Hamas is entirely to blame for it.

Negotiate my foot .... their idea of negotiations was:
Israeli Negotiator: We will let in 1,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli Negotiator: We will let in 10,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli Negotiator: We will let in 100,000 refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough
Israeli Negotiator: We will let in .......refugees
Palestinian negotiator: Not enough..........

Don't create a strawman, they have to find a solution acceptable to both parties.I haven't created a straw man, that's how Arafat negotiated. I do agree with you though that a solution has to be found. Have you told that to Hamas though?

Both sides have been accused of ethnic cleansing that is history. Now, where did I say that Israel made no mistakes, you liar? I said that Israel too made mistakes

I don't remember you saying so, this is the first time.Good, I caught you with ANOTHER STRAIGHT OUT LIE! :rolleyes: Here is where I said it: On this very thread post #854 Click Here

but the root cause of the problem is Arab violence and intransigence.

No! the root cause of the problem is NOT ONLY Arab violence and intransigence. There is more than one root cause. The original rootcause is course the zionist idea to establish a Jewish state in a land that was already inhabited. By BOTH Jews and arabs .... a two state solution! Why was that a problem?

Palestinians and Arabs didn't like that idea, and the circle continued. There have been a few major mistakes, one was the Arabs not accepting the UN-partition plan and declaring war,See what I mean? Palestinian Arab intransigence :rolleyes:

the systematic ethnic cleansing during the war by IsraelJews were ethnically cleansed by Arabs from Arab countries and from Palestine (for example from East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion in 1948 and from Hebron in 1929). And yes, some Arabs too were ethnically cleansed but most fled because of the war that Arabs started. Now tell me Takeo, if it would have been systematic ethnic cleansing by Israel, how come the NOW 1 million Arabs who are Israeli citizens were NOT ethnically cleansed in 1948?

and occupation and colonisation since 1967.Once again, had Jordan not attacked Israel in 1967, there wouldn't have been occupation. So you see? Arab aggression WAS the root cause.

Gotta laugh :lol: "the solution lies with both parties" but Israel alone has to solve it, right Takeo?

No! as I said, they have to solve it together;So, what did you say? Why didn't that happen? Because Ehud Barak didn't want to negotiate? Didn't you say that?

You lying sod

I try to keep it civilised, but apparently that's not your style. OK, as you want!Really? By endless repetition? By not answering questions? By ignoring your own references which belie your assertions? Do you want me to go on? :(

By the way, your attempt to compare Likud to Hamas is shoddy. Why? Because Likud is the party that made peace with Egypt. Now tell me, what did Hamas ever do for peace?

This is not about Egypt, this is about the conflict between Palestinians and Israel. You said Hamas should change its charter because it wants a Palestinian state from the Jordan river to the sea, I said, OK, but in that case Likud, which wants Israel from the sea to the Jordan river, should change its charter as well. You lied to me and said Likud doesn't have a charter. I said Likud doesn't have a charter and it doesn't. Likud has policies that change with circumstances and they have shown in the past that under the right circumstances they are willing to hand over land for peace. And they would be willing to do so again...

I think if Likud is in power, and if they want a two-state solution, they have to change their charter just like Hamas if they want peace and a two-state solution, don't you think so? After all, how can palestinians trust a party which doesn't want a palestinian state and wants to continue occupation and colonisation eternally? And Likud is not even in power yet and hasn't been for quite a few years. What about Hamas?

Reffo

02-04-2009, 05:51 PM

1120 was my answer to your post 1050, I answered it, stop lying.You are a waste of time aren't you Takeo? Like I predicted, you didn't answer my ACTUAL question. Read my Post #1154 Click Here It explains why you didn't answer my ACTUAL question. Are you going to answer it now? I won't hold my breath :rolleyes:

takeo

02-04-2009, 05:58 PM

Reffo

But that's not what Hamas has been doing. Hamas has been targeting mainly civilians. I would accept their "resistance" if they would ONLY target soldiers. But I would still question the wisdom of that because they could have a two state solution if they would stop their violence and seriously negotiate with Israel.

I don't think they are convinced of that. Most Palestinians think Israel doesn't want peace. Settlements are being expanded, the Eretz Israel movement is quite strong, etc. And before the first intifadeh, noone in Israel was thinking about a two-state soution.
Besides, my question was, "if Netanyahu shuts the door to a two-state solution". Which means, according to the Likud charter, even if they don't resist, there won't be a two-state solution.

But that's not what they really want is it Takeo? Their charter states that they are fighting for the land between the river (Jordan) and the sea (the Meditarranean). In other words, for Israel proper. In other words, they are NOT fighting against the "occupation", they are fighting for CONQUEST!

Equally so the charter of Likud states that Israel should stretch from the Jordan river to the sea, the Holy land. In other words, they are not continuing the occupation and colonisation for security reasons, but for ideological reasons.

So you are NOT saying that Israel is to blame for the fact that there is no negotiations with Hamas because it didn't ask Hamas to negotiate with it?

:scratch: it's late and this sentence is weird... another one of your semanthic games. I'm not saying that Israel is not to blame for the fact that there is no negotiations with Hamas because it didn't ask Hamas to negotiate with it. But Hamas is to blame as well.

Some warriors! Targeting mainly Israeli civilians and fighting from behind the skirts of women and children.

That's what Israel is saying to defend itself against the international accusations, still not confirmed by any neutral source.

Changing the subject again huh Takeo? Let's just skip over the fact that Hamas uses civilians as human shields, which is a war crime, and go on the offensive huh Takeo? :tdown:

No, in the text is also clearly stated that Hamas committed warcrimes as well, but so did Israel. And using Hamas warcrimes for its own warcrimes is pretty pathetic, especially for a country which considers itself to be a western democracy.

In any case, why not agree to the request of HRW for an international investigation of both the Hamas and Israel acts of war? If Israel acted according to international law, I'm sure you can't be against that?

But in any case, UN personnel have made allsorts of accusations against Israel, which in the light of further scrutiny seem to be unravelling for them. For instance, they claimed that Israel killed 43 civilians in a UN school and that has proven to be false. Go figure, that's the new UN for you :scratch:

Most other claims didn't prove to be false. The claims of Israel that it didn't use white fosforous gas proved to be false as well.

I think that serious consideration should be given to sending the UN in the same direction as the old League of Nations went. They are a useless, bureaucratic, politicized organization that exists first and foremost for self interest and the interests of the larger powers and Arab/Islamic nations... Don't you agree Takeo?

No I don't. If you abolish the UN there'll be nothing to refrain states from attacking other states, and there will be no international law and no body to coordinate efforts against malnutrition, childsoldiers, the climate, etc.. The UN is one of the reasons why there hasn't been a WWIII. Of course since you think Israel is strong and international law just limits its capacities, you think you don't need the UN. But no UN also means noone pressuring Iran not to have nukes, noone pressuring Russia not to invade neighbouring countries, no more international cooperation against Al-quaida and Taliban, etc. It would mean a return to the situation before WWII, which means that differences can easily end in war.

Actually he DID and indeed he handed over lands to Arafat as part of Oslo.

Yes, but he never believed in Oslo, and criticised Rabin since the beginning. Some on the left even accused him of indirectly being responsible for the murder on Rabin. He did everything he could to postpone the handovers, and sabotage Oslo. His party never changed the charter which calls for an Israel from the sea to the Jordan river.

But it seems that recently he has come to the conclusion that Israel's efforts have been useless because nothing positive that Israel did or does gets recognized.

He didn't want a two-state solution since the very beginning. Nor does his party and most followers.

So his new policy, as a consequence of Hamas's ascendancy amongst Palestinians, has been to shelve the two state solution. But there is nothing to say that Likud's policy may not change again in the future if the Palestinians would show a REAL willingness to compromise.

If he doesn't want to talk, and don't offer them anything, why should they compromise? Equally so, Hamas might change its policy of not recognising Israel if they see a change in Israeli policy. Likud leaders didn't even say that. They simply said "no to the two-state solution" under any circumstances.

Reffo

02-04-2009, 07:15 PM

But that's not what Hamas has been doing. Hamas has been targeting mainly civilians. I would accept their "resistance" if they would ONLY target soldiers. But I would still question the wisdom of that because they could have a two state solution if they would stop their violence and seriously negotiate with Israel.

I don't think they are convinced of that. Most Palestinians think Israel doesn't want peace.Why? Because Israel resists Hamas's violence? And Because Israel does not agree to the "Right of Return Demand"?

In any case, most Israelis are convinced that the Palestinian Arabs don't want a two state solution. They are convinced that the Palestinian Arabs want all of Israel to become an Arab Muslim state.

Settlements are being expandedYou mean natural growth of existing ones? Why is that not allowed? I thought that you said that neither side should set pre-conditions?

In any case, Israel has already showed that it is prepared to hand over land for peace. But only real peace!

the Eretz Israel movement is quite strong, etc.And is getting stronger as a reaction to continuous Hamas aggression. Why are you surprised?

But that's not what they really want is it Takeo? Their charter states that they are fighting for the land between the river (Jordan) and the sea (the Meditarranean). In other words, for Israel proper. In other words, they are NOT fighting against the "occupation", they are fighting for CONQUEST!

Equally so the charter of Likud states that Israel should stretch from the Jordan river to the sea, the Holy land. In other words, they are not continuing the occupation and colonisation for security reasons, but for ideological reasonsIs that Hamas's excuse? Because Likud's excuse is Hamas. The fact is that Likud did agree to the two state solution in the past but Hamas never did.

So you are NOT saying that Israel is to blame for the fact that there is no negotiations with Hamas because it didn't ask Hamas to negotiate with it?

:scratch: it's late and this sentence is weird... another one of your semanthic games. I'm not saying that Israel is not to blame for the fact that there is no negotiations with Hamas because it didn't ask Hamas to negotiate with it. But Hamas is to blame as well.Poor Takeo, it's getting too late? Nobody is forcing you to repeat yourself, you are torturing yourself :lol: But as long as you will, I will keep on repeating myself too. Fair deal Takeo? :lol:

Some warriors! Targeting mainly Israeli civilians and fighting from behind the skirts of women and children.

That's what Israel is saying....That's what YOU were saying. Didn't you call them "WARRIORS", Takeo? :D

Changing the subject again huh Takeo? Let's just skip over the fact that Hamas uses civilians as human shields, which is a war crime, and go on the offensive huh Takeo? :tdown:

No, in the text is also clearly stated that Hamas committed warcrimes as well....YES and that's what we were talking about because earlier on you disputed that .... or at least seemed to :scratch:

In any case, why not agree to the request of HRW for an international investigation of both the Hamas and Israel acts of war? If Israel acted according to international law, I'm sure you can't be against that?Because the Israeli military have their own code of conduct and it investigates it's own breaches when there are allegations. And in rare cases, if the allegations prove to be true, they discipline their own soldiers. That's what all western countries do. Why do you want Israelis to be different than the rest of the world?

But in any case, UN personnel have made allsorts of accusations against Israel, which in the light of further scrutiny seem to be unravelling for them. For instance, they claimed that Israel killed 43 civilians in a UN school and that has proven to be false. Go figure, that's the new UN for you :scratch:

Most other claims didn't prove to be false. The claims of Israel that it didn't use white fosforous gas proved to be false as well.Didn't they? How about Jenin? How about Al Dura and Pallywood?

By the way? When did Hamas discipline it's own terrorists for the deliberate murder of Israeli civilians?

To be continued...

Reffo

02-04-2009, 07:43 PM

I think that serious consideration should be given to sending the UN in the same direction as the old League of Nations went. They are a useless, bureaucratic, politicized organization that exists first and foremost for self interest and the interests of the larger powers and Arab/Islamic nations... Don't you agree Takeo?

No I don't.Why am I surprised? The UN is corrupt and that's why you support it... But it seems that even your Palestinian Arabs don't have respect for the UN. Otherwise they would have supported the two state solution which the UN voted in favour of, in 1948

If you abolish the UN there'll be nothing to refrain states from attacking other statesIt seems that hardly anyone takes any note of the UN. Have you seen any evidence that there is any reduction in war and violence around the world?

and there will be no international lawWhen was the last time that the UN prevented genocide? In Rwanda? In the Lebanese civil war? In Sudan? In Cambodia? In the Balkans?

and no body to coordinate efforts against malnutrition,I grant you that. That's one area where they seem to do some good but even there I am not so sure that they are as effective as they should be..

The UN is one of the reasons why there hasn't been a WWIII.That's a VERY bold statement! I don't agree!

UN also means noone pressuring Iran not to have nukes,And they have been extremely ineffective...

noone pressuring Russia not to invade neighbouring countries, no more international cooperation against Al-quaida and Taliban, etc. And they have been extremely ineffective...

I rest my case :tdown:

Actually he DID and indeed he handed over lands to Arafat as part of Oslo.

Yes, but he never believed in OsloBut he still went along with it, despite continuing violence by Hamas which Arafat refused to stop!

and criticised Rabin since the beginning.What a surprise! One politician criticizing another politician :lol:

Some on the left even accused him of indirectly being responsible for the murder on Rabin.Yes, people like you!

And mark my word well Takeo! It is because of the blood libels, one sided accusations and lies of people like you, peace has been and still is so elusive. Why?

Firstly: Because you embolden Arab rejectionists with your one sided propaganda.

Secondly: Because you discourage even middle of the road Israelis by refusing to acknowledge REAL attempts by Israel to reach accommodation with the Palestinians. Israelis then say to themselves: What's the use! Whatever we do or don't do we get criticized! We may as well be hard nosed about our situation and do what WE THINK is best for us or at least THE LEAST BAD THING!

He did everything he could to postpone the handovers, and sabotage Oslo. His party never changed the charter which calls for an Israel from the sea to the Jordan river.Yes! Because of ongoing Palestinian Arab incitement and violence which was supposed to be stopped under Oslo!

To be continued...

Reffo

02-04-2009, 07:57 PM

But it seems that recently he has come to the conclusion that Israel's efforts have been useless because nothing positive that Israel did or does gets recognized.

He didn't want a two-state solution since the very beginning. Nor does his party and most followers.I am not saying that he was a strong proponent of it at any stage. What I am saying is that he went along with it for a while but recently his position hardened again and I for one don't blame him for now, not necessarily in the long term though.... if some sensible rational, competent and strong Palestinian leadership would offer real compromises involving a two state solution and if Netanyahu would still disagree ..... then I would be against Netanyahu. As it is, I am neither for him nor against him. I'll just trust the Israeli voters to make a sensible decision.

So his new policy, as a consequence of Hamas's ascendancy amongst Palestinians, has been to shelve the two state solution. But there is nothing to say that Likud's policy may not change again in the future if the Palestinians would show a REAL willingness to compromise.

If he doesn't want to talk, and don't offer them anything, why should they compromise? Hold on there Takeo! Netanyahu hasn't been the prime minister of Israel for a very long time now. So what was the Palestinians excuse for not stopping their violence and talking meaningfully about peace?

Equally so, Hamas might change its policy of not recognising Israel if they see a change in Israeli policy.And what stopped them from doing so till now? Hamas was in power but Netanyahu wasn't .... remember? :rolleyes:

maven

02-05-2009, 02:38 AM

:D Could Mahmood Zahar Be The New Guy In The Wheelchair? :D

A drunken source close to a physiotherapy unit in an Egyptian hospital run by the Muslim Brotherhood reports that the missing Hamas thug is learning how to use a wheelchair on a daily basis and to balance a white pillowcase on his head at all times. Whether this is for recovery reasons or whether Mahmood wants to be the new Snake Yassin is unclear.

The source says that it may be just his beard which is recovering after he shaved it off to disguise himself. He may be otherwise well and have just run away from the fight. Other sources say he ran to his mothers home complaining "O Mummy a Zionist bully hit me, boo hoo hoo!" (photo: Zionist bully brutally and disproportionally hitting Al Zahar with Internationally banned stick).
:stick:

Israelnationalnews.com said:

"Al Zahar escaped Gaza by hiding in an ambulance headed for Egypt, the sources said. He even disguised himself by shaving his beard, they added. If Al Zahar is in hiding, he may have fled to El-Arish – his mother's hometown, located in the Sinai Peninsula.

