Alternatives to Arafat?

[NewsGuy]

It now seems more than ever that arch-terrorist Arafat is at the end of his rope.

The US now seems convinced that all of Arafat's promises to fight terrorism have all been lies, especially in light of the latest crisis of confidence with the weapons ship bust.

This comes after the terrorist mass-murders that destroyed General Zinni's last peace mission.

Also, rather than eliminating the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure as agreed upon with the US, Arafat cut some kind of truce deal with them that left hamas and Islamic Jihad alive and well, while Arafat's own PA is now proven to have a terror pact with Hizbullah and Iran.

At the same time, the EU, which typically justifies Islamic terrorism, is also being pushed into a corner, because after 9/11 it has become increasingly difficult for them to publicly support Arafat's terrorism lies.

Maybe the end is finally near for Arafat.

For the past month, Arafat is being kept under house-arrest in Ramallah, with Israeli tanks just a few hundred feet away from him. No other Arab leaders are lifting a finger to help him get out, and with the US and EU are no longer in his corner. Maybe, just maybe we'll finally see the end of him.

The question is what will come next after Arafat? Can the Palestinians put forward a civilized leadership, or is there simply no popular support for a non-terrorist Palestinian government?

Your thoughts?

[takeo]

There is only one alternative if Israel might kill or expell Arafat, and you which one I mean.
Both the US and Europe still support Arafat(they call him to do more to stop terrorism (besides the latest Hamas action wasn't a terrorist action against civilians but against the occupation force), but they also called on Israel to stop the settlements policy), so do all the moderate Arab countries and since a short time even Syria. (Iran still doesn't).
Some times I think Israeli leadership and Hamas have a kind of secret deal, every time Israel hasn't any more excuses to make peace and talk about withrawel they commit an action. Arafat can't do nothing against Hamas, Israel destroyed his whole infrastructure and his army doesn't have sufficiant weapons, and every israeli action (like the latest destroyal of houses) makes Hamas more popular. Yes, this time is very bad for Arafat, but as well for Israel, because a weaker Arafat means a stronger Hamas and Jihad(and other radical groups). They didn't succeed in turning Arafat into their own puppet who will controll some palestinian cities, but i'm sure he wants peace with israel on some conditions, while many of his palestinian ennemies want complete destruction of Israel.

[L@mplighterM]

I don't think the US and Great Britain supports Arafat, at this point they only endure him. The fact is that he's been caught in too many lies.

If they support him why aren't they demanding that Israel should release him from his incarceration. They are just trying to establish if they can use him and when they finally find out they cant they will dump him like so much garbage.

[takeo]

The US and great-Brittain have the most interest in peace in the Middle-East, to bring their own puppet-dictatorships in the region not in danger. (Egypt, Saoudi-Arabia, Jordan). they know there isn't an alternative for Arafat, which represents the most moderate Palestinians. Well yes, there is an alternative, the so-called "military solution", which will of course lead to war and to the destruction of Israel and of the US-puppet regimes in the neighbourhood. this would be their worst case scenario. It could also be a military victory for Israel occupiing even more land but in that case it won't take long before one of those Iranian or Pakistan special weapons (not represented on the ship) will find its way to tel Aviv or Haifa. Israel is already "responsible" in the eyes of some US-analysts for the failing embargo against Iraq ("the worst ennemy of my worst ennemy is my best friend", so now ties between iraq, Syria and iran are improoving fastly).

[L@mplighterM]

Everyone can be replaced even Arafat. As far as an all out nuclear war goes well I'll tell you I'd rather die than live in a Islamic Fundamentalist Society.

My hope is that these idiots that want to destroy civilization will never reach the point where they deploy nuclear weapons. But I'll tell you the west will never stand for even one nuclear bomb it'll be all out war and that's what I expect and want.

[Negev]

Originally posted by takeo
Israel is already "responsible" in the eyes of some US-analysts for the failing embargo against Iraq ("the worst ennemy of my worst ennemy is my best friend", so now ties between iraq, Syria and iran are improoving fastly).

Excuse me while I laugh out loud. Now Israel is also to blame for Syria and Iran's actions? LOL!!!!!!

[takeo]

Syria's actions would be a lot more moderate without the golan heights-occupation. One can't say Israel is responsible for the actions of these countries but it's hard-line policy is bringing them and other islamic nations together.

"But I'll tell you the west will never stand for even one nuclear bomb it'll be all out war and that's what I expect and want."

This is what you want, really nice. I can tell you that the West will prevend such a war at any cost and if israel is really provoking a reaction with its "militay solution" than I have no doubt that they will take action against israel to moderate its policy. Anyway, even with an all-out nuclear war, one bomb will be enough to destroy much of Israel, so i wouldn't hope for it too much (i think anyone who does is insane).

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
Syria's actions would be a lot more moderate without the golan heights-occupation.

Really???

Here are just some examples of Syria's "moderate actions" having nothing to do with any Israeli/Arab issue:

1. In response to an attempted uprising by the brotherhood in February 1982, the Syrian government crushed the fundamentalist opposition centered in the city of Hama, leveling parts of the city with artillery fire and leaving many thousands of dead and wounded.

More details:

For 27 days starting from February 2nd 1982, the Syrian forces put Hama under a siege, shelled the town with artillery, then Hama was ravaged by military and special forces, and its civilians were severely punished. The estimated victims range between 3000 and 4000 civilians including women, children and elderlies. 15000 civilians were considered lost since then and had never traced back. Thousands of civilians were obliged to desert the town, as one third of Hama had been completely destroyed. Many mosques, churches and historical buildings were left in rubbles as a consequence to the government’s artillery bombardment.

Foreign press reports said that the Syrian government had given the military forces full authority to finish the opposition and to punish all sympathisers. To avoid any popular protests or world condemnation, hushing up on Hama was imposed, all transport and communication links with the town were suspended. An embargo to the entry and parting was imposed on the town.


2. The Syrian Ba'th Party dominates the political system, and citizens do not have the right to change their government. The Government uses its vast powers to crush any organized political opposition. Other serious abuses include the widespread use of torture in detention, denial of freedom of speech and of the press, denial of freedom of assembly and association, some limits on freedom of religion,and limits on freedom of movement.

The Government does not officially allow independent domestic human rights groups to exist. Violence and societal discrimination against women are widespread. (Based on the US state dept reports).

* * *

I guess that Syria is just about as moderate as Iraq, mass-murdering its own Arab citizens.

