Takeo's peace plan suggestion (ARCHIVE)

[takeo]

If I would be prime minister of Israel i could bring peace within one month, and unlike Sharon keep my promise.

first step: talks with Arafat in Jerusalem about the preparation of a peace-conference in Europe or Washington, with lots of international donors. Israel would withdraw its forces from all the territories belonging to the PA . Make your plans public about your intentions to stop all occupation.

second: stop terrorism: expose the plan to stop the occupation and secretly ask the approval of Hamas, PFLP and Jihad. Probably only Jihad, and perhaps hamas would refuse. If they refuse than joint actions between PA-police, israeli army and secret service, in cooperation with international forces (US and European) to dismantle all organisations who still commit violence and refuse to benefit from an amnesty if they give in their weapons (as happened in northern ireland). This would most probably make an end to at least 90% of the terrorist activities.

thirth: permanent withrawel from israeli forces and install international troops and protection to protect the borders of israel and the remaining colonists.

forth: peace-conforence in which israel offers a full independant palestinian state and promise to take in a certain number of refugees (not more than 1.5 million). in return Arafat should sign a peace-treaty with Israel, recognise it, promiise security-cooperation, and allows continued international presence at the borders. Most likely Arafat would accept. Jerusalem would be divided and the holy sites in Eastern Jerusalem brought under international protection and maintained by a board of jewish and Islamic clerics. Europe and the US will promise to take in the rest of the refugees and pay for the resettlements of jewish settlers and palestinian refugees within Israel.

Separate negotiations with Israel and Libanon: the Holan-heights and pre-1967 border in return for a peace-treaty and recognition of Israel. Syria promises to keep the Golan as a demilitarised region. Other Arab countries would be very tempted to recognise Israel as well and do business with it. Israel would recover very fast and instead of being a military middle-eastern power it would be an economic tiger of the middle-East.

Arafat and the PLO would be treated as heroes for bringing liberation (as in 1993) and the moderates would easily win the election.

All this is very realistic and it's a pity for te whole region Israel's leaders are such extremists.

[watcher]

You said, “If I would be prime minister of Israel i could bring peace within one month, and unlike Sharon keep my promise.
first step: talks with Arafat in Jerusalem about the preparation of a peace-conference in Europe or Washington, with lots of international donors. Israel would withdraw its forces from all the territories belonging to the PA . Make your plans public about your intentions to stop all occupation.”

Sharon can keep his promise but it goes both ways... “palestine” can’t keep up it’s end of the bargain, they’re acting as if they don’t desire a state just they way they were before Israel returned home. Israel does not occupy the surrounding countries so bringing up occupation of territories belonging to the “PA” is pointless.

You said, “second: stop terrorism: expose the plan to stop the occupation and secretly ask the approval of Hamas, PFLP and Jihad. Probably only Jihad, and perhaps hamas would refuse. If they refuse than joint actions between PA-police, israeli army and secret service, in cooperation with international forces (US and European) to dismantle all organisations who still commit violence and refuse to benefit from an amnesty if they give in their weapons (as happened in northern ireland). This would most probably make an end to at least 90% of the terrorist activities.”

It’s up to “palestine” to stop their terrorism and occupation in Israel, joint actions with the“PA” police is ridiculous they proven themselves worthless in protection of national interests.

You said, “thirth: permanent withrawel from israeli forces and install international troops and protection to protect the borders of israel and the remaining colonists.”

What withdrawal of Israeli forces? From their own land of Israel? If “palestinians” return to their homes in their countries there would be no need for international forces, although I doubt the violence would diminish Internat’l forces would not help much.

Also you said, “forth: peace-conforence in which israel offers a full independant palestinian state and promise to take in a certain number of refugees (not more than 1.5 million). in return Arafat should sign a peace-treaty with Israel, recognise it, promiise security-cooperation, and allows continued international presence at the borders. Most likely Arafat would accept. Jerusalem would be divided and the holy sites in Eastern Jerusalem brought under international protection and maintained by a board of jewish and Islamic clerics. Europe and the US will promise to take in the rest of the refugees and pay for the resettlements of jewish settlers and palestinian refugees within Israel.
Separate negotiations with Israel and Libanon: the Holan-heights and pre-1967 border in return for a peace-treaty and recognition of Israel. Syria promises to keep the Golan as a demilitarised region”.

I Don’t know the exact count of the refugees still out there that are of Israel in the end of this diaspora, if “palestinians” so desire to create their state they can start a huge one in any of their other countries if not create a state in each of those countries they’re from., Israel would recognize each and every one. They could also fully enjoy their holy sites instead of pilfering and pillaging what belongs to Israel.

Finally you said, “Other Arab countries would be very tempted to recognise Israel as well and do business with it. Israel would recover very fast and instead of being a military middle-eastern power it would be an economic tiger of the middle-East.
Arafat and the PLO would be treated as heroes for bringing liberation (as in 1993) and the moderates would easily win the election.
All this is very realistic and it's a pity for te whole region Israel's leaders are such extremists."