If Al Zahar is found to have fled Gaza during the IDF operation, he is likely to lose much of his public support, analysts pointed out. In such a scenario, they said, he would be rejected by both Hamas and the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority based in Ramallah.

Hamas denies that Al Zahar fled, or that he was wounded in Cast Lead.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129778

takeo

02-05-2009, 03:36 AM

Reffo

I am not saying that he was a strong proponent of it at any stage. What I am saying is that he went along with it for a while but recently his position hardened again and I for one don't blame him for now, not necessarily in the long term though.... if some sensible rational, competent and strong Palestinian leadership would offer real compromises involving a two state solution and if Netanyahu would still disagree ..... then I would be against Netanyahu. As it is, I am neither for him nor against him. I'll just trust the Israeli voters to make a sensible decision.

But what you are saying now is that even if Israel refused to talk and compromise, you would still blame the Palestinians.

Hold on there Takeo! Netanyahu hasn't been the prime minister of Israel for a very long time now. So what was the Palestinians excuse for not stopping their violence and talking meaningfully about peace?

The ones who succeeded Netanyahu talked about peace, but did little to bring peace. Barak didn't want to talk to the Palestinian leadership, it was "take it or leave it", Sharon didn't want to talk as well, and rejected all Palestinian and Arab peace-proposals. (and, unlike Barak, he was not pressured by Washington, ruled by G. W. Bush and his neocon cronies). He also destroyed the PA, and together with Bush, asked for new elections, which everybody knew Hamas would win. This combined with the unilateral withdrawel was a recipe for bringing Hamas to power and creating division among Palestinians. Many, even on this forum, recognise that this was the real goal of Sharon. Olmert only started to talk to Abbas since a year or so, and untill december last year, there seemed to be some progress and reason for optimism. Since the war in Gaza negociations ended, and shortly Netanyahu will be elected according to the polls, which will be the deathblow for the negociated solution and will restart a whidescale Intifadeh according to me.

takeo

02-05-2009, 04:15 AM

Reffo

Why am I surprised? The UN is corrupt and that's why you support it...

No! I'm a cool supporter of the UN and other international institutions. I know they lack efficiency because the countries of which the UN consists don't always agree and have different agendas. They may be corrupt and ineffective (altough I don't think corruption is as bad as in most national states) but certainly not as corrupt or ineffective as the unilateral American operation in Iraq since 2003...

But it seems that even your Palestinian Arabs don't have respect for the UN. Otherwise they would have supported the two state solution which the UN voted in favour of, in 1948

But now most do support it, or give the intention that they will support it if Israel does as well. Without the UN framework there wouldn't have been any talks at all, not in Oslo, never.

It seems that hardly anyone takes any note of the UN. Have you seen any evidence that there is any reduction in war and violence around the world?

Compared to the situation before the creation of the UN, the situation has improved. This is partly due to the UN, which provides a framework for negociation and compromise between different states. It doesn't always work, but sometimes it does.

When was the last time that the UN prevented genocide? In Rwanda? In the Lebanese civil war? In Sudan? In Cambodia? In the Balkans?

The uN worked towards a peace-agreement between Congo and Ruanda, which ended a war which costed the life to millions of people. Situation is not completely stable, but at least the genocide has stopped since arrival of UN-peacekeepers, and thanks to the UN there's now cooperation between Congo and Ruanda. The UN stopped the civil war in CÃ´te d'Ivoire, in Sierra Leone and Liberia, in El Salvador, etc.
In Sudan they mediated between the south and the north, now there'll be a referendum on independance of Southern Sudan, in Eastern-Timor they forced the occupying Indonesians to leave, and started the state-building proces. In Western Sahara they stabilised the conflict between polisario and the occupying Moroccan forces. And you mentioned cambodia, a country which I know well. They ended the decades of civil war and started the state-building proces (I think the same should happen in Palestine, a state-building proces). They didn't succeed in turning Cambodia into a democracy, and corruption and poverty continue, but at least there's peace, a lot of tourism, and development, Cambodia has a high annual growth.

I grant you that. That's one area where they seem to do some good but even there I am not so sure that they are as effective as they should be..

I could also have mentioned coordinated efforts to reduce global warming, etc.

That's a VERY bold statement! I don't agree!

Yes, but I think the UN is one of the reasons why the cold war didn't turn into a hot one...

And they have been extremely ineffective...

And they have been extremely ineffective...

Well, efforts are still continuing. And, because of the UN and EU efforts, Russia didn't march on Tbilissi to "hang Saakashvili by his balls", which was the original goal of Putin.
And, for sure, the UN is more effective than unilateral US-operations. The US succeeded in turning a relatively peacefull country into a living hell on earth!
Equally so unilateral US-operations in Latin america in the past were always distrusted and self-interested, and turned most of Latin America against the "yankees imperialistas" in the north. And I don't even dare to imagine the consequences of a US-invasion of Iran! Fortunately, now that the neo-cons have been forced out of office, I think the US is going to increase cooperation with the UN and abandon its unilateral approach.

But he still went along with it, despite continuing violence by Hamas which Arafat refused to stop!

I think because he was pressured by the US. But he didn't like the two-state solution and did everything to boycott it.

What a surprise! One politician criticizing another politician :lol:

One politician heavily criticising the peace-initiatives of another politician. I remember seeing on television that Rabin has been depicted as Hitler on Likud-organised protests.

Yes, people like you!

Well, netanyahu didn't kill rabin (altough the assasin is some kind of hero in rightwing circles, even on this forum) but his ranting against peace surely poisoned the political environment in Israel.

And mark my word well Takeo! It is because of the blood libels, one sided accusations and lies of people like you, peace has been and still is so elusive. Why?

you, on the right, don't do anything else than making blood-labels, especially on this forum. Leftist Israeli are "traitors" or "liars", peace with "uncivilised, violent, subhuman" Arabs is impossible, etc.

Firstly: Because you embolden Arab rejectionists with your one sided propaganda.

It is not one-sided, you are one-sided. I said both parties should make peace, but since this is a pro-israeli forum, it makes more sense to stress Israel's responsabilities. On pro-Arab or leftist forums I can stress thr Palestinian's responsabilities.

Secondly: Because you discourage even middle of the road Israelis by refusing to acknowledge REAL attempts by Israel to reach accommodation with the Palestinians.

what are you referring to? Not the Barak-proposal again I hope? Because we've been trough that...

Israelis then say to themselves: What's the use! Whatever we do or don't do we get criticized! We may as well be hard nosed about our situation and do what WE THINK is best for us or at least THE LEAST BAD THING!

You mean just stopping all -peace-efforts? Why would that be a more logical reaction than looking what went wrong and start over?

Yes! Because of ongoing Palestinian Arab incitement and violence which was supposed to be stopped under Oslo!

Yes, but Oslo failed, and not only because of Arab violence and incitement as I explained already at nauseam on this thread and elsewhere.

takeo

02-05-2009, 04:31 AM

Reffo

Why? Because Israel resists Hamas's violence? And Because Israel does not agree to the "Right of Return Demand"?

No! Because they see that Israel expanded their settlements inhabited by radical Arab-hating nuts, that Israel built walls INSIDE Palestinian territory, that there is still no Palestinian state, etc.

In any case, most Israelis are convinced that the Palestinian Arabs don't want a two state solution. They are convinced that the Palestinian Arabs want all of Israel to become an Arab Muslim state.

Because that's what propagandists, like you, tell them.

Still, according to polls (which are a bit outdated now), the majority of both peoples think the two-state solution is the only realistic solution. But they also think that the other side doesn't want it. Apparently, there is also a perception problem.

You mean natural growth of existing ones? Why is that not allowed?

according to many UN-resolutions or the Geneva-conventions, that's not allowed.

I thought that you said that neither side should set pre-conditions?

That's right. But Israel seems to set pre-conditions. It doesn't want to negociate under fire it says. But at the same time it expands settlements...

In any case, Israel has already showed that it is prepared to hand over land for peace. But only real peace!

The unilateral withdrawel of Gaza wasn't land for peace. And why did Israel continue to build new settlements and expand existing ones if they agree to the principle of land for peace?

And is getting stronger as a reaction to continuous Hamas aggression. Why are you surprised?

Yes, but on the other side it's the same. The slaughter in Gaza will make Hamas and the radicals more popular and stronger.

Is that Hamas's excuse? Because Likud's excuse is Hamas. The fact is that Likud did agree to the two state solution in the past but Hamas never did.

it didn't really agree, only to give in to American pressure, they never changed their charter. Despite the charter, Hamas leaders said they are iwlling to recognise Israel on a few conditions. I didn't hear any Lilud-leader say so recently that they want to recognise Palestine on a few conditions...

That's what YOU were saying. Didn't you call them "WARRIORS", Takeo? :D

Yes, or city guerillero's would be even more appropriate.

Because the Israeli military have their own code of conduct and it investigates it's own breaches when there are allegations. And in rare cases, if the allegations prove to be true, they discipline their own soldiers. That's what all western countries do. Why do you want Israelis to be different than the rest of the world?

Did you read the HRW text I posted? Israeli investigations are always flawed and cannot be trusted. In the same way you can't trust Hamas to prosecute its own members which committed crime of war.

By the way? When did Hamas discipline it's own terrorists for the deliberate murder of Israeli civilians?

Well, at some point during the Hudna it prosecuted radical palestinian groups still shooting rockets to Israel. I posted that article on this thread.

ItsMyJewty

02-05-2009, 04:55 AM

Quote:
ItsMyJewty: FYI, the West Bank also extends into the original Kingdom of Israel, which extended into parts of present day Jordan.

Takeo: Yes, and Spain once belonged to the Arab empire, so what? Do you think that's an argument?

Quote:
ItsMyJewty: Your refusal to acknowledge this fact

Takeo: I know this fact, but it can't be an argument in today's politics. If not, muslims can claim Spain, Germany can claim Alsace, Russia can claim Poland, Greece can claim Turkey, Ireland can claim GB, etc. etc.

Quote:
ItsMyJewty: doesn't mean it's "irrational religious nonsense" – it just means that you don't want to accept this as fact

Takeo: I accept it, but it's no argument in today's politics!

Quote:
ItsMyJewty:, because it conflicts with your very fixed ideas on this subject. It completely undermines your argument for a "Palestinian" state, which is why you don't want to accept these facts.

Takeo: of course it doesn't. Palestinians or Arab-speaking people live in this area since at least the Middle Ages. It used to be a Jewish state (altough Jews weren't first either) before that. So what?
Again, if that's an argument, the US should cease to exist, give back Texas, california, etc. to Mexico, or even better Spain, etc. It's a stupid, crazy argument.

These silly analogies are all part of your refusal to accept the fact that Israel has a historic right to the land in the so called West Bank (the East Bank!), which was captured and annexed by Jordan in 1948 and then recaptured by Israel in 1967.

You don't accept that Jews have a right to establish a homeland on their own land and you don't think they have a right to defend themselves against unprovoked attacks from Islamic terrorists – this puts you very much in line with Hamas and other extreme Islamic organizations.

takeo

02-05-2009, 05:51 AM

ItsMyJewty

These silly analogies are all part of your refusal to accept the fact that Israel has a historic right to the land in the so called West Bank (the East Bank!), which was captured and annexed by Jordan in 1948 and then recaptured by Israel in 1967.

It never belonged to the modern state of Israel, it wasn't part of Israel when Israel was recognised by most countries and the UN. And it still isn't recognised by any country as part of Israel. Moreover, the overwelming majority living there are no Israeli citizens and don't recognise the right of Israel to rule them.

Which historic right? And why are my analogies more silly than yours?

You don't accept that Jews have a right to establish a homeland on their own land and you don't think they have a right to defend themselves against unprovoked attacks from Islamic terrorists â€“ this puts you very much in line with Hamas and other extreme Islamic organizations.

They have the right to establish a homeland on their own land and they have the right to defend their own country. They don't have the right to occupy territories which don't belong to Israel, never belonged to the modern state of Israel and are not recognised as belonging to Israel.

varian

02-05-2009, 07:14 AM

A pro-Israel study.

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3666995,00.html

US study: IDF didn't violate rules of war

Israel pursued legitimate military objectives in Gaza despite humanitarian cost, study says
Yitzhak Benhorin

WASHINGTON â€“ Israel did not violate the rules of war during its recent Gaza operation, a new US study says, while praising the IDF's "impressive improvements" since the war against Hizbullah in 2006.

Israel "deliberately used decisive force to enhance regional deterrence and demonstrate that it had restored its military edge," wrote Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "These, however, are legitimate military objectives in spite of their very real humanitarian costs."

The study notes that "political efforts to manipulate the "rules of war and humanitarian considerations have become a key weapon in asymmetric warfare, and are often used as a basis for propaganda and gaining political leverage in this type of conflict."

"Real suffering is translated into exaggerated charges and numbers that cannot be validated by reliable data or methodology," the study says. "In practice, even if Israel had agreed to all of the conventions involved, they are severely limited and often difficult or impossible to apply to the realities of war â€” even one fought with restraint and a focus on military targets.

'Noting (sic) new about such tactics'

Cordesman notes that "Some buildings like schools merit special consideration, but only require review to determine whether they are really military targets. Hospitals require warning but are not protected if used by an enemy."

"White phosphorous can be used against military but not civilian targets," he adds, noting that "such laws and conventions do not bind or restrain non-state actors like Hamas in any meaningful way."

"The end result is a situation where one side can potentially be limited by international law where the other is not, and that effectively makes international law a potential weapon for the side that rejects and exploits it," the study says. "It is also a situation that empowers and incentivizes extremists to use civilians as the equivalent of human shields by embedding their forces in civilian populations and areas, and using sensitive buildings like mosques and schools or collocating near them. There is nothing new about such tactics."

takeo

02-05-2009, 08:34 AM

Reffo

Yes, I agree that's what Mashal sort of said out of one corner of his mouth, but YOU STILL DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION! Why? Because earlier on you said that recognition of Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian state can occur AT THE SAME TIME. And then, in my post #1050 (as well as several times in previous posts), I asked you this:

please explain to us how it would be possible to establish a Palestinian state without Israel handing over land first? And then have to rely on Hamas to keep it's vague promise to recognize Israel?
AND YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED!: :rolleyes:

Why am I surprised? I predicted that you will do this and you have delivered! Good old trusty Takeo :lol:[/QUOTE]

:tdown: I've already answered that many times. I'm getting a bit tired of your semanthic games.
I said, Hamas recognising Israel and changing its charter, will and should be part of a major peace-deal, which includes the creation of the palestinian state. So when the talks finish, all parties go home, Israel withdraws and AT THE SAME TIME Hamas changes its charter and recognises Israel.
Of course before this can happen, it should really be established who'll rule Palestine and how. Either Hamas and Fatah make a deal, Hamas gets defeated, or there'll be two Palestinian states. (noone in Palestine wants that). This is very important for Israel as well. I think they can use some international assistence in state-building. But one condition for this is of course a major peace-deal and Israel's willingness to recognise a palestinian state and end colonisation and occupation.

Mediocrates

02-05-2009, 08:40 AM

codedvirus

02-05-2009, 09:40 AM

I said, Hamas recognising Israel and changing its charter,

Where do you get the news from?

Reffo

02-05-2009, 10:25 AM

Hamas leaders said they are iwlling to recognise Israel on a few conditions.There you go again with your repetitive canard :rolleyes:

The following statements, from your own source, put the REAL perspective...

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

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.
Salah Bardawil, head of Hamas's parliamentary faction, told Haaretz that after
checking with Meshal, it seems to be that his words were twisted and
distorted.
"He didn't speak about any recognition of Israel, only a cease-fire with
Israel," Bardawil said.

Seems like Hamas Double talk to me ..... they say one thing from the corner of their mouth and then a diametrically opposite thing from the other corner of their mouth :rolleyes:

Reffo

02-05-2009, 10:42 AM

Israel withdraws and AT THE SAME TIME Hamas changes its charter and recognises Israel.Are you really this obtuse? Or are you just pretending, Takeo? :D

"Israel withdraws": Do you understand the logistics of that? I'll give you a clue: It'll take more than 5 seconds .... or 5 days ..... or even 5 weeks....

And only then, at the end of that process would a Palestinian state be established. And didn't your Mashal say that maybe, AFTER a palestinian state would be established, maybe then they might consider recognizing Israel?