Then again, this kind of "moderation" is also present is all Arab countries, so far as I know.

[L@mplighterM]

I remember the action Syria took against fundamentalists and its been really effective witin their own borders.

The trouble in the occupied territories is that Arafat isn't going to level his own home and shoot himself. His only action against terrorism is inaction.

His silver-tongue is tarnished as far as the west is concerned because they don't seem to be dancing to his tune lately.

[aid]

Takeo is takeh quite right.

Syria's policies would be more moderate if Israle did not exist...

Or maybe the other way around...

Maybe in this case Syria would be fighting Turkey and/or Iraq.

Iraq would be more moderate, too.

Or maybe it would still be fighting Iran. Or Turkey. Or Syria. Or it would probably take over all of Arabia and most of world's oil.

Takeo is always right. This is what brilliant Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist analysis results in.:)

[takeo]

Yes syria isn't a democracy, but if they crush bin laden or hamas friends than you talk about human rights abuses etc. but it is exactly that what you want Arafat to do. But the difference is Assad has real power in Syria (even too much power, I agree) while Israel maide Arafat weak and helpless, without an own safety infrstructure anymore, without able to moove freely, without weapons, how can he crush Hamas?
I'm sure in an independant Palestinian state he would do the same with hamas (which he really hates) , but not as brutal. but now they are a kind of allies against the foreign powers, even if they are nasty allies, and anyway he can't do nothing against them, they have too much popularity and he hasn't got the means.
Many of the things you mentioned about syria happened as well in palestina, Israel has the same methods, crush houses and buildings in cities were hamas is popular(or even not), punish civilians and sympathisers, embargoing towns, don't allow any foreign interfearance. (maybe not yet as brutal as in syria, but in Syria it was a one-time event, in Palestina it's something going on for years). There is another difference: the syrians were doing this in their own land to their own people.
"widespread use of torture in detention": this happens as well in Israeli prisons, Amnesty international has gathered some porrf of that in their reports.
"limits on freedom of movement " no comment
"citizens do not have the right to change their government", Palestinians do not even have the right to vote in what israeli consider as "israel".
but again all this happens to an occupied people, not to their own people.
also all the other accusations against Syria are true, but exist in more than half of the world (also in countries that are good friends of Israel, as south Africa in the 80's, many southamerican dictatorships, etc.) , it doesn't mean syria is extremistic, it's acts in the 80's was to eradicate extremism and now you had to recognise yourself that not all Arabs are bin-Laden's or fundamentalists. Asad isn't (Nasser wasn't either, nor is Saddam).
Syria would be a lot more moderate towards Israel i said if the golan heights would be returned, it is a good reason to delay the recognition of and peace treaty with Israel. I didn't say if Israel wouldn't exist anymor, don't twist my words.

"I guess that Syria is just about as moderate as Iraq, mass-murdering its own Arab citizens. "
Iraq didn't mass-murder it's own arab ciitizens, it mass-murdered the Kurds, Iraq did mass-murder on another people, not their own(exactly the same for Israel). Arab regimes are not moderate or dmocratic but they are more moderate than Israel because they don't invade other countries, refusing to leave (with the exception of Iraq, but left again)

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
Iraq did mass-murder on another people, not their own(exactly the same for Israel).

This is why I see your views as repeating complete and utter Arab lies and propaganda.

Look, I can understand that you disagree with Israel's right to defend itself from Arab terrorists, who murder Israeli children in pizza stores, in malls and in bus stops.

From what I see, in your view, the fact that the Palestinians are squatters in a Jewish land is not enough reason for the Israelis to have the right to return home and ask those squatters to leave, if the squatters cannot control themselves from murdering the owner of the house. I am beginning to understand that is your view. Please correct me if I am wrong.

But the Arab-originated blood-libel which you bring up about Israel, really crosses the line into some mad anti-Israel drivel.

Let's see you come up with even one single example of a state of Israel intentional mass-murder of anyone at all, as you constantly claim.

I should really put this on the list of terms like "genocide, ethnic cleansing," etc., which the Arab countries like Saudi Arabia have spent millions on a PR and disinformation campaign to fool the gullible Europeans into excusing Islamic terrorism.

I suppose their oil-money is well spent on people like you, but don't expect others to be fooled also. People are smarter than that.

[takeo]

You said no personal attacks on anyone in this forum, but that's exactly what you are doing now.
Ok, I won't use the term genocide anymore, because that's exaggerated, but the term ethnic cleansing is completely right in this context, so i will continue to use it. I wish you would read the articles i posted in the other treath, using different quotes and facts they make trash of your "Israel has to defend itself against arabs who want to kill all jews" arguments to defend Israeli occupation. This site has been made by Jews living in Israel and the US, and if you wish to see this as Arab propaganda as well, than i can't stop you from making yourself ridiculous.
Here is the link: http://www.cactus48.com/1967war.html

[takeo]

"From what I see, in your view, the fact that the Palestinians are squatters in a Jewish land is not enough reason for the Israelis to have the right to return home and ask those squatters to leave, if the squatters cannot control themselves from murdering the owner of the house. I am beginning to understand that is your view. Please correct me if I am wrong. "

yes you are very wrong. Because in fact the palestinians are no squatters in a Jewish land, they always lived there since more than 2000 years. In fact the Jews are squatters in a Palestinian land, at least in the Gaza-strip, west-bank and Eastern yerusalem. If these squatters can not controll themselves from taking land that belonged to other people and murdering the house-owners than the Palestinians have the right to ask their return to Israel. That is my view.

"But the Arab-originated blood-libel which you bring up about Israel, really crosses the line into some mad anti-Israel drivel.
Let's see you come up with even one single example of a state of Israel intentional mass-murder of anyone at all, as you constantly claim. "

Which blood-libel, i just accused Israel of some well prooven and internationally condamned facts like limiting the right to moove freely, and torturing. Even Israeli human right groups aknowledge that such things happen regularly or should i say daily. But one example of mass-murder: the 100's of (mostly non-armed) protesters being killed at the beginning of the Intifadeh, sabra and Chatilla(I know Sharon didn't do it himself but he ordered other people to do for him, see other threaths about that) and other crimes against innocent civilians in Libanon, and many more (just read the website i gave you above) .

[aid]

they always lived there since more than 2000 years.

This is a lie.

Most of the Arabs living in Palestine are late time immigrants arriving with the Zionist project.

Palestine in the middle of 19th Century was scarcely populated.