So you see, Takeo? It CANNOT be done at the same time. And therefore, my original question stands: Do you think that half utterance about recognition would be acceptable from Israel's point of view, to first give up land, and then, maybe get recognition?

Reffo

02-05-2009, 02:44 PM

I am not saying that he was a strong proponent of it at any stage. What I am saying is that he went along with it for a while but recently his position hardened again and I for one don't blame him for now, not necessarily in the long term though.... if some sensible rational, competent and strong Palestinian leadership would offer real compromises involving a two state solution and if Netanyahu would still disagree ..... then I would be against Netanyahu. As it is, I am neither for him nor against him. I'll just trust the Israeli voters to make a sensible decision.

But what you are saying now is that even if Israel refused to talk and compromise, you would still blame the Palestinians.Really? Is that what I said? Perhaps you could read the bold part of what I said again? :rolleyes:

Hold on there Takeo! Netanyahu hasn't been the prime minister of Israel for a very long time now. So what was the Palestinians excuse for not stopping their violence and talking meaningfully about peace?

The ones who succeeded Netanyahu talked about peace, but did little to bring peace. Barak didn't want to talk to the Palestinian leadership, it was "take it or leave it"Barak made a very very generous offer to Arafat and Arafat responded with violence. End of story!

Sharon didn't want to talk as well, and rejected all Palestinian and Arab peace-proposals.He didn't want to talk while Arabs were trying to extort concessions by using violence which has been their usual tactic for nearly 100 years.

(and, unlike Barak, he was not pressured by Washington, ruled by G. W. Bush and his neocon cronies).So now you DO admit that Barak was pressured by Clinton? And who did Clinton blame for the failure of the Oslo peace talks? He blamed Arafat!

Reffo

02-05-2009, 02:58 PM

But it seems that even your Palestinian Arabs don't have respect for the UN. Otherwise they would have supported the two state solution which the UN voted in favour of, in 1948

But now most do support it, or give the intention that they will support it if Israel does as well. Without the UN framework there wouldn't have been any talks at all, not in Oslo, neverNo they don't! Hamas and Hezbollah don't.

It seems that hardly anyone takes any note of the UN. Have you seen any evidence that there is any reduction in war and violence around the world?

Compared to the situation before the creation of the UN, the situation has improved. No it hasn't! It only improved for those who have an automatic majority in the UN. For them, the UN serves as a useful tool and a mouthpiece for their propaganda and lies..

When was the last time that the UN prevented genocide? In Rwanda? In the Lebanese civil war? In Sudan? In Cambodia? In the Balkans?

The uN worked towards a peace-agreement between ....I repeat my question above!

That's a VERY bold statement! I don't agree!

Yes, but I think the UN is one of the reasons why the cold war didn't turn into a hot one...The trouble is that you don't think. WW3 didn't happen yet because of MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - But of course if people like you will prevail with your propaganda, the mad Mullahs will be allowed to gain time to build their own bombs and because they are irrational fanatics, MAD will not dissuade them from starting WW3. It's as simple as that Takeo.

And they [the UN] have been extremely ineffective...

Well, efforts are still continuing....How long has the UN been in existence now?

Reffo

02-05-2009, 03:45 PM

But he [Netanyahu] still went along with it, despite continuing violence by Hamas which Arafat refused to stop!

I think because he was pressured by the US. But he didn't like the two-state solution and did everything to boycott it.Doesn't matter why, he still went along with the two state solution. Now take Hamas: It seems that no amount of pressure by anyone can dissuade them from their stated goal of destroying Israel and create a single Islamofascist state in it's place.

Firstly: Because you embolden Arab rejectionists with your one sided propaganda.

It is not one-sided, you are one-sided....You use BLAME, DENIAL and IGNORING context, history and Arab wrong doings to demonize Israel as I will illustrate below using your own words:

what are you referring to? Not the Barak-proposal again I hope? Because we've been trough that...An example of how you IGNORE Israel's past efforts to reach a solution.

Yes, but Oslo failed, and not only because of Arab violence and incitement as I explained already at nauseam on this thread and elsewhere. By shifting BLAME on Israel. And IGNORING the fact that violence is the root cause of ALL the problems.

Because they see that Israel expanded their settlementsIGNORING your own principles that stated that there shouldn't be preconditions during the negotiations. But it seems that you ONLY want to apply that against Israel.

Because that's what propagandists, like you, tell them.IGNORING the stated Hamas goal to destroy Israel.

Still, according to polls (which are a bit outdated now)...The only reliable poll is the fact that Hamas was elected by the Palestinian Arabs, period! And no amount of DENIAL on your part will change that.

I thought that you said that neither side should set pre-conditions?

That's right. But Israel seems to set pre-conditions. It doesn't want to negociate under fire it says. But at the same time it expands settlements...Yep, it's too busy firing back and in fact Syria and the PA halted the negotiations because Israel dared to fire back in Gaza. See how you are SHIFTING THE BLAME, Takeo?

In any case, Israel has already showed that it is prepared to hand over land for peace. But only real peace!

The unilateral withdrawel of Gaza wasn't land for peace. And why did Israel continue to build new settlements and expand existing ones if they agree to the principle of land for peace?An example of your DENIAL again! And you are shifting BLAME too...

And is getting stronger as a reaction to continuous Hamas aggression. Why are you surprised?

Yes, but on the other side it's the same. The slaughter in Gaza will make Hamas and the radicals more popular and stronger.And another example of DENIAL of context by you. First there was violence by Hamas followed by a violent response from Israel, after years of restraint.

Is that Hamas's excuse? Because Likud's excuse is Hamas. The fact is that Likud did agree to the two state solution in the past but Hamas never did.

it didn't really agree, only to give in to American pressure...But it did give in! Did Hamas give in?

That's what YOU were saying. Didn't you call them [Hamas] "WARRIORS", Takeo?

Yes, or city guerillero's would be even more appropriate.OR..... violent cowardly buffoons would be the most appropriate :D

Because the Israeli military have their own code of conduct and it investigates it's own breaches when there are allegations. And in rare cases, if the allegations prove to be true, they discipline their own soldiers. That's what all western countries do. Why do you want Israelis to be different than the rest of the world?

Did you read the HRW text I posted? Israeli investigations are always flawed and cannot be trusted. In the same way you can't trust Hamas to prosecute its own members which committed crime of war.No kidding and those words were alleged by the UN NGOs who are themselves flawed? Here read this:

Also on Wednesday, Jerusalem-based watchdog NGO Monitor today released a report analyzing NGO coverage of the recent Gaza conflict. The report documents the over 500 statements released by over 50 NGOs in the month covering the fighting and its immediate aftermath.

NGO Monitor accused the groups behind the statements of devoting minimal attention to Israeli human rights and casualties, as well as the "consistent manipulation of international law by NGOs in their statements on Gaza."

In 2008 alone, they wrote, NGOs issued over 300 statements in condemnation of Israel's policy regarding Hamas-controlled Gaza. This contrasts with a handful of statements condemning over 6,500 rockets fired on Israel from Gaza since disengagement in 2005.

NGO Monitor's Executive Director, Prof. Gerald Steinberg commented, "The NGO campaign in the Gaza conflict further erodes what remains of the moral foundation and the universality of the human rights movement. The consistent attempt to demonize Israel in the media and in the courts while turning a blind eye to the illegal activities of Hamas demonstrates that many human rights groups have lost their moral compass."

Reffo

02-05-2009, 09:14 PM

Recognition is meaningless as are the words cease-fire and truce. They are utterly meaningless terms to Hamas. Recognition implies a legally binding stipulation. Which of course no one will bother trying to enforce on Hamas.

"I demand you believe in Santa Claus"

"OK I believe in Santa Claus, NOW can I stab you?" Well put :lol: However, I look at it this way: "Recognition" is a NECESSARY step for peace (even for a cold peace) but NOT a SUFFICIENT requirement. There have to be OTHER security guarantees too (I won't elaborate on those for now).

With "recognition" one could at least delude oneself that they REALLY do mean peace. Without it, we may as well hand them the gun (read land for nothing) to shoot us with ...

ItsMyJewty

02-06-2009, 03:20 AM

takeo: Which historic right? And why are my analogies more silly than yours?

I have made no anlogies - you have.

The Arab claim that their land has been ocupied by Jews is a lie. Israel has been the homeland of the Jewish people since biblical times. It was subsequently "occupied" more than 15 times.

Jews had dominion over the land of Israel for over 1,300 years and there has been a continual presence of Jews for over 3,300 years.

Over 90% of the Arabs migrated to Israel, only after Diaspora Jews returned to their homeland and built a modern state.

The Arabs, who call themselves "Palestinians", certainly deserve to live in a democratic state with a thriving economy, but none of them have a right to any part of G-d's Promised Land!

The Arabs need to accept this and move on. If they persist with their bogus claims it will only lead to pain and defeat. They are no doubt waiting for outside intervention from Iran. That will fail too. Israel already has plans to knock out their nuclear facilities.:)

Mediocrates

02-06-2009, 05:49 AM

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20090206.aspx

Madeline

02-06-2009, 04:32 PM

The Gaza War in Review

Dear HonestReporting Subscriber,

Israel's Operation Cast Lead dominated the newspapers, airwaves and internet for its duration, with the aftermath still generating headlines and opinion. It is extremely important to expose those cases where the story became agenda-driven or when the media simply got it wrong. This has been graphically illustrated by an about-turn by the UN.

One of the most serious and damaging episodes for Israel during the Gaza conflict centered around charges, amplified by UN spokespeople, that Israel had deliberately targeted a UN school compound, killing 43 civilians sheltering there.

HonestReporting highlighted the Canadian Globe and Mail's investigation that concluded that the school itself was not shelled.

Following the publicity generated by the Globe and Mail report, the UN has been forced to admit that its initial claims were false. According to Ha'aretz:

It seems that the UN has been under pressure to put the record straight after doubts arose that the school had actually been targeted. Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Jerusalem, said Monday that the IDF mortar shells fell in the street near the compound, and not on the compound itself.

Gaylord said that the UN "would like to clarify that the shelling and all of the fatalities took place outside and not inside the school."

As commentator Andrew Bolt writes in response:

But it seems the real story is that 43 people, including at least two Hamas militants, were killed when Israel returned fire from Hamas mortars launched from among a crowd in the street.

You might still not like what occurred. But it is very, very different to what was so widely alleged, and far more forgivable.

And after the earlier evidence of the media repeating pro-Hamas propaganda and gross exaggerations of the death toll in Gaza, especially among civilians, we need to ask again: how much can we trust the coverage of journalists and welfare groups reporting from territory run by terrorists?

We are sure that the truth behind many disputed stories is yet to emerge from Gaza. In the meantime the campaign to set the record straight in the media continues. HonestReporting takes a look back at some of the worst cases of anti-Israel media bias that came to light during the Gaza crisis.........

Madeline

02-06-2009, 04:33 PM

MADS GILBERT: PROPAGANDA DOCTOR

Portrayed as the epitome of courage under fire, Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert appeared on television screens around the world and in the pages of many newspapers, including the BBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, AFP, Independent, Sky News, and New York Times.

Working at Gaza's Shifa Hospital, Gilbert tells news organizations of the "horrors" inflicted by Israel, including unproven accusations that "Gaza is now being used as a test laboratory for new weapons."

But was Gilbert a neutral and objective observer? What the media didn't tell you was his involvement in solidarity work with Palestinians since the 1970s and his membership of the hard-left Norwegian communist party RÃ¸d Valgallianse, which disbanded in 2007. He has criticized international aid organization Doctors Without Borders for refusing to take sides in conflicts. Dr Gilbert is employed by NORWAC, whose partner organisations include Hezbollah's Martyr Foundation.

Asked by the Norwegian daily, Dagbladet, if he supported the 9/11 attacks, he said: "Terror is a bad weapon but the answer is yes."

See HonestReporting's communique for more on Mads Gilbert.

MORE UNRELIABLE SOURCES

Gilbert wasn't the only less than objective source being used by the media. As Melanie Phillips wrote:

the [Daily] Telegraph carried this story on its foreign news pages by Ewa Jasiewicz, reporting from Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza. It was exclusively about the suffering of civilians and children under bombardment by Israeli air strikes. It made no reference to any Hamas terrorists in the camp. Readers were given no indication that Ewa Jasiewicz was anything other than an objective reporter.

Yet the very next day, she appeared again in the Telegraph's foreign news pages -- but this time being interviewed by Tim Butcher as an 'activist originally from Kingston, Surrey' and the principal source of his story about two children being killed by a bomb from an Israeli warplane, an event which she claimed to have witnessed.

Indeed, Ms Jasiewicz is not a regular reporter at all. She is a highly partisan, deeply committed, experienced anti-Israeli International Solidarity Movement activist. She is an active player on the side of the Palestinians who are committing acts of terror against the Israelis -- which she would describe as legitimate and justified 'resistance'. Nor was this something she had hidden. Indeed, the web is heaving with examples of her hatred of Israel. Here she is in the Guardian spraying around claims that Israel was racist, that its democracy was a myth and that it deliberately targeted Palestinian civilians and activists for slaughter. Here is the statement she made after she was detained at Ben Gurion airport on 31 August 2004 by the Israeli authorities and told that she could not speak to the media, in which she justified Palestinian terrorism as

a liberation struggle â€“ and a struggle of an occupied people that is thus justified under international law.

Read Melanie's full post here.
....

Madeline

02-06-2009, 04:34 PM

CNN'S STAGED VIDEO?

Mads Gilbert also appeared in a CNN report, whose authenticity a number of bloggers questioned. Was the CPR being performed on a child staged for the cameras? Little Green Footballs and other blogs thought so with one LGF reader commenting:

I'm no military expert, but I am a doctor, and this video is bullsh-t. The chest compressions that were being performed at the beginning of this video were absolutely, positively fake. The large man in the white coat was NOT performing CPR on that child. He was just sort of tapping on the child's sternum a little bit with his fingers. You can't make blood flow like that. Furthermore, there's no point in doing chest compressions if you're not also ventilating the patient somehow. In this video, I can't tell for sure if the patient has an endotracheal tube in place, but you can see that there is nobody bag-ventilating him (a bag is actually hanging by the head of the bed), and there is no ventilator attached to the patient. In a hospital, during a code on a ventilated patient, somebody would probably be bagging the patient during the chest compressions. And they also would have moved the bed away from the wall, so that somebody could get back there to intubate the patient and/or bag him. In short, the "resuscitation scene" at the beginning is fake, and it's a pretty lame fake at that.

Such was the concern at CNN that the video was removed (although it currently exists on the archive).

FRANCE 2 APOLOGIZES FOR USING OLD FOOTAGE

France's public broadcaster, the station that produced the original Mohammed al-Dura footage, was forced to apologize to viewers after it mistakenly used amateur footage shot in 2005 to illustrate a report on the current Gaza conflict.

France 2 television broadcast part of an amateur video presented in a voiceover commentary as showing the fallout from an Israeli air strike on a civilian area in Gaza on January 1. Dating from September 2005, the video, which has been widely circulated on the Internet, actually shows civilians wounded in the accidental explosion of a pick-up truck loaded with Hamas rockets at a rally in Jabaliya refugee camp. Alerted by the French website LePost.fr, France 2 admitted its mistake and made a formal apology to viewers in its midday news broadcast.

"It is an error on our behalf. There was an internal malfunction in the checking of information," a France 2 executive told AFP. France 2's head of news reporting, Etienne Leenhardt, told LePost.fr that the sequence was "intended to illustrate the war of images on the Internet. The people who put it together worked too fast".

AUSTRALIAN PAPER APOLOGIZES FOR ANTI-SEMITIC OP-ED

Melbourne's daily paper, The Age, has apologized for publishing Michael Backman's commentary (subsequently removed from both his and The Age's websites), "Israel living high on US expense account. No apology online, but Caroline Overington quotes from the print edition:

A column by Michael Backman headlined "Israel living high on US expense account" was published in error. The Age does not in any way endorse the views of the columnist, apologises for the distress the column caused to many readers, particularly in the Jewish community and regrets publication of the column.

The column included some outrageous statements:

But Israel's utter inability to transform the Palestinians from enemies into friends has imposed big costs on us all. We have paid for Israel's failure with bombs on London public transport, bombs in bars in Bali, and even the loss of the World Trade Centre towers in New York.

It is not true that these outrages have occurred because certain Islamic fundamentalists don't like Western lifestyles and so plant bombs in response. Rather, it is Israel - or more correctly the treatment of the Palestinians - that is at the nub of these events....

Trekking in Nepal is fashionable among young Israelis.... But once you get on the trekking circuit and speak with local Nepalese guides and guesthouse operators you soon discover how disliked the Israelis are.... Rather, they say that the young Israelis are rude, arrogant, and argue over trifling amounts of money even though they clearly have means.
...........

Madeline

02-06-2009, 04:35 PM

FRANCE 2 APOLOGIZES FOR USING OLD FOOTAGE

France's public broadcaster, the station that produced the original Mohammed al-Dura footage, was forced to apologize to viewers after it mistakenly used amateur footage shot in 2005 to illustrate a report on the current Gaza conflict.

France 2 television broadcast part of an amateur video presented in a voiceover commentary as showing the fallout from an Israeli air strike on a civilian area in Gaza on January 1. Dating from September 2005, the video, which has been widely circulated on the Internet, actually shows civilians wounded in the accidental explosion of a pick-up truck loaded with Hamas rockets at a rally in Jabaliya refugee camp. Alerted by the French website LePost.fr, France 2 admitted its mistake and made a formal apology to viewers in its midday news broadcast.

"It is an error on our behalf. There was an internal malfunction in the checking of information," a France 2 executive told AFP. France 2's head of news reporting, Etienne Leenhardt, told LePost.fr that the sequence was "intended to illustrate the war of images on the Internet. The people who put it together worked too fast".

AUSTRALIAN PAPER APOLOGIZES FOR ANTI-SEMITIC OP-ED

Melbourne's daily paper, The Age, has apologized for publishing Michael Backman's commentary (subsequently removed from both his and The Age's websites), "Israel living high on US expense account. No apology online, but Caroline Overington quotes from the print edition:

A column by Michael Backman headlined "Israel living high on US expense account" was published in error. The Age does not in any way endorse the views of the columnist, apologises for the distress the column caused to many readers, particularly in the Jewish community and regrets publication of the column.

The column included some outrageous statements:

But Israel's utter inability to transform the Palestinians from enemies into friends has imposed big costs on us all. We have paid for Israel's failure with bombs on London public transport, bombs in bars in Bali, and even the loss of the World Trade Centre towers in New York.

It is not true that these outrages have occurred because certain Islamic fundamentalists don't like Western lifestyles and so plant bombs in response. Rather, it is Israel - or more correctly the treatment of the Palestinians - that is at the nub of these events....

Trekking in Nepal is fashionable among young Israelis.... But once you get on the trekking circuit and speak with local Nepalese guides and guesthouse operators you soon discover how disliked the Israelis are.... Rather, they say that the young Israelis are rude, arrogant, and argue over trifling amounts of money even though they clearly have means.

HAMAS OP-EDS: GIVING A VOICE TO TERRORISTS

We've previously questioned the morality and legality of giving the oxygen of op-ed space to terrorist organizations, as Hamas leaders have appeared on the pages of, amongst others, the New York Times, Washington Post and LA Times.

This trend was repeated during the Gaza conflict as Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal was given a voice by The Guardian (republished in Australia's The Age). Presumably in an effort to portray "balance", both papers also published a piece at the same time by Israeli MK Shai Hermesh, thus creating a false moral equivalence between the Israeli politician and the Hamas terror leader.

Meanwhile, Hamas's Mousa Abu Marzouk appeared in the LA Times while Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh got his opportunity in The Independent, which bizarrely decided to give a posthumous platform to Yasser Arafat, reprinting the PLO leader's November 1974 speech to the UN.

LAUDING A DEAD TERRORIST

Prominent Hamas terror leader Nizar Rayyan, killed by Israel on 1 January, would have enjoyed reading his own glowing obituary in The Guardian, which categorized him as a "political leader" and described him as "a man of the street... He was famed for fighting alongside his men and being seen with them publicly. And he was not merely a fighter. He was highly regarded as an Islamic academic."

Given less prominence in his obituary - how Rayyan was responsible for a series of suicide bombings and attacks inside the Green Line, including the suicide bombing in Ashdod Port in 2004 in which 10 Israelis died. In a shocking illustration of his evil nature, Rayyan even sent one of his sons to carry out a suicide attack in Gush Katif's Elei Sinai in 2001. Two Israelis were killed.

HATE SPEECH ON BBC ARABIC TV

Dr Kamal El-Helbawy, the founder of the Muslim Association of Britain, appeared to justify the targeting of Israeli children. Telling a discussion program that, while he condemned the killing of civilians, he believed all Israeli children were "future soldiers". He said: "A child born in Israel is raised on the belief that the Arabs are like contemptible sheep.

"In elementary school they pose the following math problem - 'In your village, there are 100 Arabs. If you killed 40, how many Arabs would be left for you to kill?'. This is taught in the Israeli curriculum."

The BBC, referring to the school libel, admitted an error had been made.
........

Madeline

02-06-2009, 04:36 PM

ABUSING THE HOLOCAUST

Comparing Israel to the Nazis or attempting to draw false parallels with the deliberate genocide of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust is a tactic regularly deployed by anti-Israel activists despite being classified as anti-Semitism under the EU's own working definition.

Nonetheless, many supposedly mainstream media and commentators saw no problem with resorting to Holocaust imagery to make a point. The Independent's Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, for example, asked: "How many Palestinian Anne Franks did the Israelis murder, maim or turn mad?" while Time Magazine's front cover of a Star of David behind a wall and barbed wire, made it impossible to ignore the parallel between Israel's actions in Gaza and the Nazi Holocaust - a false association employed by those who seek to delegitimize Israel.

Toronto Sun columnist Eric Margolis wrote on his personal website: "It now seems clear the last disastrous act of the Bush administration was giving Israel a green light to launch its final solution campaign against the Hamas government in Gaza." This prompted a protest from HonestReporting Canada who called for the Sun to reconsider keeping Margolis on as a columnist.

As the fog of war recedes and the clearer picture begins to emerge, HonestReporting, with your help, will continue to expose cases of anti-Israel media bias to set the record straight.

HonestReporting. com

takeo

02-12-2009, 06:22 PM

There you go again with your repetitive canard :rolleyes:

The following statements, from your own source, put the REAL perspective...

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

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.
Salah Bardawil, head of Hamas's parliamentary faction, told Haaretz that after
checking with Meshal, it seems to be that his words were twisted and
distorted.
"He didn't speak about any recognition of Israel, only a cease-fire with
Israel," Bardawil said.

Seems like Hamas Double talk to me ..... they say one thing from the corner of their mouth and then a diametrically opposite thing from the other corner of their mouth :rolleyes:

Yes, and that's what Netanyahu does as well. He says he wants peace, but his party's charter says that all of the land between Jordan river and sea should be Israel... :scratch:

The difference is that some Hamas leaders said peace with and recognition of Israel could be possible, on a few conditions.

Madeline

02-12-2009, 06:30 PM

Yes, and that's what Netanyahu does as well. He says he wants peace, but his party's charter says that all of the land between Jordan river and sea should be Israel... :scratch:

The difference is that some Hamas leaders said peace with and recognition of Israel could be possible, on a few conditions.

Ah, and he is right. What a concept, what a guy. It's hard to deal with the truth, we know. Don't even start.

takeo

02-12-2009, 06:30 PM

Are you really this obtuse? Or are you just pretending, Takeo? :D

"Israel withdraws": Do you understand the logistics of that? I'll give you a clue: It'll take more than 5 seconds .... or 5 days ..... or even 5 weeks....

And only then, at the end of that process would a Palestinian state be established. And didn't your Mashal say that maybe, AFTER a palestinian state would be established, maybe then they might consider recognizing Israel?

So you see, Takeo? It CANNOT be done at the same time. And therefore, my original question stands: Do you think that half utterance about recognition would be acceptable from Israel's point of view, to first give up land, and then, maybe get recognition?

No, once a deal is signed, including Palestinian and Arab recognition of Israel, it means there's a Palestinian state recognised by Israel and the world, with fixed established internationall yrecognised borders that can't be changed. (UNLIKE oslo) This can happen BEFORE physically the Israeli withdrawel behind the green line is completed. Once the deal signed Israel won't have any other choice but to withdraw from this new state. That's the big difference with Oslo where everything was up to interpretation.

But of course Netanyahu nor Liebermann will ever sign such a peacedeal, since they don't want to give up the occupied territories forever. If in power they will try to play games with the international community, as Netanyahu did in the past, maybe withdraw from one city or a village to soften American pressure, but will never recognise a Palestinian state or sign any deal that forces them to withdraw once and forever.

takeo

02-12-2009, 06:45 PM

Reffo

Barak made a very very generous offer to Arafat and Arafat responded with violence. End of story!

Not end of story. That's your interpretation disputed by many other sources.
It wasn't a generous offer, and it certainly wasn't a negociated peacedeal.
Arafat agreed to other offers (regarded as generous in the Arab world) which were rejected by Israel.
So perhaps if we take both the Saudi and the Barak proposal as a base for further negociation and compromise, for a start, and try to find a common ground, that might be a good beginning. However, if you look at the election results, both in Israel and in Palestine, it's not very likely that this is going to happen, that reason will prevail. It will need an awful lot of international pressure to get both parties to compromise. I also saw some very worrying images on television of Israeli youth screaming "death to all Arabs" and "no filthy Arabs in the Holy land". If anyone would scream "death to all Jews" in France he will be prosecuted. But apparently in Israel open racism and nazism possible, and nazi parties are even considered potential coalition partners by both Kadima and Likud... I know you will only blame "the Arabs" and hamas for everything... even for ultra-racism in Israel...

He didn't want to talk while Arabs were trying to extort concessions by using violence which has been their usual tactic for nearly 100 years.

Israel is using violence too, in fact occupation is an act of war. So you think Palestinians shouldn't talk as long as occupation continues?

So now you DO admit that Barak was pressured by Clinton? And who did Clinton blame for the failure of the Oslo peace talks? [B]He blamed Arafat![

Yes, but not openly. The palestinians on the contrary were openly pressured. And of course he blamed Arafat, since Clinton and Barak talked trough this plan before presenting it to Arafat. But as the American diplomat which I quoted on this thread explained, this is part of the reason why it failed.

takeo

02-12-2009, 07:01 PM

Reffo

No they don't! Hamas and Hezbollah don't.

There are several indications that Hamas leaders want to recognise Israel on a few conditions, they even said so openly. However, the parties which won elections in Israel DON'T want a two-state solution, under any circumstances.

No it hasn't! It only improved for those who have an automatic majority in the UN. For them, the UN serves as a useful tool and a mouthpiece for their propaganda and lies..

Of course it has. We had two major worldwars in the first half of the 20th century and none since the second half.... eventough the world didn't lack any ideological or economical polarisation. Both friends of the Arab countries and friends of Israel are permanent member of the UNSC. So what do you want, an international body which only represents Israel, Australia and the US? Or no international body at all, which means a return to the situation before WWII. Which means the military stronger nations can do as they please and terrorise or colonise weaker countries without international laws to restrain them. (Japan, Nazi-Germany, the colonial powers in Europe, the US in Latin America, the 19th century "big game", opium-war with China, etc.) I think that's really what you want, as well as the neo-cons in the US.

But of course if people like you will prevail with your propaganda, the mad Mullahs will be allowed to gain time to build their own bombs and because they are irrational fanatics, MAD will not dissuade them from starting WW3. It's as simple as that Takeo.

How do you know? Even the mollahs aren't self-destructive, and certainly not more radical than Pakistan. The only country which ever used a nuclear bomb was the US. Stalin didn't use nukes during the war in Korea, Mao didn't use his nukes either, and you can hardly say that these were moderates. Actually the only calls for using nukes during the cold war, to defy communism, came from radical US-politicians.

How long has the UN been in existence now?

Long, and as I demonstrated they have ended or prevented quite a few civil and other wars. Not all, but a lot. They have also, in more than one occasion, guared international law. Indonesia was forced to withdraw from East-Timor for example. They couldn't force Israel to respec international law, because Israel has mightly friends in the UNSC.

takeo

02-12-2009, 07:46 PM

Reffo

Doesn't matter why, he still went along with the two state solution.

not really, he withdrew from some parts, but never recognised a palestinian state or respected the agreed upon timetable, as has been agreed upon during Oslo. He was playing games with the international community.

Now take Hamas: It seems that no amount of pressure by anyone can dissuade them from their stated goal of destroying Israel and create a single Islamofascist state in it's place.

At nauseam: Different Hamas leaders said they are willing to recognise Israel.
Now I'm willing to see any link to Netanyahu or Lieberman saying that they are willing to recognise Palestine...

You use BLAME, DENIAL and IGNORING context, history and Arab wrong doings to demonize Israel as I will illustrate below using your own words:

You use blame, denial and ignoring context, history and Israel wrongdoings to demonise Palestinians. All the time you're doing this. "the Arabs are to blame" "the Arabs are to blame", "Israel did this in response to Arab wrongdoings" etc. ALL THE TIME.

An example of how you IGNORE Israel's past efforts to reach a solution.

i didn't ignore the Barak-peace proposal, we discussed it. YOU ignored the many calls of Arafat to talks, the recognition of Israel by Arafat and Fatah, the Saudi-peace proposal etc.
What I said is that the Barak-proposal wasn't good enough, as were the Arab and Palestinian gestures.

By shifting BLAME on Israel. And IGNORING the fact that violence is the root cause of ALL the problems.

Violence is not the root cause of all the problems. Actually the problem started with zionism itself, establishing a foreign entity in an already inhabited area. You said yourself you wouldn't accept that in Australia to happen.
Even the early zionists never spoke of a country shared with the Arabs inhabiting the area, what they wanted was a JEWISH STATE in the Holy land.
Than Arabs made a big mistake by not recognising the partition plan, which was a reasonable solution to the problem created by zionism, and Israel made a big mistake by ethnically cleansing most palestinians in 1948, and by occupying and colonising Westbank, Eastern Jerusalem and Gaza in 1967. The violence was a RESULT of these mistakes.
Today the biggest obstacles to peace are the ones, on both sides, who don't want to share the land and don't want a two-state solution. Violence is a normal response to occupation.

IGNORING your own principles that stated that there shouldn't be preconditions during the negotiations. But it seems that you ONLY want to apply that against Israel.

There shouldn't be any preconditions, on the condition that Israel doesn't want preconditions either (but Israel DOES have preconditions)

IGNORING the stated Hamas goal to destroy Israel.

Ignoring the official inclusion of Westbank and Eastern Jerusalem in Israel, untill today, 16 years after Oslo was signed. Ignoring the stated goal of Eretz Israel by Israel's second and third biggest party.

The only reliable poll is the fact that Hamas was elected by the Palestinian Arabs, period! And no amount of DENIAL on your part will change that.

Yes, but equally so the majority of Israeli voted for parties which DON'T want a two-state solution or peace with the Arabs. So, does it mean the majority in Israeli don't want peace? I don't think so.

Yep, it's too busy firing back and in fact Syria and the PA halted the negotiations because Israel dared to fire back in Gaza. See how you are SHIFTING THE BLAME, Takeo?

Not because Israel fired back, but because Israel destroyed half of Gaza and killed over 1000 people, in response to a few home-made rockets which only killed a few people. Also take notice that neither the PA nor Hezbollah fired any rockets into Israel, despite the massacre in Gaza. Of course if Netanyahu comes to power, and shuts all peace negociations, Palestinians will and SHOULD target Israel. Occupation means war. And without peace-negociations the war goes on. Right?

And another example of DENIAL of context by you. First there was violence by Hamas followed by a violent response from Israel, after years of restraint.

What restraint? You mean the blockade, which is an act of war according to you? Or the attack against defensive (even according to an IDF source) positions of Hamas in november, killing 5 Hamas memebers?

And even if you're right that Hamas provoked Israel, was it the right response to destroy half of Gaza, do you really think that will soften the palestinians and will make Hamas less popular? Of course, Hamas rockets increased extremism in Israel, but vice versa as well. Neither side showed any restraint(except of course Abbas), and continue their silly but deadly macho behavior. "What you punched me in the stomach? Wait, let me take my knife and cut your troat!"