Sabra and Shatial is the other regular lie.

Arabs killed Arabs there.

All Arab-Communist propaganda here is a pile of lies.

[L@mplighterM]

takeo

I'd like to know is how much an Arab gets paid to post on this site.

How much do you get paid takeo????????

This forum seems a strange place to get converts for Islam. Do you know what lies by omission means????? Twisting history and distorting facts.

A psychopath could argue that Hitler did the Jews a favor??? A sociopath or psychopath could also argue that Arafat and the organization he represents are really trying to establish peace in the region.

The point is that anyone can come up with distorted facts and make any argument.

[takeo]

It seems there is no point in discussing with extremists. Yes, everyone criticising Israel is paid by Arabs who want to exterminate all jews. In fact i don't have to work because the corrupt Arab regimes pay me good money. Saying such ************ is easier than responding with arguments and facts. But it seems you are blind even for arguments, at least if they don't fit in your picture.
i posted on some other threath an article of stanford university historical library. It stated that before WWI Jews were a small minority(except in yerusalem) and the country was quite densely populated with Arab-speaking Palestinians, both Muslims and Christians. But of course who am i fooling, any historian not 100% complying to your point of view is paid by the Arabs.

"A psychopath could argue that Hitler did the Jews a favor??? "

where did I ever said that?????????

A sociopath or psychopath could also argue that Sharon and the party he represents are really trying to establish peace in the region.




"The point is that anyone can come up with distorted facts and make any argument."


Yes, you can, but there is still a difference between facts that have been historically or otherwise prooven in the whole world and "facts" that are only recognised in one country.
by the way, the extremist policy of israel created a huge division among the Frensh Jews, today there was a fight in northern France town of Lille between Sharon-supporters and Jews who are sick and tired of Israel's policies.
i saw today a documentory of the KKK on television. When asked why they hated Jews and "niggers" they said that all jews want to suck the blood of real americans and that jews will never be able to live among "real" Americans, that they don't belong there, etc. He also said that US was the land choosen by God only for the real Americans. ......................................:eek:

[aid]

During the Civil War in Russia Jews would come to Trotsky (who was the Commander-in-Chief of the Red Army at the time) with complaints about the Jewish pogroms the Red Army perpetrated.

Trorsky would say to them: "Go away. Remember I am not a Jew. I am a Communist".

If French Communists are now beating Jews supporters of Israel, they are not Jews even if they reprerent themselves as such.

They are Communists and supporters of Arab terrorism.
:)

[L@mplighterM]

I dont have to read anything at Standford I've seen and read enough Arab lies.

I've infiltrated 100's of chatrooms with different names and it's the same filth. It dosn't matter if its Pakistani, Arabic, Turkish, etc it's all the same.

[takeo]

So now the Jewish library (why by the way sell a lot of pro-Israeli lies, like that the UN-resolution don't call for the return of Palestinian civilians) is also pro-Arab propaganda because they stated that the revolution is Russia did stop the pogroms and persecution of the jews?
and so stanford is also pro-Arab propaganda? (a university with a jewish dean by the way, i have read somewhere, and not leftist at all)

[takeo]

a zionist is a zionist, not a Jew.

[L@mplighterM]

Who cares if the dean is Jewish at Stanford ???? I don?t !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I couldn?t care less if god was dean there.

Tell me is sending me links to a few lousy articles the best you can do????
I could send you links and information that would take you years to read.
Really????.*LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL* do you think I?m stupid?

As far as the United Nation goes it should be renamed Arab Nations. Nobel is still rolling around in his grave. Giving Annan the peace prize give me a break.

UN resolution are a dime a dozen.

[takeo]

"UN resolution are a dime a dozen."
So the UN-resolution recognising Israel is one of those...
You don't seem to care about anything except zionist propaganda, well that's your choice of course.

[L@mplighterM]

Here's a few UN resolutions, do you want more? The UN is an Arab body. You Arabs are a joke when you enter the west you take advantage of the laws to the fullest. In your own countries you wont even enforce the laws.

You want Israel to comply with UN resolutions but Arab countries don't have too. *LLLLLLLLLLOLLLLLLLLLL*


*SC Resolution 49 (1948) of 22 May 1948 [Adopted at 302nd meeting (8-0-3) (3 abstentions were Syria, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R.)]

* SC Resolution 50 (1948) of 29 May 1948 [Adopted at 310th meeting (Draft was voted on in parts, no vote taken on text as a whole.)]

SC Resolution 54 (1948) of 15 July 1948 [Adopted at 338th meeting (7-1-3) (1 against was Syria, 3 abstentions were Argentina, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R.)]

SC Resolution 60 (1948) of 29 October 1948 [Adopted at 375th meeting (without a vote)]

SC Resolution 127 (1958) of 22 January 1958 [Adopted at 810th meeting ? unanimously]

SC Resolution 162 (1961) of 11 April 1961 [Adopted at 949th meeting (8-0-3) (3 abstentions were Ceylon, U.S.S.R., United Arab Republic)

SC Resolution 250 (1968) of 27 April 1968 [Adopted at 1417th meeting - unanimously]

SC Resolution 251 (1968) of 2 May 1968 [Adopted at 1420th meeting - unanimously]

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
But one example of mass-murder: the 100's of (mostly non-armed) protesters being killed at the beginning of the Intifadeh, sabra and Chatilla(I know Sharon didn't do it himself but he ordered other people to do for him...

More lies like those spread by Arabists and apparently extreme leftists. As usual, not a shred of truth to them.

Shooting rubber bullets to disperse Molotov weilding Palestinians is NOT mass-murder. This is a police action which would (and has) been taken by any civilized country. In fact, Israel has been more mild and more humane in dealing with the Arab wave of terrorist-supporting protesters than any other country I am aware of.

I wonder what would happen in the US if 100,000 Arab supporters of Al Qeada would start throwing firebombs at close range, at the New York City police, for example.

You may also find it interesting that when the PA needed to deal with an anti-Arafat demonstration by Hamas, who did they come to for help to learn proper methods of crowd-control? They came to the Israelis for advice.

As for your Sabra and Shatilla lie, it looks like just another example of Arab-spread disinformation, hoping to fool the uninformed. They tried to blame Sharon for Arabs killing other Arabs.

Here is a thread on this forum discussing that topic: (Thoughts about the Sabra and Shatilla Massacre (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=79) ).

So this is your supposed Israeli "mass murder": Police defending themselves against fire-bombs, and Arabs killing other Arabs???