And in the meanwhile Israel CONTINUED settlements expansion, in clear violation of several UNSC-resolutions. You say it's a reaction to palestinian violence, but how? In the 70's there wasn't much violence in the occupied territories, nor in the '80's, yet at these times colonisation went ahead at full speed. It slowed down during the first Intifadeh, and than continued at full speed during the '90's... Even now it's continuing, altough there hasn't been any significant violence in the Westbank for a long time... in French we say "les excuses sont faits pour s'en servir"...

But it did give in! Did Hamas give in?

It didn't, I clearly showed you the Likud charter.

OR..... violent cowardly buffoons would be the most appropriate :D

And how would you call IDF? "peacebringing considerate doves" :rolleyes: you're so very biased.

No kidding and those words were alleged by the UN NGOs who are themselves flawed? Here read this:

Human rights watch is affiliated to the Soros-foundation, are you suggesting that Soros is part of a gigantic anti-semitic plot? According to the Kremlin and other countries Soros (and HRW) is part of a giant zionistic-American plot...

[indent][i]Also on Wednesday, Jerusalem-based watchdog NGO Monitor today released a report analyzing NGO coverage of the recent Gaza conflict. The report documents the over 500 statements released by over 50 NGOs in the month covering the fighting and its immediate aftermath.

NGO Monitor accused the groups behind the statements of devoting minimal attention to Israeli human rights and casualties, as well as the "consistent manipulation of international law by NGOs in their statements on Gaza."

In 2008 alone, they wrote, NGOs issued over 300 statements in condemnation of Israel's policy regarding Hamas-controlled Gaza. This contrasts with a handful of statements condemning over 6,500 rockets fired on Israel from Gaza since disengagement in 2005.

What nonsense, NGO Monitor is itself biased at hell. I repeat: is Soros anti-semitic or anti-Israel?
The handful of rockets got less attention of NGO's because they caused far less civilian victims, can't you get that it your head? Nevertheless nearly all NGO's criticised Hamas as well. It seems the real problem is that they criticised Israel, which is always unacceptable to you and your kind.

bararallu

02-12-2009, 07:48 PM

Actually the problem started with zionism itself

"Next Year in Jerusalem" is written in my siddur.... so the Jews are the problem, do you have a solution for us?

wat0n

02-12-2009, 07:57 PM

There are several indications that Hamas leaders want to recognise Israel on a few conditions, they even said so openly. However, the parties which won elections in Israel DON'T want a two-state solution, under any circumstances.

Really? Well, then Hamas leaders should stop boycotting the ongoing negotiations between Israel and the PA and form a unity gov't with the latter so both sides can start talking seriously about peace.

But they haven't done this, so all these declarations are BS at least for now.

If they had done that a year ago, Israelis may have actually voted for a center-left majority in the Knesset.

takeo

02-12-2009, 07:58 PM

Well put :lol: However, I look at it this way: "Recognition" is a NECESSARY step for peace (even for a cold peace) but NOT a SUFFICIENT requirement. There have to be OTHER security guarantees too (I won't elaborate on those for now).

With "recognition" one could at least delude oneself that they REALLY do mean peace. Without it, we may as well hand them the gun (read land for nothing) to shoot us with ...

I agree mutual recognition is necessary. This means that an Israeli government including Lieberman or Netanyahu is unable and unwlling to sign any peace-treaty, unless both change their charter and program.

You say "other security garantees". OK, what are you referrign to? And what are the security garantees the palestinians will get?
I think the only security garantee for both parties is a credible international force stationed on the green line. You see that in Lebanon it helped to prevent Hezbollah and Lebanon to get involved in the latest war.
It means this international force should have the force to attack any violator, both Israeli or Palestinian.

takeo

02-12-2009, 08:19 PM

ItsMyJewty

Some people say that only the Arabs are the extremists, than I direct them to this site to find some fine examples of Israeli or pro-Israeli extremists...

I have made no anlogies - you have.

They are analogical to your reasoning. If having a state 1000's years ago in the area is a legitimate reason for occupation, than Arabs have the right to claim Spain, among many other analogies.

The Arab claim that their land has been ocupied by Jews is a lie. Israel has been the homeland of the Jewish people since biblical times. It was subsequently "occupied" more than 15 times.

It wasn't the homeland of Jews as long as there wasn't a Jewish majority living there. It means it wasn't the Jewish homeland for 1000's of years. You can say that there are gypsies living in Romania, but Romania isn't the homeland of the gypsies.

Jews had dominion over the land of Israel for over 1,300 years and there has been a continual presence of Jews for over 3,300 years.

That's right, and there has been a continual presence of Arabs for over at least 1300 years, and most probably much longer. There has been a continual presence of Jews in France for over 2000 years, there has been a continual presence of latino's in the US since its independence, etc. etc. etc. etc.
So what?

Over 90% of the Arabs migrated to Israel, only after Diaspora Jews returned to their homeland and built a modern state.

That's a myth and history falsification, which has been disproved many times, even by most Israeli historians. In the 19th century and untill 1948 Arabspeaking people were the majority and owned the majority of arable land.

The Arabs, who call themselves "Palestinians", certainly deserve to live in a democratic state with a thriving economy, but none of them have a right to any part of G-d's Promised Land!

What you are saying is pure racism and a call for ethnic cleansing! If you say this in public you will and should be prosecuted for racism. Extremists and religious nuts like you, who reject the two-state solution and the right of Palestinians to live in the land where they continuously lived since many generations, are part of the problem.
Actually according to the new testament this land belongs to the christians, so if they maintain the same logic as you there should be another crusade!

The Arabs need to accept this and move on.

not a single people on earth would accept to be ethnically cleansed from the land where they lived since many centuries. They have the right to resist this fascism.

If they persist with their bogus claims it will only lead to pain and defeat.

If you persist with your fascist policy which denies the palestinians their rights, it will lead to a lot of pain and blood ON BOTH SIDES. The fascist policy of Hitler hurt the German people as well AND it didn't succeed.

They are no doubt waiting for outside intervention from Iran. That will fail too. Israel already has plans to knock out their nuclear facilities.:)

No, no need to. They have enough friends. If Israel would ever attempt genocide or massive ethnic cleansing, that would mean the end of Israel as well, and it would never be accepted by the outside world, of which Israel depends for its survival.
There will only be peace if Israel accepts a two-state solution, the only alternative is eternal war and bloodshet.

takeo

02-12-2009, 08:24 PM

Ah, and he is right. What a concept, what a guy. It's hard to deal with the truth, we know. Don't even start.

Finally your true colors. You are blaming the Arabs for everything, but as it turns out you DON'T want peace, compromise or a two-state solution AT ALL. Which means you belong to the people Rabin called "ennemies of peace".
I want peace and a two-state solution, you don't, you want eternal occupation and colonisation, no peace at any circumstances, and I also presume you want ethnic cleansing.

Yes, things are becoming clear now after the elections. Somehow I hope that Netanyahu will become the next prime minister in coalition with other anti-peace parties, and that Abbas can retake controll in Gaza and continues his peaceful approach and calls for a negociated solution. Than the situation will become clear for the entire world, who is the good guy and who's the bad guy, and than finally Israel will enjoy the same international status as the South-African Apartheidsregime it truly deserves.

takeo

02-12-2009, 08:36 PM

"Next Year in Jerusalem" is written in my siddur.... so the Jews are the problem, do you have a solution for us?

The Jews are not the problem, nor are the Arabs. The problem is originally caused by an ideology called zionism, an ideology not embraced by all Jews. It's ideology which has its roots in 19th century nationalism which claims that each nation should be ethnically based and that one ethnical group should rule the country and exclude other ethnical groups, just like fascism and nazism. "One nation, one people, one blood, one ground"

But nowadays there is an israeli people and they can't go and don't want to go anywhere else, because of zionism, antisemitism and nazism. This is a reality. Another reality is that there is a Palestinian people and they can't go and don't want to go anywhere else, because they live there since many centuries and are, like most Jews, not welcome anywhere else. So the only reasonable solution is a two-state solution. The Israeli left wants it, the palestinian president wants it, the international community wants it, but extremists like Netanyahu and Lieberman don't want it.

takeo

02-12-2009, 08:41 PM

Really? Well, then Hamas leaders should stop boycotting the ongoing negotiations between Israel and the PA and form a unity gov't with the latter so both sides can start talking seriously about peace.

But they haven't done this, so all these declarations are BS at least for now.

If they had done that a year ago, Israelis may have actually voted for a center-left majority in the Knesset.

I agree, Hamas is certainly to blame as well. They and Netanyahu/Lieberman are two sides of the same coin.

bararallu

02-12-2009, 08:47 PM

The Jews are not the problem, nor are the Arabs. The problem is originally caused by an ideology called zionism, an ideology not embraced by all Jews.

The Jews began with Zionism. The Jews exist because of Zionism. Judaism is founded in Zionism. Jewish secular nationalism and self definition is founded and perpetuated in Zionism. At least for people who focus on 3/4ths of their stated genealogy, and disregard their little red book. That is why most of the world's Jews support Zionism. And so called Jews like you are not part of our future for sure.

takeo

02-12-2009, 09:41 PM

bararallu

The Jews began with Zionism. The Jews exist because of Zionism. Judaism is founded in Zionism.

:scratch: I tought zionism was created in the 19th century by Herzl...

Jewish secular nationalism and self definition is founded and perpetuated in Zionism.

What about the Bund? I don't think nationalism is necessarily good, neither French nor Russian nor Jewish. Actually Jews have been many times victim of nationalism. That's one of the reasons why so many embraced marxism.

At least for people who focus on 3/4ths of their stated genealogy, and disregard their little red book. That is why most of the world's Jews support Zionism. And so called Jews like you are not part of our future for sure.

Most Jews, wether in France, Argentina, South-Africa, Russia or the US, are part of the society they belong to. Many, if not most, are married to non-Jews. That's the truth. And Israeli are Israeli, and have not necessarily a lot in common with your average American or Russian Jew. Israel evolved into another society, different from everything else, with a lot of middle Eastern influence, like it or not. Russian Jews are first of all Russian, and even in Israel or the US many continue to speak only Russian, and have great difficulties adapting to life in Israel or the US. (I said many, not all) Eventually, they will become respectively Americans or Israeli, but it will take a generation at least.

wat0n

02-12-2009, 09:57 PM

What about the Bund? I don't think nationalism is necessarily good, neither French nor Russian nor Jewish. Actually Jews have been many times victim of nationalism. That's one of the reasons why so many embraced marxism.

I'd say that rather than saying that 'nationalism' is bad, the right thing to say is that 'extreme nationalism' (ie chauvinism) is bad.

Recognizing that there are different nations is not bad, it's just recognizing reality. The bad thing are to discriminate anyone for being of another nation (wether it's an specific one or all of them) and to belive that any nation (usually one's) is superior to the others. Another bad thing is economic nationalism (which is related to this).

Most Jews, wether in France, Argentina, South-Africa, Russia or the US, are only Jew in name. Many, if not most, are married to non-Jews. That's the truth. And Israeli are Israeli, and have not necessarily a lot in common with your average American or Russian Jew.

So? I'm not getting your point, I'm myself son of an inter-marriage and yet I don't think that *NOT* living in a bubble (for not saying auto-imposed ghetto) will suddenly null my, or any other Jew's, cultural background.

In fact, I'm not really close to the Chilean Jewish community. I don't really like it, and the vast majority of my friends aren't Jewish.

PS: Fixed ;)

CanDo

02-12-2009, 10:59 PM

Yes, and that's what Netanyahu does as well. He says he wants peace, but his party's charter says that all of the land between Jordan river and sea should be Israel... :scratch:

And..... why not? Why should the backward, violent, religiously intolerant, racist Arabs rule over ALL of the land of the Middle East. The Arabs/Muslims have created awful, backward states, ruled mostly by clans and dictators; among the lowest standards of living in the world.

Jews, OTOH, with few resources other than their advanced, civilized culture, have created a modern, civilized model of democracy, virtually out of the desert. In the meantime, the uncivilized, barbaric Arabs/Muslims have lived by violence and hatred over the same period of time.

I would think that "thinking" individuals would want more civilized democracies in this world, not more uncivilized, brutal, hateful Arab dictatorships.

The more land that Israel can turn from desert into farmland; and from brutal, barbaric Arab run shitholes into democracy, the better it is for the free world. This world is losing too much ground to despots, like those who run the Arab/Muslim countries.

From the Jewish Virtual Library:

The boundaries of Middle East countries were arbitrarily fixed by the Western powers after Turkey was defeated in World War I and the French and British mandates were set up. The areas allotted to Israel under the UN partition plan had all been under the control of the Ottomans, who had ruled Palestine from 1517 until 1917.

When Turkey was defeated in World War I, the French took over the area now known as Lebanon and Syria. The British assumed control of Palestine and Iraq. In 1926, the borders were redrawn and Lebanon was separated from Syria.

Britain installed the Emir Faisal, who had been deposed by the French in Syria, as ruler of the new kingdom of Iraq. In 1922, the British created the emirate of Transjordan, which incorporated all of Palestine east of the Jordan River. This was done so that the Emir Abdullah, whose family had been defeated in tribal warfare in the Arabian peninsula, would have a Kingdom to rule. None of the countries that border Israel became independent until the Twentieth Century. Many other Arab nations became independent after Israel.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/Boundaries.html#i1

The difference is that some Hamas leaders said peace with and recognition of Israel could be possible, on a few conditions.

You sound like a lapdog for the Hamas terrorist group. You judge Hamas, not by their actions of the past decades, but by their words, words that have always proved to be full over lies. These brutal killers utter something and takeo froths at the mouth, and jumps up and down in excitement.

You can't be that stupid to believe everything that you hear from these brutal, murdering, racist thugs, can you?

Reffo

02-12-2009, 11:26 PM

Does anyone else get the feeling that Takeo's bladder was full and he came back here to relieve himself? :lol:

OK, Takeo, I'll fill your bladder up again so that you'll be able to repeat your tripe ad nauseum. I told you, I will respond to your posts even if I too have to repeat myself ad nauseum. Hold onto your hat Takeo ..... here I come :D

CanDo

02-12-2009, 11:31 PM

... OK, Takeo, I'll fill your bladder up again so that you'll be able to repeat your tripe ad nauseum. ...

takeo will never listen or absorb anything but his own tripe. His position is very clear that it is far better to have larger areas of backward, uncivilized, barbaric Muslim countries rather than a larger, civilized, advanced, peaceful Jewish country. In fact, takeo would prefer a smaller Jewish country.

Takeo bends over for Muslims. It's as simple as that.

Reffo

02-12-2009, 11:34 PM

There you go again with your repetitive canard

The following statements, from your own source, put the REAL perspective...

Takeo's own source (http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/01/pm-dismisses-meshal-comments-that.html)

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.
Salah Bardawil, head of Hamas's parliamentary faction, told Haaretz that after
checking with Meshal, it seems to be that his words were twisted and
distorted.
"He didn't speak about any recognition of Israel, only a cease-fire with
Israel," Bardawil said.

Seems like Hamas Double talk to me ..... they say one thing from the corner of their mouth and then a diametrically opposite thing from the other corner of their mouth

...some Hamas leaders said peace with and recognition of Israel could be possible, on a few conditions.No they don't, read the above ...:D

And Netanyahu has not got a charter. He has policies that change according to circumstances. And when the circumstances were right he showed that he can participate in a peace process. And right now, circumstances are NOT right for peace because of Hamas.

kozzol

02-12-2009, 11:37 PM

Can you imagine, Israel gives land for peace and creates a two state situation so the palestinians have the West bank and Gaza.

What next?

Palestinians move from Israel into these areas leaving Israel vunerable for Iran to launch their nuclear missiles, which they will have built leaving one third of the Israeli population alive and then all the Arab states invade.

A scenario which could become reality so no two state situation for me.

Reffo

02-12-2009, 11:41 PM

Takeo bends over for Muslims. It's as simple as that. To be more accurate, Takeo will bend to circumstances. His only criteria is how to fault Israel for whatever goes wrong ... :rolleyes:

Reffo

02-12-2009, 11:47 PM

Are you really this obtuse? Or are you just pretending, Takeo?

"Israel withdraws": Do you understand the logistics of that? I'll give you a clue: It'll take more than 5 seconds .... or 5 days ..... or even 5 weeks....

And only then, at the end of that process would a Palestinian state be established. And didn't your Mashal say that maybe, AFTER a palestinian state would be established, maybe then they might consider recognizing Israel?

So you see, Takeo? It CANNOT be done at the same time. And therefore, my original question stands: Do you think that half utterance about recognition would be acceptable from Israel's point of view, to first give up land, and then, maybe get recognition?

No, once a deal is signed, including Palestinian and Arab recognition of Israel, it means there's a Palestinian state recognised by Israel and the world, with fixed established internationall yrecognised borders that can't be changed. (UNLIKE oslo) This can happen BEFORE physically the Israeli withdrawel behind the green line is completed. Once the deal signed Israel won't have any other choice but to withdraw from this new state. That's the big difference with Oslo where everything was up to interpretation.So, according to you, Hamas would consider a Palestinian state established once the borders are agreed upon but before a full withdrawal by Israel? Dream on :lol:

Have you asked Hamas? Or are you just putting words in their mouth? :lol:

CanDo

02-12-2009, 11:50 PM

Can you imagine, Israel gives land for peace and creates a two state situation so the palestinians have the West bank and Gaza.

What a horrible thought. A Palestinian State would be just as bad as the present Palestinian Sewer, except worse. It would be a nightmare in the making. Just the kind of place that antiSemites like the takeos and zuzus of this world cherish, as long as they don't have to live in them.

What next?

Palestinians move from Israel into these areas leaving Israel vunerable for Iran to launch their nuclear missiles, which they will have built leaving one third of the Israeli population alive and then all the Arab states invade.

There would also be many Arab/Muslim casualties, a factor that the rest of the Arab/Muslim world doesn't care about. The Palestinians are truly despised by the Arabs/Muslims throughout the Middle East. Jews are just hated more.

A scenario which could become reality so no two state situation for me.

And...... a two state solution, creating a state out of Gaza and the West Bank is nonsense because it would split Israel, and make Israel less safe by carving a connection through Israel. No nation would tolerate that!

The Gaza sewer, created by the Muslim/Arab world, and supported by Europe, should either revert back to Egypt, as some kind of protectorate at worst, or just emptied and made into part of Israel, as it should be.

Reffo

02-12-2009, 11:59 PM

Barak made a very very generous offer to Arafat and Arafat responded with violence. End of story!

Not end of story. That's your interpretation disputed by many other sources.Why are you so vague? What sources?:D

He didn't want to talk while Arabs were trying to extort concessions by using violence which has been their usual tactic for nearly 100 years.

Israel is using violence too, in fact occupation is an act of war. So you think Palestinians shouldn't talk as long as occupation continues?Yes, in response to Palestinian violence. Any other country does the same when they get attacked.

And no, the occupation was not the act that STARTED the violence. The Arabs used violence against the Jews/Israel since 1948 and THERE WAS NO OCCUPATION in 1948. What was their excuse then?

I'll tell you what: They didn't want Israel to come into existence even though the UN voted for the two state solution which Israel DID accept.

So now you DO admit that Barak was pressured by Clinton? And who did Clinton blame for the failure of the Oslo peace talks? [b]He blamed Arafat![

Yes, but not openly. The palestinians on the contrary were openly pressured. And of course he blamed Arafat, since Clinton and Barak talked trough this plan before presenting it to Arafat. But as the American diplomat which I quoted on this thread explained, this is part of the reason why it failed. Not openly? What is the difference, pressure is pressure and it shows that Clinton and Dennis Ross were honest brokers. Even Arafat admitted it, after the negotiations broke down. He thanked Clinton for trying so hard ... And what was Clinton's response? Disappointment and he blamed Arafat for the failure of the peace talks.

Reffo

02-13-2009, 12:17 AM

No they don't! Hamas and Hezbollah don't [recognize Israel].

There are several indications that Hamas leaders want to recognise Israel on a few conditions, they even said so openly. However, the parties which won elections in Israel DON'T want a two-state solution, under any circumstances.No there aren't! Look at post #1203 again Click Here.

No it hasn't! It only improved for those who have an automatic majority in the UN. For them, the UN serves as a useful tool and a mouthpiece for their propaganda and lies..

Of course it has. We had two major worldwars in the first half of the 20th century and none since the second half.... eventough the world didn't lack any ideological or economical polarisation. Both friends of the Arab countries and friends of Israel are permanent member of the UNSC. So what do you want, an international body which only represents Israel, Australia and the US? Or no international body at all, which means a return to the situation before WWII. Which means the military stronger nations can do as they please and terrorise or colonise weaker countries without international laws to restrain them. (Japan, Nazi-Germany, the colonial powers in Europe, the US in Latin America, the 19th century "big game", opium-war with China, etc.) I think that's really what you want, as well as the neo-cons in the US.The Arabs have an inbuilt automatic majority in the UN General assembly where it's allies: The Arabs, Muslim nations and the rest who don't want to antagonize that large bloc, routinely vote for resolutions that are equivalent to declaring that the earth is flat :lol:

But of course if people like you will prevail with your propaganda, the mad Mullahs [or should I have said Ayatollahs?] will be allowed to gain time to build their own bombs and because they are irrational fanatics, MAD will not dissuade them from starting WW3. It's as simple as that Takeo.

How do you know? Even the mollahs aren't self-destructive, and certainly not more radical than Pakistan. The only country which ever used a nuclear bomb was the US. Stalin didn't use nukes during the war in Korea, Mao didn't use his nukes either, and you can hardly say that these were moderates. Actually the only calls for using nukes during the cold war, to defy communism, came from radical US-politicians.You are right, they are not SELF DESTRUCTIVE! They are happy to see the youth and women of their people (as long as they are not the Mullah's/Ayatollah's own children or relations) self destruct ...

How long has the UN been in existence now?

Long, and as I demonstrated they have ended or prevented quite a few civil and other wars.Did they end the genocides of Cambodia, Rwanda, the Balkans, Lebanon, Syria, Saddam's Iraq?

Reffo

02-13-2009, 12:49 AM

Doesn't matter why, he [Netanyahu] still went along with the two state solution.

not really, he withdrew from some parts, but never recognised a palestinian state or respected the agreed upon timetable, as has been agreed upon during Oslo. He was playing games with the international community.Yes really, Netanyahu did but his position has hardened now because of what Hamas has been doing in Gaza! Anything else is just your interpretation.

Now take Hamas: It seems that no amount of pressure by anyone can dissuade them from their stated goal of destroying Israel and create a single Islamofascist state in it's place.

At nauseam: Different Hamas leaders said they are willing to recognise Israel.
Now I'm willing to see any link to Netanyahu or Lieberman saying that they are willing to recognise Palestine...Ad nauseum, they didn't! Look at post #1203 again Click Here

An example of how you IGNORE Israel's past efforts to reach a solution.

i didn't ignore the Barak-peace proposal, we discussed it. YOU ignored the many calls of Arafat to talks, the recognition of Israel by Arafat and Fatah, the Saudi-peace proposal etc.
What I said is that the Barak-proposal wasn't good enough, as were the Arab and Palestinian gestures.This is how Dennis Ross described Arafat's negotiating style in his book "The Missing Peace":

Ehud Barak: Here is an offer ....
Arafat: not enough ...
Ehud Barak: Here is another offer ....
Arafat: not enough ...
Ehud Barak: Here is even a better offer ....
Arafat: not enough ...
Ehud Barak: I haven't got a better offer to make
Arafat: Well, the Palestinians want a better offer..
And when he didn't get one, the Palestinian Arabs became violent ...

By shifting BLAME on Israel. And IGNORING the fact that violence is the root cause of ALL the problems.

Violence is not the root cause of all the problems.Violence IS the root cause of all the problems in the Middle East. In fact, the occupation itself came about as a RESULT of Arab violence!

Actually the problem started with zionism itself, establishing a foreign entity in an already inhabited area.Foreign? How so? The Jews lived in the land that you call Palestine way before the arabs did. And they maintained a continuous presence there for over 3000 years.

Just as an aside, with your above sentence you imply that YOU don't accept the two state solution. I guess you want a Judenrein Middle East, huh Takeo? :rolleyes:

You said yourself you wouldn't accept that in Australia to happen. BS, I said no such thing.

Even the early zionists never spoke of a country shared with the Arabs inhabiting the area, what they wanted was a JEWISH STATE in the Holy land.Ben Gurion and his Yishuv DID accept the two state solution. Why are you lying Takeo?

Than Arabs made a big mistake by not recognising the partition plan, which was a reasonable solution to the problem created by zionismA problem to the Arabs and people like you?

Perhaps they [the Arabs] were so overconfident that they didn't want to compromise?

and Israel made a big mistake by ethnically cleansing most palestinians in 1948That's your story! But reality is that most of them fled of their own volition because they were afraid of getting caught up in a war that their macho men started. Some stayed, that's why Israel has 1 million Arab citizens and a small number were ethnically cleansed. But jews too were ethnically cleansed by Palestinian Arabs in 1929 in Hebron and in 1948 from East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion..

and by occupying and colonising Westbank, Eastern Jerusalem and Gaza in 1967.You forgot to mention that the West Bank got occupied because Jordan attacked Israel in 1967. See? It was Arab violence that caused the occupation...

To be continued..

Reffo

02-13-2009, 01:16 AM

IGNORING your own principles that stated that there shouldn't be preconditions during the negotiations. But it seems that you ONLY want to apply that against Israel.

There shouldn't be any preconditions, on the condition that Israel doesn't want preconditions either (but Israel DOES have preconditions)What are Israel's preconditions?

The only reliable poll is the fact that Hamas was elected by the Palestinian Arabs, period! And no amount of DENIAL on your part will change that.

Yes, but equally so the majority of Israeli voted for parties which DON'T want a two-state solution or peace with the Arabs. So, does it mean the majority in Israeli don't want peace? I don't think so.It is only your story that Likud does not want peace Takeo.

Yep, it's too busy firing back and in fact Syria and the PA halted the negotiations because Israel dared to fire back in Gaza. See how you are SHIFTING THE BLAME, Takeo?

Not because Israel fired back, but because Israel destroyed half of Gaza and killed over 1000 people,But the fact is that it was Syria and Fatah who stopped the negotiations.

in response to a few home-made rockets which only killed a few people.Only a few people? Every year in the last 7 years? That's not so bad according to you huh Takeo? What if those few people were your mother, father, brothers, sisters and children? And what if you and your friends would be traumatized by random terror weapons, day in day out for 7 years?

And another example of DENIAL of context by you. First there was violence by Hamas followed by a violent response from Israel, after years of restraint.

What restraint? You mean the blockade,Blocade after years of firing Qassams at Israel. The blocade started a couple of years or so ago but Qassams were being fired on Israel before the blocade too..

which is an act of warIran too has been under boycott, are you saying that they can start firing rockets on those who boycott them?

And even if you're right that Hamas provoked Israel, was it the right response to destroy half of Gaza, They have tried everything else but nothing worked.

do you really think that will soften the palestinians and will make Hamas less popular? Yes, I have already seen polls that indicate loss of Hamas popularity among Gazans.

But it [Likud] did give in! Did Hamas give in?

It didn't, I clearly showed you the Likud charter.No you didn't! quote and link please...

Human rights watch is affiliated to the Soros-foundationOoooooooooh Aaaaaaaaah, I am so impressed... and what does that prove? This? .......

Jerusalem-based watchdog NGO Monitor today released a report analyzing NGO coverage of the recent Gaza conflict. The report documents the over 500 statements released by over 50 NGOs in the month covering the fighting and its immediate aftermath.

NGO Monitor accused the groups behind the statements of devoting minimal attention to Israeli human rights and casualties, as well as the "consistent manipulation of international law by NGOs in their statements on Gaza."

In 2008 alone, they wrote, NGOs issued over 300 statements in condemnation of Israel's policy regarding Hamas-controlled Gaza. This contrasts with a handful of statements condemning over 6,500 rockets fired on Israel from Gaza since disengagement in 2005.

NGO Monitor's Executive Director, Prof. Gerald Steinberg commented, "The NGO campaign in the Gaza conflict further erodes what remains of the moral foundation and the universality of the human rights movement. The consistent attempt to demonize Israel in the media and in the courts while turning a blind eye to the illegal activities of Hamas demonstrates that many human rights groups have lost their moral compass."
.

Reffo

02-13-2009, 02:01 AM

It wasn't the homeland of Jews as long as there wasn't a Jewish majority living there.So then, South Ossetia has no right to declare itself independent of georgia? They are a minority, yet you claimed that they have the right to have self determination? So why don't you feel the same way about the Jewish people's (nation's) right to have self determination?

And the Muslims: They insisted that the Muslims of India (who represented only 12% of India's population) had the right to have self determination and that's why India was partitioned in 1948 and Pakistan was created. Are you suggesting that Pakistan had no right to come into existence? Should Pakistan be dismantled Takeo?

It means it wasn't the Jewish homeland for 1000's of years...Palestine was not an Arab homeland for hundreds of years either. But BOTH Jews and Arabs lived there continuously (Jews for over 3000 years and Arabs for over 1000 years). Both lived under the rules of first, the Ottoman and then the British empires.

There has been a continual presence of Jews in France for over 2000 yearsBut your analogy does not apply because France has been a sovereign French nation for at least 1000 years. So, if any minority would try to secede from France, that would amount to rebellion and the French authorities would have every right to put the rebellion down.

Palestine on the other hand was owned by Britain till 1948. And after they decided to leave, the only fair and just solution was to partition the land amongst the two major inhabitants (Jews and Arabs) and to allow each of them to have self determination. The Jews agreed to that but the Arabs didn't, because they thoght they could defeat the Jews and have it all, but they were wrong :)

Reffo

02-13-2009, 02:44 AM

The problem is originally caused by an ideology called zionism, an ideology not embraced by all Jews. It's ideology which has its roots in 19th century nationalism which claims that each nation should be ethnically based and that one ethnical group should rule the country and exclude other ethnical groups, just like fascism and nazism. "One nation, one people, one blood, one ground" You are lying again Takeo :rolleyes: Zionism means simply self determination for the Jewish people. Which is no different than self determination for the Russian or the Greek people. They all insist on their right to have their own country and rule themselves! And to prove you wrong, some Zionists are ultra left wing (for example: Hashomer Hatzair and many of the Kibutz movement) others are ultra right wing and most are in between. The only thing that is common to all of them is that they all want to have an independent Jewish state and that's what makes ALL OF THEM ZIONISTS.

Why are you claiming that only the Jews don't have the right for self determination, Takeo? Could it be because you are biased against the Jewish people?

CanDo

02-13-2009, 04:20 AM

Madeline

02-13-2009, 04:33 AM

Finally your true colors. You are blaming the Arabs for everything, but as it turns out you DON'T want peace, compromise or a two-state solution AT ALL. Which means you belong to the people Rabin called "ennemies of peace".
I want peace and a two-state solution, you don't, you want eternal occupation and colonisation, no peace at any circumstances, and I also presume you want ethnic cleansing.

Yes, things are becoming clear now after the elections. Somehow I hope that Netanyahu will become the next prime minister in coalition with other anti-peace parties, and that Abbas can retake controll in Gaza and continues his peaceful approach and calls for a negociated solution. Than the situation will become clear for the entire world, who is the good guy and who's the bad guy, and than finally Israel will enjoy the same international status as the South-African Apartheidsregime it truly deserves.

Quite presumptuous of you. I've heard that I am as peace loving as they come.
What I won't do is deny people their rightful inheritance, as granted by our Heavenly Father.
It is hard for you to grasp this, but, if Arabs for once were satisfied with what they created for themselves, stayed within their means, stayed in their own land, it would indeed be a significant step toward peace.
It is not the Israelis who bombard Gaza, it is Israel defending herself. Big difference.
Of course you will now go and search for something that fits your agenda.
Don't bother, I won't read it. I have read, repeatedly, the only book that matters in this case. I suggest you do the same...God love you.

takeo

02-13-2009, 06:05 AM

Reffo

Why are you so vague? What sources?:D

Oh come on, we discussed this before. I even quoted an american negociator on this very same thread. Also, the Arab parties don't agree to the interpretation of Clinton-Barak (the ones who made the proposal).
Anyway, you yourself said there should be negociation, not imposition. Imposition is not going to work. It didn't work, and it will not work in the future.