Makes sense that when there are no facts at all to support your baseless anti-Israel positions, you resort to making up lies of "Euro-chic" atrocities.

[L@mplighterM]

Smoke this takeo.

Statements Clarifying the Meaning of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242

Even before the beginning of the Jarring Mission (the Special Representative as mentioned in the Resolution), the Arab States insisted that Security Council Resolution 242 called for a total withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the Six-Day War. Israel held that the withdrawal phrase in the Resolution was not meant to refer to a total withdrawal. Following are statements including the interpretations of various delegations to Resolution 242:

A. United Kingdom

- Lord Caradon, sponsor of the draft that was about to be adopted, stated, before the vote in the Security Council on Resolution 242:

" . . . the draft Resolution is a balanced whole. TO add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole as it stands. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of us want the draft Resolution, the whole draft Resolution and nothing but the draft Resolution." (S/PV 1382, p. 31, of 22.11.67)

- Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973:

Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?"

Answer: "the purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary . . . "

- Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:

Question: "What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?"

Mr. Stewart: "No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal."

- Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969:

"As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told the House previously, we believe that these two things should be read concurrently and that the omission of the word 'all' before the word 'territories' is deliberate."

- Mr. George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970:

"I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. "I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70)

B. United States of America

- Mr. Arthur Goldberg, US representative, in the Security Council in the course of the discussions which preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:

"To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries ... would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description ... such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point is an absolute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is . . . " (S/PV. 1377, p. 37, of 15. 11.67)

- President Lyndon Johnson, 10 September 1968:

"We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders. Some such lines must be agreed to by the neighbours involved."

- Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"):

"That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties."

- Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law and Public Affairs, Yale University, who, in 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:

a) " ... paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)

b) "The agreement required by paragraph 3. of the Resolution, the Security Council said, should establish 'secure and recognized boundaries' between Israel and its neighbours 'free from threats or acts of force', to replace the Armistice Demarcation lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the Resolution, and in a condition of peace." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 68)

C. USSR

- Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov said in discussions that preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:

" ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. What does that mean? What boundaries are these? Secure, recognized - by whom, for what? Who is going to judge how secure they are? Who must recognize them? ... there is certainly much leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient." (S/PV. 1373, p. 112, of 9.11.67)

D. Brazil

- Mr. Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, Brazilian representative, speaking in the Security Council after the adoption of Resolution 242:

"We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure, permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighbouring States." (S/PV. 1382, p. 66, 22.11.67)

[L@mplighterM]

I could post 10,000's of articles but I'm not going to. You Arabs just don't get the picture and you never will. The point is who cares about the UN and what it recognizes. Do you really think you can twist the truth?????

I'm immune to your Arab propaganda filled with lies. The fact is you quote international law with your interpretation.

Well it's not that simple, everything pertaining to law is ambiguous.

[aid]

Originally posted by takeo
"UN resolution are a dime a dozen."
So the UN-resolution recognising Israel is one of those...
You don't seem to care about anything except zionist propaganda, well that's your choice of course.

Yes, it certainly is.

You yourself is an example. You don't recognize this resolution as you've admitted yourself. You are only willing to "allow" Israel to exist (since it is a fact on the ground and you can't think of a good way to demolish it). In that, you go even further than the official Soviet position before it went to the big Workers Paradise in Heaven: the Soviet Union recognised the legitimacy of Israel.

You don't. You are more extremist than Stalin, Molotov, Khruschev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, were, certainly more than Gorbachev and Zyuganov are as well. Zhirinovsky never questioned the legitimacy of Israel. You are right there with Fascists, Islamists and latter day Communists - which are identical in all matters concerning Israel.

Just like the above exremist political groups in the West, the more extreme Arab and Islamist states similarly refuse to recognize Israel's legitimacy even when they are forced do deal with it de facto.

It is quite clear that as long as this attitudes continues, Israel can rely only on the IDF. All peace treaties with deniers of Israel's legitimacy are suspect; they are by definition temporary and depend only on the balance of power in the region. This is why the strategic value of land and Israel's control of the borders of the whole area between the sea and river are critical. :)

[takeo]

Yes, it's your choice but it's a catastrophic choice for Israel, as we can see daily on television. If there were only more critical voices in israel...
Yes, I recognise the legitimacy of Israel, but not because Jews lived there 2000 years ago or because I like the zionist idea. I am not even against the idea of a jewish state, but it should happen WITH the original inhabitants (as the first zionists, who were by the way leftists and non-religious, indicated) but a jewish state only for the Jews is fascism.
I agree that the UN depends completely upon the members of the security council (not one Arab state in it) , but every country member of the un, including israel should obey their rules.
about the quotes: whatever diplomats of pro-israel GB and US(every us-president needs the zionist lobby to get elected) said later (the statement of the Soviet-Union was meant to condamn the lack of clearness) it is stated "withrawel of the territories occupied in 1967" so i guess that's clear enough. Besides if it wouldn't be clear enough the US and GB would by now have moved their embassies to Yerusalem. when stated "stop the occupation of Kouweit" in 1990 it also didn't mean parts of Kouweit but the whole of Kouweit and when is stated "stop terrorism" it doesn't mean only Al-quaida terrorism but all terrorism. the resolution about the return of the refugees is also clear enough.