Yes, in response to Palestinian violence. Any other country does the same when they get attacked.

No! Noone invaded Israel between 1948 and 1967. And there wasn't any serious Palestinian violence in the 70's and 80's in the occupied territories. Still, there wasn't anyone in Israel proposing to end occupation. On the contrary, the idea only became popular since the first intifadeh, when everyone in Israel saw an Eretz Israel would not work. So violence is NOT the reason for occupation and colonisation, on the contrary, the calmest periods were the busiest for the colonisation project.
Anyway, as occupation is an act of war, Palestinians have the right to resist, that is what they should do. Israel shouldn't get a moment of peace as long as there isn't a Palestinian state and occupation and colonisation endures. That's what I think about all colonisation. I think Algerians were right to attack French colonialism in Algeria for example. And now almost everyone in France recognises that the colonisation of Algeria and the desperate attempts to continue it were madness. If you look at newspapers of the 50's you'll see that colonial administration blamed "Arab violence" but not occupation and colonisation, just like in Israel today...

And no, the occupation was not the act that STARTED the violence. The Arabs used violence against the Jews/Israel since 1948 and THERE WAS NO OCCUPATION in 1948. What was their excuse then?

that's right, but occupation made the situation worse and a solution much more difficult. In 1948 they didn't accept the two-state solution. But that's history, now they do, at least the most important Palestinian group does. Almost half of the elected PM's in Israel however DON'T recognise a two-state solution, under any circumstances.

Not openly? What is the difference, pressure is pressure and it shows that Clinton and Dennis Ross were honest brokers.

Of course they weren't. Honest brokers apply the same pressure to both parties, and don't secretly meet with one party before presenting the offer to the other party. And honest brokers should know the value of negociations, instead of impositions.

takeo

02-13-2009, 06:25 AM

Reffo

No there aren't! Look at post #1203 again Click Here.

I'm not going to argue about it anymore. You said Hamas will never recognise Israel under any circumstances, I showed again and again that the main hamas leaders said they were ready to recognise Israel on a few conditions, altough that's still not the official party-line.
However, I didn't hear any Likud-leader declaring that he would recognise a Palestinian state and accept a two-state solution, on a few conditions, unless of course you have other sources?

The Arabs have an inbuilt automatic majority in the UN General assembly where it's allies: The Arabs, Muslim nations and the rest who don't want to antagonize that large bloc, routinely vote for resolutions that are equivalent to declaring that the earth is flat :lol:

nonsense, the general assembly consists of all nations on earth, most of them are not muslim... I know that in your opinion only the US and friends of Israel should have a vote, but that's fortunately not how the UN works.
Besides real power is yielded by the security council permanent members, none of them are muslim, at least two of them are good friends of Israel.

You are right, they are not SELF DESTRUCTIVE! They are happy to see the youth and women of their people (as long as they are not the Mullah's/Ayatollah's own children or relations) self destruct ...

nonsense, Iran is quite a civilised country, you should go there once. It has a stupid regime, but not a self-destructive regime (like the Taliban for example);
And most Iranians, including the many secular ones, support the idea of a nuclear Iran. It means nor the US nor Israel, nor any other country, can still threaten Iran, and that's the whole reason why Iran is working on them. The war in Iraq opened many eyes in the world. Even if a nation complies to all demands, it still gets attacked. However, nations which have developped nukes and just ignored all international demands and regulations, like North Korea, Pakistan, Israel and India, are threated with silk gloves and respect... this is the real message Bush and his administration gave to the world.

Did they end the genocides of Cambodia, Rwanda, the Balkans, Lebanon, Syria, Saddam's Iraq?

They ended the war in Cambodia. (let's not forget that the US has its part in it as well, it brought to power a military regime which ended the king's rule, than it bombed 100's of 1000's of Cambodians, than it supported the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese communists from the 80's untill the UN-brokered peace-agreement) They ended genocide and war in Congo, they ended civil war in CÃ´te d'Ivoire, Sierra Leone, Liberia, etc. (all conflicts which could easily end in genocide). The genocide in Ruanda was not prevented because the main UN permanent members didn't want to interphere. (including the US). They ended the war in Eastern-Timor, etc.
In the Balcans it was a UN-brokered peaceplan which ended the war in Bosnia.
About Iraq, both the Soviet-Union, the US and France supported Saddam against Iran, so that's the reason why the UN didn't interfere. However these countries, and especially the US, did interfere, on the side of Saddam! The special relationship between the US and Israel is the only reason why the UN didn't truly interphere to end the conflict between palestinians and Israeli.(there have been a lot of un-resolutions of course, like in most cases, but no enforcement)

In 2003 the US succeeded in turning a relatively peaceful country into a bloody hell!

takeo

02-13-2009, 06:57 AM

Reffo

Yes really, Netanyahu did but his position has hardened now because of what Hamas has been doing in Gaza! Anything else is just your interpretation.

The fact that Likud never changed its charter, and never accepted a two-state solution or withdrawel, is not interpretation but fact. The ones in favor of withdrawel left Likud.

This is how Dennis Ross described Arafat's negotiating style in his book "The Missing Peace":

Ehud Barak: Here is an offer ....
Arafat: not enough ...
Ehud Barak: Here is another offer ....
Arafat: not enough ...
Ehud Barak: Here is even a better offer ....
Arafat: not enough ...
Ehud Barak: I haven't got a better offer to make
Arafat: Well, the Palestinians want a better offer..

There was only one offer, a take it or leave it offer.

Violence IS the root cause of all the problems in the Middle East. In fact, the occupation itself came about as a RESULT of Arab violence!

that's nonsense. Occupation is an ideological project, and violence only an excuse. That's why untill the end of the 80's not a single major party in Israel wanted to even consider withdrawel. In fact there hasn't been a lot of violence in the Westbank, Eastern jerusalem and Gaza from the '50's to the 80's, when palestinians in the occupied territories realised that they had to do something to end occupation and colonisation. Very sympthomatic is the way the Golan was conquered. In 1967 Syria didn't join the war, but Israel badly wanted Golan. So they send a tractor in the demilitarised zone, further and further, untill Syrian border guards shot at the tractor. THAT was used as an excuse to invade Syria. If you don't believe me I can provide links.

Foreign? How so? The Jews lived in the land that you call Palestine way before the arabs did. And they maintained a continuous presence there for over 3000 years.

yes, but most zionist colonists who came to Palestine were foreign and had no relatives in Palestine. It was an ideological project.

Just as an aside, with your above sentence you imply that YOU don't accept the two state solution. I guess you want a Judenrein Middle East, huh Takeo? :rolleyes:

what a bunch of nonsense. I never said that and you should apologise for that lie. (of course you won't)
I said, that zionism was not a good idea. I'm against all nationalism, wether it is zionism, fascism and nazism. And yes zionism is the rootcause of everything. Before zionism muslims, Jews and chrsitians lived together relatively peacefully. You asked me for the original rootcause of the conflict. Problems started when Jews wanted the land for themselves, problems, as usually during the 19th century and first half of 20th century, were caused by nationalism. This in turn provoked an aggressive, nationalist and antisemitic reaction of the arabspeaking muslims and christians in the same area, and around the muslim world. BUT I also said that nowadays Israel is a reality. (as is France, the US or Russia, which doesn't mean I agree to the way these were established) The Israeli people exists and can't go away. And the Palestinian people exists as well and can't go away either. THAT's why I'm in favor of a two-state solution.

Ben Gurion and his Yishuv DID accept the two state solution. Why are you lying Takeo?

In theory yes, but in reality? So why did they take more than what was offered to them in the partition plan?

A problem to the Arabs and people like you?

Perhaps they [the Arabs] were so overconfident that they didn't want to compromise?

Possibly, and as I said, that was a mistake. But this mistake was absolutely no legitimation for massive ethnic cleansing, let alone for the occupation and colonisation since 1968 of lands not belonging to Israel. Israel too was, and still is, overconfident, because they have a military advantage and solid support from the most powerful nation on earth.

That's your story! But reality is that most of them fled of their own volition because they were afraid of getting caught up in a war that their macho men started. Some stayed, that's why Israel has 1 million Arab citizens and a small number were ethnically cleansed.

Not according to most historians, including Benny Morris. according to most historians, most palestinians were forcefully ethnically cleansed. (altough not allowing war refugees to return home is also ethnic cleansing)

But jews too were ethnically cleansed by Palestinian Arabs in 1929 in Hebron and in 1948 from East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion..

That's true, but only a few 1000, while at least 700000 palestinians have been ethnically cleansed by Israel. I think if palestinian refugees can return home, so should people and relatives who lived in East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion before 1948 be allowed to stay in palestine.

You forgot to mention that the West Bank got occupied because Jordan attacked Israel in 1967. See? It was Arab violence that caused the occupation...

You forget to mention that Jordan attacked Israel because it was obliged to do so under an agreement with Egypt, which was being attacked and invaded by Israel. And why did Israel attack Syria? :rolleyes:
And, even disregarding all that, why does israel still occupies and colonises these areas after 40 years? Eventough Egypt and Jordan have long since made peace with Israel? What's the new excuse?

takeo

02-13-2009, 07:18 AM

Reffo

What are Israel's preconditions?

that there should be no violence before any negociations can take pleace.
OK, fine, fair enough, but in that case, palestinians can have preconditions too, such as freezing all settlement activities for example.

It is only your story that Likud does not want peace Takeo.

really? So please show me a link to any likud-leader or the likud-charter recognising the right of existence of a palestinian state and embracing the two-state solution?

But the fact is that it was Syria and Fatah who stopped the negotiations.

Israel too stopped negociations in the past when Israeli civilians were being targetted, isn't that right?

Only a few people? Every year in the last 7 years? That's not so bad according to you huh Takeo? What if those few people were your mother, father, brothers, sisters and children? And what if you and your friends would be traumatized by random terror weapons, day in day out for 7 years?

You are getting emotional. I can do that as well, using emotional arguments. What if you lived in Gaza, your grandparents had been ethnically cleansed from their village near Haifa, and your brother, father has been killed by Israel, your sister only has one leg and your house was destroyed by israeli bombs? Wouldn't you just want to blow yourself and kill as many Israeli as possible? At the very least you would hate Israel with all your guts and support the most radical anti-Israeli parties. And that's the case with many palestinians.
War is war, and in war people get killed and harmed. That's why all parties should work towards peace, and not escalate the situation even further.

Blocade after years of firing Qassams at Israel. The blocade started a couple of years or so ago but Qassams were being fired on Israel before the blocade too..

Hamas frequently cited the end of the blockade as a condition for a cease-fire. Israel always refused. So if the blockade doesn't end, Hamas will continue to fire rockets.

Iran too has been under boycott, are you saying that they can start firing rockets on those who boycott them?

There is no embargo of Iran, noone is blocking Iranian international seaways or borders. If that would be the case, than yes they would have the right to defend themselves.

They have tried everything else but nothing worked.

They didn't try. Didn't even try lifting the embargo.

Yes, I have already seen polls that indicate loss of Hamas popularity among Gazans.

It would be good, but I don't think so. And when are the Israeli ennemies ofpeace going to loose popularity?
As I said I hope for a peaceminded palestinian leadership and an anti-peace leadership in Israel, at least for a year or so. In that case, international support for Palestinians will grow to the same extent as isolation of and pressure on Israel will.

No you didn't! quote and link please...

again? ok.

Ooooooooooh Aaaaaaaaah, I am so impressed... and what does that prove? This? .......

It proves that even people who are absolutely not leftist, communist or pro-Arab regimes, rather on the contrary, criticise Israel. And that you even reject their criticism as biased. To you all criticism of Israel is biased and all criticism of Arabs and palestinians is correct. Of course I wouldn't dare to say that you could be a bit biased yourself, would I ?

takeo

02-13-2009, 07:23 AM

The 1999 Likud charter emphasized the right of settlement in "Judea (and) Samaria" (more commonly known as the "West Bank") and Gaza,"[2] and as such, brings it into direct conflict with Palestinian claims on the same territory. Similarly, their claims of the Jordan river as the permanent eastern border to Israel and Jerusalem as "the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel," do the same.
The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform â€œflatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.â€ The chapter continued: â€œThe Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.â€[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likud

takeo

02-13-2009, 07:39 AM

Reffo

So then, South Ossetia has no right to declare itself independent of georgia? They are a minority, yet you claimed that they have the right to have self determination? So why don't you feel the same way about the Jewish people's (nation's) right to have self determination?

I think it would have been better if they stayed in a union with Georgia. At the same time I think it would also have been better if Georgia stayed in a union with Russia. However they have very powerful friends, like the Kosovars, and like the Israeli, that's why they are independent now. (not for long anyway, as both the Ossetians and Russians want reunification)
Israel is another matter. Now there's an israeli people, but in the 19th century there wasn't one. Israel was solely a theoretical ideological concept.
Anyway, I think the Jews, if they wished so, should have the right to have self-determination, the problem was that they didn't have a state where they were the majority, unlike the Ossetians. Zionists finally choose palestine, but Uganda or Southern Argentina were considered as well. Perhaps Southern Argentina was a better choice, since it was almost empty. Also there is Birobidjan.

And the Muslims: They insisted that the Muslims of India (who represented only 12% of India's population) had the right to have self determination and that's why India was partitioned in 1948 and Pakistan was created. Are you suggesting that Pakistan had no right to come into existence? Should Pakistan be dismantled Takeo?

Actually the breakup of India was one of the biggest stupidities in human history. Of course nowadays there is a pakistani people and state, history can't be rewinded, but it was a giant mistake.

Palestine was not an Arab homeland for hundreds of years either.

Says who? The current palestinians live there at least since the Arab invasion but probably much longer. Like the Syrians, Egyptians and others, they adopted Arab language, and some (not all) adopted Islam, but they retained their own separate culture.

But BOTH Jews and Arabs lived there continuously (Jews for over 3000 years and Arabs for over 1000 years). Both lived under the rules of first, the Ottoman and then the British empires.

That's true, but Jews were always a minority since at least 1900 years.

But your analogy does not apply because France has been a sovereign French nation for at least 1000 years. So, if any minority would try to secede from France, that would amount to rebellion and the French authorities would have every right to put the rebellion down.

What about the right of every people to have minority rights?

Palestine on the other hand was owned by Britain till 1948. And after they decided to leave, the only fair and just solution was to partition the land amongst the two major inhabitants (Jews and Arabs) and to allow each of them to have self determination. The Jews agreed to that but the Arabs didn't, because they thoght they could defeat the Jews and have it all, but they were wrong :)

Nowadays the situation is reversed, Palestinians have nothing and Jews have it all, and many if not most Jews don't want to share.
Also, most Jews (not all) were clearly recent immigrants, while Palestinians lived there since many centuries. That's the reason why Palestinians initially didn't support the two-state solution.

Y. Shulamith

02-13-2009, 07:42 AM

The Arab's don't take a good deal when the taking's are good for the simple reason that they want to REPLACE Israel, not live side-by-side. Their old, ongoing canard about wanting a Palestinian state is just a thinly veiled immortal paradox; that they won't ever have peace because what they really want is the destruction of Israel, not it's guaranteed existence.

Their behavior over the last 60 years is proof of that.

takeo

02-13-2009, 07:48 AM

You are lying again Takeo :rolleyes: Zionism means simply self determination for the Jewish people. Which is no different than self determination for the Russian or the Greek people. They all insist on their right to have their own country and rule themselves! And to prove you wrong, some Zionists are ultra left wing (for example: Hashomer Hatzair and many of the Kibutz movement) others are ultra right wing and most are in between. The only thing that is common to all of them is that they all want to have an independent Jewish state and that's what makes ALL OF THEM ZIONISTS.

Why are you claiming that only the Jews don't have the right for self determination, Takeo? Could it be because you are biased against the Jewish people?

Zionism is nationalism, and nationalism is self-determination based on ethnicity. Just like Greek or Russian nationalisms, indeed. I don't have to tell you how many Jews have been killed by Russian nationalists...
Indeed, some nationalists are leftists as well, even some communists can be nationalists. For example the CPRF is Russian nationalist AND communist. The Kurdish PKK is communist and nationalist. The PFLP is Palestinian nationalist AND leftist, etc. But not all communists are nationalists.