about the shootings at protesters: they were armed with stones, some with molotov-cocktails and later some with weapons, at provokative israeli military positions in the middle of palestinian town, as a real occupiing force. we could see on television that Israeli soldiers really shot at anyone, at journalists recording their crimes, at children hiding behind something, not only at armed people. By the way in northern ireland the police doesn't shoot at protesters armed with molotov-cocktails, it seems GB is more civilised than Israel. With the many anti-globalisation protests, even faced with violent protesters with molotov-cocktails, only two people were shot and the shooting police were persecuted (never seen this in israel) . in israel 100's of people were shot in such protests, no single shooter was persecuted, not even the one that everyone could see on television clearly and deliberately shot an unarmed child.
there are lots more of israeli provocations, for example building settlements in the center of a palestinian town, and destroying a lot of palestinian houses to build them (of course no compensation was paid) , all un-members including the us condamned this fascist settlement policy without any doubt or lack of clearness. Destroying houses tout court is an act of provocation of course, as well as blocking palestinians from leavinf their town. even minister of foreign affairs Perez, a senior zionist leader, condamned the destroyal of palestinian houses today.
about Sharon, yes just read this treath, nobody ever answered the arguments i made that he was indeed guilty, and a BBC-documentory was "anti-semitic" because it dared to accuse Sharon (and Belgium of course too).
i'm sure that everything that happened to Israel is the guilt of Israel and noone else. With their constant provocations, conquers and lack of consideration for the palestinians they provoked the palestinians to take revenge, and many hate israel enough to go as far as suice-missions. i think if i would have been treated as them, i would hate Israel too, enough to take my gun and kill as many israeli as possible. You would too. Such hate doesn't come from nowhere, it is the result of years of zionist policy against the palestinians, take their land, destroy their houses, ... of course this will result in violence. And i'm sure the latest despisable acts of sharon will result in an end to the halt of suicide-attacks, Arafat's speach was an opportunity to stop the cicle of revenge, but Sharon obviously knows only one language, the language of terror. He is the same breath as you guys. More violence will occure, and every victim will be the responsability of Sharon and hamas, two parties that don't want peace.
and whatever you think doesn't really matter, you can continue reading zionist propganda, but the war against israel will continue, more people will die on both sides, and people will see next elections that sharon didn't kept his promise to bring peace. Hopefully next time they will use their brains and won't vote for bulldozer or bibi.
I think the camp-david proposals are a good start for new negotiations, Arafat has to reign in on terror (he will if he has the power) and israel has to stop settlement-policy and withdraw from the stolen land and allow a palestinian state and refugees to come back. Whatever you say won't change reality: compromise or war. Clearly you choose for war, i can only say that that will be a very unfortunate decision for Israel (and for the palestinians too of course).

[takeo]

The real legitimacy of israel can only be based upon a just solution for the victims of Israel, the Palestinians. Many countries recognised Israel but not its right to occupy and stop the return of etnic cleansed refugees. That is also my position.

[aid]

From Takeo posts we know exactly why we need Israel: what are we going to do if Fascists, Communists or Islamist come to power if there is no Israel?

With Israel we know we always have a safe haven from the Red-Brown scum. :)

[takeo]

Israel is ruled by brown scum, it is the last place to hide for it.

[L@mplighterM]

Israel is ruled by a democracy that is one of the finest in the world.

[takeo]

do you really believe that?
a country where the leader has been shot by a jewish extremist? a country where many people because of their etnicity don't even have the right to vote? a country with a war-criminal as its prime minister?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
do you really believe that?
a country where the leader has been shot by a jewish extremist?

So I guess the US is no longer a democracy after JFK?


a country where many people because of their etnicity don't even have the right to vote?
Which Israeli citizen doesn't have the right to vote?


a country with a war-criminal as its prime minister?
Says who? This is another ridiculous Arabist/Left-wing extremist scheme. Always trying to blame Arab massacres of one another on Israeli leaders.

btw - I always find the extreme left-wing's review of democracies to be so off-base, so as to be pretty entertaining.

[takeo]

I forgot one asset all stable finest democracies have in common:

-every year an new government because some extremist parties take the government hostage.

-a country where religious extremists don't have to do their military duty but people who refuse to do so for other moral reasons are severely punished.


"So I guess the US is no longer a democracy after JFK? "

well JFK wasn't shot after an extensive campaign against him by the republican opposition, and the us isn't exactly one of the most refined democracies in the world. (i would vote for Denmark, finland or norway (rights of minorities, strong social security, everyone can vote, even recent immigrants, every party the same amount of publicity, strong laws protecting freedom of opinion, ...) )



a country where many people because of their etnicity don't even have the right to vote?



"Which Israeli citizen doesn't have the right to vote?"

the fact that in big parts of what israeli consider to be a part of Israel the majority of the local population hasn't the right to vote and isn't allowed to have Israeli citizenship isn't exactly typical for refined democracies.



"Says who? This is another ridiculous Arabist/Left-wing extremist scheme. Always trying to blame Arab massacres of one another on Israeli leaders. "

we have discussed this in other treaths were i never received an answer on many facts i stated that prooved the guild of Sharon. let's continue the discussion were you left it, not here.
By the way Belgium isn't extreme left-wing or Arab, nor is the BBC, nor is the united nations.

"btw - I always find the extreme left-wing's review of democracies to be so off-base, so as to be pretty entertaining."


Maibe in some cases it is true, but in this case this is an opinion shared by almost any country in the world and almost everyone in France, including most Jews. It is quite entertaining to hear that Israel is one of the finest democracies in the world.

[aid]

Israel is more than just a democracy.

I would call her a hyper-democracy.

Based on the quaint outdated model of proportional representation hardly used anywhere else, it allows all the extreme views in the Knesset. Almost no vote is wasted. No other country of any importance has as many parties in the parliament to my knowledge. And that includes direct and open enemies of Israel sworn to destroing instead of protecting the state. You will find that kind nowhere else.

If a US Congressman foe example were to express his support for the enemy at wartime, he'd by lynched on the neareast lampost to the Capitol.

Israel has totally a independent judicial system, which is ferocious in relation to corruption in high places.

Israel had a degree of freedom of press, divergence of views, irreverence and the scope of coverage unmatched anywhere.

Israel is surely a more democratic country than the US and I suspect France with its strong centralized government, gendarms, etc.

And imagine if Israel can do besieged by enemies in wartime, what it would if it had just a little peace.

Takeo, how many votes does the CPF get, and how many seats in the parliament it has?
:confused:

[takeo]

hyper-democracy, I'm learning every day.
In france there is also representative system (except presidential elections). we also have a lot of extreme parties, even Le Pen can take part to the election, even if he's an open ennemy of democracy and human rights and want to restore fascism.
the PCF is taking part in a government with center-left and a right-wing president. It has more or less 13% of the votes and 15% of the parliamentory seats, so its the 4th biggest party in France. Our trade-union is the most important in france. Our party is respected in Frensh society as a democratic left-wing party, we don't agree with all the policies of the government but have to do concessions. Sometimes we take the government hostage when it's abolsutely necessary (for example during the yougoslavia raids)
What party taking part in israeli elections is an open ennemy of Israel? I don't remember hamas or Jihad taking part to the elections. If you mean the arab parties, they are not against Israel but against Sharon, that's different.

"If a US Congressman foe example were to express his support for the enemy at wartime, he'd by lynched on the neareast lampost to the Capitol. "

The US is even less democratic than Israel, at least the system, two parties that represent exactly the same: $$$. But at least most people in what is considered the us can vote, no whole regions are ruled by a government they can't elect.

"Israel has totally a independent judicial system, which is ferocious in relation to corruption in high places.
Israel had a degree of freedom of press, divergence of views, irreverence and the scope of coverage unmatched anywhere. "

Well, not so totally independant, it allows torture, it gives far smaller punishment to Jew crimes than to Arab crimes for exactly the same (for example during the demonstrations and violence in israe between palestinians living in israel and Jews). The judicial system and laws reflect the etnic caracter of Israel.



"And imagine if Israel can do besieged by enemies in wartime, what it would if it had just a little peace. "

Yes, that's right, so it is time to make peace as soon as possible.






Report this post to a moderator

[L@mplighterM]

I knew you would vote for Denmark takeo. Don’t worry Denmark is waking up to you jerks. I was in Odense, Denmark when you Arab ******** celebrated the bombings of the Twin Towers.

I read your chat rooms where you rejoice when innocent Israeli and American men, women and children are killed by terrorists. I know all about your Allah Hafitz garbage and your hateful books.

There's a new government there now that would like nothing better than to send you all packing. I hope the Danes withdraw from the EU and tell Belgium to drop dead.

It's my sincere hope that Israel isn't as stupid as the Danes. It was calculated that in 25 years you would be the majority.

Mathematics dictates that if Israel was to let Arabs become full citizens and then opened the floodgate eventually it would become Irabia.

I know how you brave warriors specialize in killing pregnant Israeli women and children intentionally.

Sharon is a pussy cat compared to me.

[takeo]

Lomplighter, your views are identical to those of jean-Mrie Le Pen, really identical. Yes, you are even (a little bit) more extremist than sharon.
Of course you hate real tolerant and multicultural democracies as Denmark, where minorities have equal rights and freedom of speach is conserved. I can assure you that in the rankings of Amnesty international Denmark has a much more positive ranking in about everything than Israel, and by the way it is wealthier as well. It's a horrible idea to you to see Arabs living in decent conditions with equal rights without being persecuted as in Israel. There is however one difference: they live in Denmark only 2 or 3 generations, in Israel 1000's of generations.
You act as if I'm an arab, that indicates enough your blind hate against everything that isn't exactly your view, if you would be prime minister the democratic image Israel still has, even under Sharon, would soon disappear.
I don't like people who talk positively about the the destroyal of WTC, but they have the right to express their opinion. I don't like people who support the destroyal of houses of innocent people, but again they have the right to express their opinion, this is how a democracy works, of course totally unacceptable for you.
Yes, as Le Pen you represent nothing but real fascism.

[takeo]

the retorics of anti-arab hatred is in fact very similar to anti-semitism before and during WWII.

[Not Beilin]

Originally posted by takeo

the fact that in big parts of what israeli consider to be a part of Israel the majority of the local population hasn't the right to vote and isn't allowed to have Israeli citizenship isn't exactly typical for refined democracies.


Let's see now: Newsguy is right that all Israelis including Arabs have the right to vote but you are upset that Arabs who live outside Israel and are not even Israeli citizens can't vote in Israel?

Please tell me in which country can people who are not citizens vote? I mean it would be kind of weird to have the British vote in the France elections, or Austrians voting in the Swedish elections, no?

I think all this communist thing has got you very mixed up Takeo. :D

[L@mplighterM]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck.

Dont pawn yourself of as a jew to me takeo.

The only reason that there's Arabs in Denmark is because of the laws passed by bleeding hearts that sold out their country.

[L@mplighterM]

Here's what LePen said takio.

". . .the newly elected Mayor of the town of Vitrolles. . . repeated a LePen statement that 'there are differences between the races. . . there are simply too many immigrants, and they make who knows how many children whom they send into the streets and then claim welfare. . . .' "

You Arabs breed like rabbits and expect someone else to look after your children. It's all comming to an end. You must have studied Edward de Bono books on lateral thinking.

Everyone can find some common ground with anyone. You might like a cetain brand of whiskey or??????

I don't support LePen completely but I do in part. Am I a racist??? What if I am ???? it's no crime to like people that are alike or share a common goal. Of course it depends on what that goal is and that goes without thinking.

[takeo]

OK, Lomplighter you walk like LePen and you quake like LePen, and you even admit it. (even newsguy on some other treath said that Le Pen as a fascist and anti-semite too, except being an anti-arab racist too of course, as you are). well, it's at least honest to admit you have a lot in common with fascists. That's a start.
By the way I'm Jewish, i know you can't imagine jews criticising Israel but get used to it, if I was not or if i was Arab this board would have propably made me anti-semitic. I'm very glad my parents moved from russia to France and not to Israel.

And about people who can't vote because they are not in Israel and don't have citizenship. OK, so you recognise, for the first time, that the West-bank, Gaza and Eastern yerusalem(I think the Palestinians in Eastern Yerusalem can't vote too, right?) are not a part of Israel but militarily occupied territory? that's a start as well...

[L@mplighterM]

I know exactly what LePen is and he dosen't have my support and he never will.

Just because you agree with one or two points dosen't mean you support an individual.

To clarify my position I did not mean total support of LePen in my prior post. What I meant was if different points were presented I would support them on an individual base if they represented what I believed in.

Of course if the person is a neo- nazi and has a couple of good points I wouldn't support that individual. So don't you worry, Mr. LePen wouldn't get my vote only my boot.

Not only that I was referring to Denmark where the Muslims **** and make the Danes pay welfare to support their large families. There's a lot of resentment under the surface.

[takeo]

The problems is one can not shop from different parties. And the anti-arab positions of Le Pen are not completely aside from his other positions. They all have racism and fascism as a source.
And about Denmark, I heard few people complain, in fact it's one of the most peacefull and prosperous nations in the world, and such positions as Le Pen and yours wouldn't even been legal in Denmark, they don't accept fascists there.
if you have such a hate against one people and try to blaim all the evils of the world on them, than you are a fascist, no matter if this people are Jews or Arabs.

[aid]

if you have such a hate against one people and try to blaim all the evils of the world on them, than you are a fascist, no matter if this people are Jews or Arabs.

Exactly. This makes you a Fascist (Communist, same thing). Your hatred of the people of Israel is incredible.

[takeo]

i don't have any hatred against THE PEOPLE of Israel but against the government of Israel, Lomplighter on the contrary (and you probably as well) has a hate against the Arabs as a people. (that's why he supports the views of Le Pen).