Personally I'm not in favor of any nationalism, I believe in multi-ethnic states. I think this idea that every nation should be based on blood and ethnicity has caused a lot of bloodshet. And the Jews were one of the first and most important victims.

takeo

02-13-2009, 07:53 AM

Most of the Muslim/Arab nations have horrible, repressive laws against non-Muslims, including restrictions, or imprisonment, if trying to practice the other religions, or cultures.

Sneaky, dishonest antiSemitic jerks like takeo and zuzu blindly are only interested in the continuing persecution of Jews. The more difficult life is for Jews the happier these cretins.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an honest response to this question. Putting Jews down is the only way for takeo to build his worthless ego.

blablabla antisemitic blabla violent, subhuman Arabs blabla cretins, etc. etc. etc. etc.
What do you actually know about Arab countries, ever vicited one? In most Arab countries you see churches and mosques side by side. The prime minister in Iraq has been a christian for decades. The last secretary-general of the UN was an Egyptian christian, Arafat himself was married to a christian.

And is Israel an example? I saw on television Israeli youth shouting "death to all Arabs" and anti-Arab graffiti in mainly Arab villages. People in these villages say they felt really scared and threatened. On this same thread Israel-supported are calling for slaughtering christians and muslims.

Y. Shulamith

02-13-2009, 07:57 AM

:rofl: One Israeli youth getting carried away makes headline news:rofl:A whole nation of Islamofacists get on the tube and no one bat's an eyelash; howse that for parity?:stick:

takeo

02-13-2009, 08:00 AM

Quite presumptuous of you. I've heard that I am as peace loving as they come.
What I won't do is deny people their rightful inheritance, as granted by our Heavenly Father.
It is hard for you to grasp this, but, if Arabs for once were satisfied with what they created for themselves, stayed within their means, stayed in their own land, it would indeed be a significant step toward peace.
It is not the Israelis who bombard Gaza, it is Israel defending herself. Big difference.
Of course you will now go and search for something that fits your agenda.
Don't bother, I won't read it. I have read, repeatedly, the only book that matters in this case. I suggest you do the same...God love you.

Arabs always stayed in their land, except the ones that were ethnically cleansed by Israel. You say Israel has the right to defend itself but palestinians don't have that right, right? Because? Because it is in God's plan that Israel and Palestine belongs to the Jews and Jews only? OK, in that case, end of discussion, one can't debate with religious nuts who claim ethnic cleansing is written in the Holy book.

CanDo

02-13-2009, 08:06 AM

... while at least 700000 palestinians have been ethnically cleansed by Israel.

You post incredible lies all of the time, exposing your dreadfully dishonest and dishonorable persona. When you are not lying, you are twisting facts to suit your own antiSemitic, pro-Arab agenda.

There was absolutely no ethnic cleansing of Arabs/Muslims by the Jews of Israel, which is obvious by the mere fact that about 20% of Israel's population is Muslim/Arab. If Israel was ever interested in ethnic cleansing they would have driven all Arabs/Muslims from Israel, but instead, most of the Arabs/Muslims who chose to stay in Israel, during 1948 when combined Arab/Muslims attempted genocide against the Jews of the newly formed state of Israel, were allowed to stay. Sure doesn't seem like ethnic cleansing, except to a totally dishonest, disingenuous low-life like you.

Here is an article about Israel from the Jewish Virtual Library. It's a little dated, but still holds true today:

Jewish Virtual Library

Fact Sheets
#36: Israelâ€™s Liberal Democracy
(Updated June 15, 2006)

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/talking/36_liberal.html

In a region of autocracies and theocracies, Israel serves as a beacon of hope for peoples who long for freedom.

The people of Israel come from more than 100 countries. They represent diverse ethnic, religious, and racial groups. Roughly half the population has origins in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

Roughly one-fifth of the Israeli population is not Jewish. Most of the non-Jews are Muslims, but Christians, Druze, Bahaâ€™is, and other faiths are also represented.

Israelâ€™s Arab citizens enjoy equal rights with Jewish citizens of the state. Israeli Arabs participate in all aspects of Israeli life, from menial jobs to Supreme Court justices.

Hebrew and Arabic are the two official languages of the state.

All the freedoms Americans associate with the bill of rights and civil rights are protected in Israel. Israelis enjoy freedom of speech, assembly, and religion.

Arabs living under the oppression of Yasser Arafatâ€™s Palestinian Authority do not enjoy any of these rights, so it is not surprising that, despite their grievances, Palestinians tell pollsters the nation they admire most is Israel, and Israeli Arabs say they prefer to live in Israel rather than in a Palestinian state.

Israelâ€™s free press is one of the most vibrant in the world. Unlike the mostly government-controlled media in the region, Israeli journalists can report on all aspects of Israeli life, and do not hesitate to criticize their governmentâ€™s failings. Arab journalists who expressed similar views about the Palestinian Authority or other Middle Eastern regimes would likely face arrest â€” or worse.

Israelâ€™s Declaration of Independence guarantees freedom of religion for all. Each religious community has its own religious schools, councils, and courts, and exercises jurisdiction over matters of personal status such as marriage and divorce. The holy places of each religion are controlled by officials of that faith, not the Israeli government.

A popular slogan is that Jerusalem should be free and accessible to all faiths. Indeed it should be â€” and it has been only since Israel assumed responsibility for the entire city in 1967. Today, any Muslim is free to pray at their holy places in Jerusalem. In fact, one news story you probably didnâ€™t read was about the tens of thousands of Muslims who peacefully prayed on the Temple Mount during the holy month of Ramadan.

Israel also recognizes the freedom of assembly. Tens of thousands of Israelis have turned out for rallies for peace, sometimes in support of their government and sometimes to protest its policies.

Israelâ€™s elections are a model of the democratic process. While the United States has only two major parties that are often criticized for being too similar, Israeli voters typically have more than a dozen parties to choose from, representing a wide variety of political views. In the last election, 13 parties won seats in the Knesset, including three Arab parties with eight representatives.

Israel is the only country in the Middle East that provides full equality for women. In the Palestinian Authority and most Arab states, women are treated as second-class citizens, often denied the right to vote or work in most fields, and, in the case of Saudi Arabia, they are not even allowed to drive a car. Worse, abuse of women, such as â€œhonor killings,â€ is tolerated for a range of â€œoffenses.â€ Women in Israel are protected by law from discrimination and abuse, and they have been engaged in all walks of life, from homemaker to combat soldier to prime minister.

Israel is one of the most progressive countries in the world in terms of recognizing differences based on sexual orientation. Homosexuals are not protected in Arab and Muslim states, and they are often imprisoned and sometimes executed. In the Palestinian Authority, sodomy carries a jail term of three to 10 years. Israeli law forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. In August 2006, Jerusalem will be hosting Love Without Borders: WorldPride Jerusalem 2006, a weeklong event organized by LGBT activists from around the world. This demonstration is the second one of its kind in the world.

Israel is not a perfect society. While Israelis enjoy far greater freedom than any of their neighbors, they have not achieved the equality in all areas to which they aspire, but that is true of the United States and all the other western democracies as well. If the United States has not yet achieved this goal in more than 200 years, no one should be surprised that Israel has fallen short in just 56, but the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness for all Israeli citizens continues.

End of Article

Low-lives like takeo champion the backward, uncivilized, brutal, racist, religiously intolerant Muslim cause, while denigrating the democratic state of Israel, which protects the rights of women, Arabs, Christians, and all other minorities, as well as Jews.

Why does takeo spend so much time trying to prove that the civilized, advanced, peace-loving nation of Israel is evil, while the brutal, racist, backward, uncivilized Arab/Muslim dictatorships are the good guys? It's because of his hatred towards Jews and because he is obviously mentally unbalanced.

Mediocrates

02-13-2009, 08:11 AM

Well it's a combination of factors:

Ignorance
Authority Issues
It's his paid job

Madeline

02-13-2009, 08:13 AM

Arabs always stayed in their land, except the ones that were ethnically cleansed by Israel. You say Israel has the right to defend itself but palestinians don't have that right, right? Because? Because it is in God's plan that Israel and Palestine belongs to the Jews and Jews only? OK, in that case, end of discussion, one can't debate with religious nuts who claim ethnic cleansing is written in the Holy book.

Ya see, kid, you don't even know what is written in the Holy book..ethnic cleansing, get real.
If you want to call me a religious nut, then I proudly accept that fact.
Yes, indeed...I should change my screen name post haste.:rock:
Oh mods, please change my name to proud religious nut, please. Takeo says its so.

CanDo

02-13-2009, 08:18 AM

...
What do you actually know about Arab countries, ever vicited one? In most Arab countries you see churches and mosques side by side.

I know that most Christians have been driven out of the Middle East and those that remain are treated much worse than Israel has treated the Arabs in either Gaza or the West Bank.

I know that Jerusalem has over 600 Christian Churches, but relatively few Christians. Christians have been driven out of Jerusalem and most other Judeo-Christian towns, by Muslims/Arabs, and their homes and land have been illegally and forcefully taken over by Muslims/Arabs.

Here is an article about the horrible treatment of Middle East Christians by takeo's heroes, the backward, uncivilized, racist, religiously intolerant, Muslims/Arabs.

Jewish Virtual Library

Fact Sheet
#14: Christians in the Middle East
(January 21, 2003)

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/talking/14_Christians.html

Christians comprise a little more than two percent of the population of Israel. Christians are free to practice their faith and have full and unfettered access to their holy sites. Christians, like Jews and Muslims, also have their own bodies to decide matters of personal status, such as marriage and divorce, and control their religious shrines. The treatment of Christians in the rest of the Middle East is a different story.

During Islamic rule in the Middle East, non-Muslims usually had a choice between death and conversion, but Jews and Christians, who adhered to the Scriptures, were considered protected peoples â€” dhimmis â€” under Islamic law. This â€œprotectionâ€ did little, however, to insure that Jews and Christians were treated well by the Muslims. On the contrary, the dhimmi, being an infidel, had to acknowledge the superiority of the true believer â€” the Muslim.

The inferior status of Christians was reinforced through a series of regulations that governed the behavior of the dhimmi. For example, dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Muslims, or to touch a Muslim woman (though a Muslim man could take a non-Muslim as a wife).

By the twentieth century, the status of the dhimmi in Muslim lands had not significantly improved. A British diplomat observed in 1909: â€œThe attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.â€

Today, Israel is the only place in the Middle East where Christians face no restrictions on the practice of their faith. The only time in modern history that Jerusalem has been free and accessible to all has been since Israel assumed control in 1967.

During Jordanâ€™s occupation of Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967, limited numbers of Israeli Christians were grudgingly permitted to briefly visit the Old City and Bethlehem at Christmas and Easter. Laws imposed strict government control on Christian schools, and the requirements that the Koran be taught. Because of these repressive policies, many Christians emigrated from Jerusalem. Their numbers declined from 25,000 in 1949 to less than 13,000 in June 1967.

Radical Islamists target not only Jews, but Christians, who they also view as impediments to their goal of reconstituting the Islamic empire. In Saudi Arabia, for example, all citizens must be Muslims and it is illegal to import, print or own Christian religious materials.

The Palestinian territories have been especially inhospitable to Christians, and the community has steadily declined from 15 of the Arab population in 1950 to 2 percent today. Bethlehem and Nazareth, which once had overwhelming Christian majorities, now are dominated by the Muslim population. Given present trends, few, if any, Christians may be living in these cities in another decade.

Yasser Arafat has assumed political supervision of the Church of the Nativity and other key Christian sites in the Palestinian Authority. Palestinian converts to Christianity have been harassed and Christian cemeteries desecrated. The London Times reported in 1997, long before the current wave of violence, that life in Bethlehem under Palestinian rule had become â€œinsufferable for many members of the dwindling Christian minorities.â€

The only Arab country that had a significant Christian presence in the last century was Lebanon, where Christians once were a majority. A combination of civil war, Muslim oppression, and Syrian aggression has led to the deaths of thousands of Christians and the emigration of thousands more. Today, fewer than one million Christians live in Lebanon.

Roughly 6 percent of the population of Egypt is Christian, mostly from the Coptic Orthodox Church. Islam is the official state religion, however, and many laws and customs favor Muslims. It is nearly impossible to restore or build new churches, Christians are frequently ostracized, and Muslims are prohibited from converting to Christianity.

End of Article

Y. Shulamith

02-13-2009, 08:20 AM

ItsMyJewty

02-13-2009, 08:31 AM

CanDo: Why does takeo spend so much time trying to prove that the civilized, advanced, peace-loving nation of Israel is evil, while the brutal, racist, backward, uncivilized Arab/Muslim dictatorships are the good guys? It's because of his hatred towards Jews and because he is obviously mentally unbalanced.

People like takeo and zizi will never admit they're anti-Semitic because they're cowards as well. They find any excuse to criticize Israel but say nothing about the backward, uncivilized, murderous Arabs, who refuse to let Jews live in peace - either in Israel or the rest of the world. These people are utterly DESPICABLE - they're liers, racists, cowards, and hypocrits!

takeo

02-13-2009, 08:48 AM

People like takeo and zizi will never admit they're anti-Semitic because they're cowards as well. They find any excuse to criticize Israel but say nothing about the backward, uncivilized, murderous Arabs, who refuse to let Jews live in peace - either in Israel or the rest of the world. These people are utterly DESPICABLE - they're liers, racists, cowards, and hypocrits!

I criticise Arabs, but we're here mostly to talk about Israel and the Palestinians.
You can repeat your lie about anti-semitism all the time but it still doesn't make it true.
The sad fact is that you people can't accept criticism, while you yourself think you are allowed to make racist, brutal generalisations of all Arabs.
As I said here, I'm very much in favor of peace for Israel and the Palestinians. Most people on this forum are not, and don't want a two-state solution. Most people on this site are ennemies of peace, as are Netanyahu and Lieberman. That's the reality, and you can shout and insult me all you want, you can call me a nazi, Hitler (that's how your despisable kind called Rabin, after which he was murdered by the likes of you), a pig, it won't change the truth.

takeo

02-13-2009, 08:50 AM

I believe that if you have an Israeli stamp on your passport, and then try to enter an Arab country, you are nicely deported at customs.

If this is not still true, please feel free to bring me up to date.

There are many Israeli tourists going to Egypt, even today.
There are no Arab tourists allowed in Israel.

takeo

02-13-2009, 08:52 AM

Well it's a combination of factors:

Ignorance
Authority Issues
It's his paid job

Is it KGB or is it the Arabs? :rolleyes:
Or perhaps the Kurds?

takeo

02-13-2009, 08:53 AM

Ya see, kid, you don't even know what is written in the Holy book..ethnic cleansing, get real.
If you want to call me a religious nut, then I proudly accept that fact.
Yes, indeed...I should change my screen name post haste.:rock:
Oh mods, please change my name to proud religious nut, please. Takeo says its so.

You don't have to change your name, we all know you are.

Madeline

02-13-2009, 08:56 AM

You don't have to change your name, we all know you are.

Good, and thank you kindly.
Sincerely,
the proud religious nut

Betcha you wouldn't call andak the same..........

takeo

02-13-2009, 08:57 AM

You post incredible lies all of the time, exposing your dreadfully dishonest and dishonorable persona. When you are not lying, you are twisting facts to suit your own antiSemitic, pro-Arab agenda.

There was absolutely no ethnic cleansing of Arabs/Muslims by the Jews of Israel, which is obvious by the mere fact that about 20% of Israel's population is Muslim/Arab. If Israel was ever interested in ethnic cleansing they would have driven all Arabs/Muslims from Israel, but instead, most of the Arabs/Muslims who chose to stay in Israel, during 1948 when combined Arab/Muslims attempted genocide against the Jews of the newly formed state of Israel, were allowed to stay. Sure doesn't seem like ethnic cleansing, except to a totally dishonest, disingenuous low-life like you.

.

:tdown: I'm getting tired posting the same links over and over again.
And disproving the same lies over and over gain.

Let's quote the only historian who extensively researched this matter, the zionist Israeli historian Benny Morris:

According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?

"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.

"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.

"That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres."

What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?

"Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948]."

Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created."

Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?

"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."

I don't hear you condemning him.

"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=380986&contrassID=2