[L@mplighterM]

Jeg taler og skriver dansk. Translated: I speak and write danish. As a matter of fact I speak and write many languages.

I think I've spoken to more Danes than you have and I know exactly how most of them feel. The last election showed exactly where they stand against Muslims.

The last foreign minister was an Arab *** kissing jew hater. That has come to an end.

Actually I have relatives in Denmark, that at a great risk to their lives helped jews escape to Sweden during the WWII.

I think what bothers you is the fact that the world has awakened to your B.S.

But tell me one thing how can you be a French jew when both your parents moved to France from Russia???????????????

[takeo]

BECAUSE NOW I LIVE IN FRANCE AND I'M A FRENSH CITIZEN

I've only been once to Denmark but i have a lot of repect for what these people have achieved. Of course they may be a little harder workers and better organised than the Frensh and certainly the Russians, but it is also due to the social-democratic system the country had for decades. Now there is a change i think mostly because they don't like the EU(and the last government did) , not because there is so much racism, as far as i know there is much less racism and problems with Arabs than in France. This is also why these people resisted against nazi-occupation and helped Jews, unlike the ideological brothers of Jorg Haider and LePen, who helped persecuting Jews as much as they could during WWII and now do the same with Arabs.

[L@mplighterM]

I was wondering how you Arabs define Racism takeo??????

Everyone seems to be using it as some evil weapon these days to make people afraid to have an opinion.

I'm not advocating the genocide of anyone, I just don't see too much evidence that the majority of them make good neighbors.

As far as the French Jews and the Arabs getting along in France is BS. The media just dosn't support that or are you suggesting that's a lie. In the last few months you guys have been playing with matches in Jewish schools. Are you going to tell me that's a lie????????

You said it yourself when you speak to the people of Islam there and tell them that you support their struggle in Israel, then they love you. Well the opposite of love is hate when I got up this morning.

Any individual that sells out his heritage is just another Johnny Walker and should be treated as such. Well it's moot anyways because I don't believe for a second that you're a jew.

[L@mplighterM]

Why do you differentiate between Jews in Israel??????Russian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, etc.

A French citizen and a French jew might be the same but still a Jew born in Russia is in my opinion a Russian Jew. Period.

[takeo]

Jews in Israel hear mostly vicious propaganda of the kind i hear on this board. Jews elsewhere have a more moderate opinion because they can hear different sources and live in a more open and tolerant society.
So you think i should be convicted for "betraying my race" (not my nation because i'm not Israeli) because i don't agree with israeli policy, well this is pure and die-hard fascism, sorry but it is.
i guess you are also for the prohibition of peace-loving parties such as meretz.
by the way i'm Jewish but if you don't believe it than it's your business. (I guess there aren't so many Arabs in France who know some Yiddisch and Russian. )



"I was wondering how you Arabs define Racism takeo??????
Everyone seems to be using it as some evil weapon these days to make people afraid to have an opinion. "

No, it IS an opinion.

"I'm not advocating the genocide of anyone, I just don't see too much evidence that the majority of them make good neighbors. "

Jews aren't good neighbours for the Arabs either. What do you expect, roses and honey if you occupy them, destroy their houses, bomb them, build settlements and chase them away? By the way the Palestinians living in iIrael are neighbours as any other.


"As far as the French Jews and the Arabs getting along in France is BS. The media just dosn't support that or are you suggesting that's a lie. In the last few months you guys have been playing with matches in Jewish schools. Are you going to tell me that's a lie???????? "

have you ever been to France, or do you COMPLETELY rely on propaganda?

[NewsGuy]

As of today, the Israeli press reports that the US in under the impression that no peace will be reached with Arafat and that, according to US diplomats, Muhammad Dahlan and Jibril Rajub might be the replacements to Arafat.

[aid]

Originally posted by takeo
So you think i should be convicted for "betraying my race" (not my nation because i'm not Israeli) because i don't agree with israeli policy, well this is pure and die-hard fascism, sorry but it is.
i guess you are also for the prohibition of peace-loving parties such as meretz.


Don't worry, Commissar Takeo, when the French Arabs + Fascists + Communists get to the serious killing of Jews (they have only started), they are not going to check your Party card. They hit in the face, not in the card - po morde, a ne po partbiletu. They did not before - not in Germany and not in the Soviet Union of blessed Arab memory.

I for one believe that you were born Jewish (in my view you are not Jewish, but in Rabbinical view you are).

After all, one of the worst anti-Semitic ideologues was a baptized Jew - Marx.

Trotsky was born a Jew, after which he descended to be a Communist and stopped to be Jewish.

Mikhail Berman, the inventor of the Gulag was born a Jew and went on to become a rabid dog.

Lazar Kaganovich, the wolf of the Kremlin, was born a Jew but became a Stalin's henchman, meaning totally un-Jewish.

So I believe you, Takeo.

Your parents were Jews. Or most probably they were Communists. Your grandparents were Jewish for sure, and they must be spinning in their graves today.

[takeo]

of course as usual you keep making irrational arguments and insults without every responding with real facts aidid.
Nobody wants the destruction of all Jews, and if this is your excuse to murder more Palestinians and denying them their rights (the only thing the "united anti-Israel coalition" in you words rejects) than you make yourself completely ridiculous and i'm sure you know as well that this argument is false but you don't know any other to legitimise what Israel, as a "modern democratic country", is doing now.
And of course all Jews that aren't zionists but for example communist are no REAL jews, as Hitler said that all Germans who aren't NAZI aren't real germans and lost their right to be german.
But i can assure you my grand-parents were die-hard communists, a lot more than my parents(who aren't politically active) and even more than me!

"As of today, the Israeli press reports that the US in under the impression that no peace will be reached with Arafat and that, according to US diplomats, Muhammad Dahlan and Jibril Rajub might be the replacements to Arafat"


yeah "the Israeli press reports" and "the US"(who is the US???)
right................
wishfull thinking

[watcher]

Originally posted by takeo
Jews in Israel hear mostly vicious propaganda of the kind i hear on this board. Jews elsewhere have a more moderate opinion because they can hear different sources and live in a more open and tolerant society.

I beg to differ on your view of this board... As we understand we each have our own viewpoints and opinions and apparently tolerated on this board yes this board is open to allow you and others like you to post on this board plus may I say your opinions are appreciated at least by me for it allows for open discussion, so if you are welcome then these others you're speaking of may voice their opinions too.

If you want to speak about common vicious propaganda look at the anti-jewish sentiment prevalent in the world today. Those with Israel as Israel cannot say death to "palestinians" or death to the world, or even removal of "palestinians" or removal of those of the world, But what seems to be a common thought is remove Israel is some circles in the world or death to Israel in other circles.

All Israel wants is to live in peace at home, and to have "palestinians" to live in their homes in peace and pretty much global peace, If "palestinians" want to continue to reside in Israel then they can do so in peace. They were not removed or else there would not be gaza or west bank, or even those living in Jerusalem. Yet there is no peace but violent hatred from "palestine" so if they are removed from Israel and sent to their homelands it is on their heads that they had to leave. They've been given countless opportunities to reside in peace if they continue to reject all that what else can be done?

[takeo]

Thank you that you appreciate my opinion, you are right that every opinion is valuable for open discussion, as well as yours and even extreme opinions as the one of lomplighter, aid, negev, etc.
It is only somewhat a pity that most participants here are from likud-tendency or even more right-wing, the discussion could be a lot more constructive and diversed if also people from more moderate tendency in Israel or the US were represented. (labour, meretz, peace-movement, etc.) I think their opinons are closer to mine than to the opinion of lomlighter, aid, etc.

"If you want to speak about common vicious propaganda look at the anti-jewish sentiment prevalent in the world today. Those with Israel as Israel cannot say death to "palestinians" or death to the world, or even removal of "palestinians" or removal of those of the world, But what seems to be a common thought is remove Israel is some circles in the world or death to Israel in other circles. "

in the US or even Europe it is more tolerated to say "i want removal of the palestinians" than "i want removal of the jews", you can be sure of that. only a minority arabs in the West want death to Israel and even less will say this in public but quite some jews in the US and Europe can say "death to the Palestinians" and still not being treated as a kind of fascist. the evidence is that racists as Daniel Pipes can publish his fascist views in some very important American newspapers. and apart from the Islamic world, one can say there are not more anti-jewish than anti-Arab feelings. However that doesn't mean that the world will tolerate occupation and denial of UN-resolutions, criticism of this policy doesn't mean being anti-Jew.

"All Israel wants is to live in peace at home, and to have "palestinians" to live in their homes in peace and pretty much global peace, If "palestinians" want to continue to reside in Israel then they can do so in peace. They were not removed or else there would not be gaza or west bank, or even those living in Jerusalem. Yet there is no peace but violent hatred from "palestine" so if they are removed from Israel and sent to their homelands it is on their heads that they had to leave. They've been given countless opportunities to reside in peace if they continue to reject all that what else can be done?"

If israel would really want to live in peace than it would allow the refugees back and stop the occupation and make an end to this problem and source of anti-israeli violence.
Besides it is their right to be there, it is not some kind of courtesy of Israel to let them stay there or to stop the occupation and illegal settlement policy. It is their homeland. israel hasn't retreated and stopped the repression in the occupied territories and removed their military and settlers, and hasn't given to the refugees the chance to return, so the palestinians hadn't been given the chance to live in peace with or in Israel. (the few palestinians who were permitted to stay in israel as equal citizens have prooved that they can live in peace).

[watcher]

Your welcome Takeo but let's address more the issues:

I said; If you want to speak about common vicious propaganda look at the anti-jewish sentiment prevalent in the world today. Those with Israel as Israel cannot say death to "palestinians" or death to the world, or even removal of "palestinians" or removal of those of the world, But what seems to be a common thought is remove Israel is some circles in the world or death to Israel in other circles.

you say, "in the US or even Europe it is more tolerated to say "i want removal of the palestinians" than "i want removal of the jews", you can be sure of that."

It is obvious that the people who belong there should stay... Israel is at home, "palestinians" are the squatters simple and truthful as that.

you also said, " only a minority arabs in the West want death to Israel and even less will say this in public but quite some jews in the US and Europe can say "death to the Palestinians" and still not being treated as a kind of fascist. the evidence is that racists as Daniel Pipes can publish his fascist views in some very important American newspapers. and apart from the Islamic world, one can say there are not more anti-jewish than anti-Arab feelings. However that doesn't mean that the world will tolerate occupation and denial of UN-resolutions, criticism of this policy doesn't mean being anti-Jew. "

Any of and with Israel cannot say death to the "palestinians" or anyone else for that matter unless they are talking about the bloodthirsty individuals murdering the innocent really death is unwanted. It is more appropriate to seek peace and explore any means necessary to achieve peace. Unfortunately "palestine" does not share the same agenda with such terrorist actions and continuous rejection of proposals allowing them to remain in Israel.

I said; All Israel wants is to live in peace at home, and to have "palestinians" to live in their homes in peace and pretty much global peace, If "palestinians" want to continue to reside in Israel then they can do so in peace. They were not removed or else there would not be gaza or west bank, or even those living in Jerusalem. Yet there is no peace but violent hatred from "palestine" so if they are removed from Israel and sent to their homelands it is on their heads that they had to leave. They've been given countless opportunities to reside in peace if they continue to reject all that what else can be done?

you answered, "If israel would really want to live in peace than it would allow the refugees back and stop the occupation and make an end to this problem and source of anti-israeli violence.
Besides it is their right to be there, it is not some kind of courtesy of Israel to let them stay there or to stop the occupation and illegal settlement policy. It is their homeland. israel hasn't retreated and stopped the repression in the occupied territories and removed their military and settlers, and hasn't given to the refugees the chance to return, so the palestinians hadn't been given the chance to live in peace with or in Israel. (the few palestinians who were permitted to stay in israel as equal citizens have prooved that they can live in peace)."

It is a courtesy that "palestinians" are still living in Israel... Israel very well understands the "palestinian" plight of having to move from Israels own problems of having to move out of Israel so many times and forced to move from village to village, country to country... until finally being able to return home. With that knowledge of the hardships of moving Israel graciously allowed these strangers who still like to call themselves "palestinians" reside within Israel. Yet all the thanks Israel gets in return is hatred and death at the hands of these strangers. What else can Israel do? Israel more than bent over backwards for these people but if they remain in their hateful ways there can be no other choice than to move these people back to the countries they came from.
You can't say that's a bad thing because they are returning to their homelands just as Israel is back home.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
in the US or even Europe it is more tolerated to say "i want removal of the palestinians" than "i want removal of the jews", you can be sure of that.

Just the opposite is true.

In the US and Europe there have been non-stop crowing for years about how the Jews need to be forcefully removed from the settlements.