We see how the other countries recognize Israel, and how they do their business.
It’s impossible to view terrorists as heroes unless by being a terrorist or supporter of terrorism.
All this is reality, and it’s a pity the whole greater region is filled with Islamic extremists.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo

first step: talks with Arafat in Jerusalem about the preparation of a peace-conference in Europe or Washington, with lots of international donors. Israel would withdraw its forces from all the territories belonging to the PA . Make your plans public about your intentions to stop all occupation.

second: stop terrorism: expose the plan to stop the occupation and secretly ask the approval of Hamas, PFLP and Jihad. Probably only Jihad, and perhaps hamas would refuse. If they refuse than joint actions between PA-police, israeli army and secret service, in cooperation with international forces (US and European) to dismantle all organisations who still commit violence and refuse to benefit from an amnesty if they give in their weapons (as happened in northern ireland). This would most probably make an end to at least 90% of the terrorist activities.


All this is very realistic and it's a pity for te whole region Israel's leaders are such extremists.

Lots of interesting points Takeo. I'm impressed. It's a good plan, although I personally don't agree with a good part of it.

You should know that all the steps you suggest in your first and second points were already taken by Israel in the last decade.

The main problem is that things get stuck in your second point, because the Palestinians have never stopped terrorism. That is what derailed the various peace plans that were agreed on.

There was never a mechanism in place to penalize the Palestinians for never keeping their part of the bargain.

I will respond to your other points in the next day or so.

[victot]

that's a good plan more or less;
but the refegee thing is no good... israel would like no longer be israel if they took in so many refugees...
i dont suppose you could get iraq to compensate all the iraqi jews property it siezed way back when... heh
but the refugee thing, it's unfortunate, maybe they could be compensated or something else instead... but israel should remain mainly a jewish state, i think

[JustSad]

Sounds good Takeo.
But i have one vital addition. Israel should of course dismantle the jewish settlements in the occupied territories. These villages are in fact illegal and forbidden by several UN-resoltutions.

[takeo]

watcher, if you consider that Israel doesnt occupy any territories and that all palestinians are just foreign squatters, than further discussion is pointless.
Victot, Israel will remain a predominantly Jewish country, even after the refugees came back. Even if all the refugees would return (very doubtfull) they would still largely be outnumbered by the Jewish Israeli.
The question of Jews in Arab countries could eventually be linked to the question of returning palestinians. In fact those two historical events were always linked together.
Justsad, i agree with you that the Israeli settlements were illegal to all international conventions and should be removed to territory inside pre-1967 Israel(as i stated in "my" plan), however with mutual compromise some solution can be found that some settlements close to the borders of Israel could be incorporated(in return for some predominantly Palestinian inhabited areas in Israel near the border).
Newsguy, i'm really impressed too that you are not too critical to such a plan, didn't you say that any negotiation with Arafat is out of the question and that Westbank and Gaza belong to Israel? Anyway it prooves that you are more reasonable than many others on this board.
However the Oslo-agreements were not exactly the same (too vague and no penalisation on BOTH sides what should happen if one of the two parties don't commit themselves to previous commitments, which Netanyahu abused to slow down or even block the process) . That is why international presence is very important, they can force Arafat to act and if he can't they could do it themselves, international military presence will also force Israel to hold to its commitments, whatever government is elected. Besides, i think, in fact i'm sure, if israel retreats completely from the occupied territories and a solution for the refugees is found, 95% of the Palestinians wouldnt have any more reason or the will to fight Israel, they would be more interested in reestablishing their lifes in this improoved climate. Hamas and other groups would have the choice: cooperate or being destroyed by the PA (and/or international/israeli troops), and few people would care. (in 1993 you could see as well new palestinian hope and the popularity of hamas was less than 10%, only 10% abstained from the vote as hamas asked).

[victot]

err, the refugee thing i still think is no good... unless very few refugees returned, its no good.
also, i dont understand takeo, what do you mean by the arab jews could be linked to the palestinian thing?
i heard that when iraq wouldnt let its jews take their property with them when they left persecution to escape to israel, the overall money they lost, equals the financial distruction of the palestinians at the hands of the israelis. i dont think it should be brushed aside, as a point...
also, i think it's quite unfair of you to call all of israel's leaders such extremists; they're dealing with people who strongly want israel to die... and are giving up land which their ancesters spent the last 2000 years praying over...
barak offered jerusalem to the palestinians, and the palestinians still revolted. do you comprehend the importance of jerusalem to judaism? do you understand the magnitude of it? if the palestinians are still going to be mad and die to kill israelis either way, why should the jewish leaders be so prompt to make deals?

[takeo]

the Jews evicted from Iraq or Morocco (and a few other countries, still many Jews still live in Morocco and a few even in Iraq) were mostly expelled after the war of 1949, after which Israel refused the refugees to return home. i don't know how many people were banned from the Arab countries, but i doubt it were more than the number of Palestinians that were banned from returning home. Anyway, if the palestinians will return as stipulated by the UN-resolutions than the other etnic cleansing should legally be reversed too(or if the Jews don't want to return compansation). I read in Le Monde Diplomatique that many Arab countries prepared to do that if Israel admits them back.
Anyway the return of the refugees is a UN-resolution and can't be denied, besides the refugee-camps will remain a problem as long as there isn't a solution and the inhabitants have no intention to go somewhere else as where they or their family were born. And it certainly won't change the Jewish majority in Israel. Creating an etnic pure state can not be a good reason to deny people the right to return.
I know the importance of Jerusalem to the Israeli people but as well to the Palestinians it is very important, that's why both the city as the religious monuments have to be divided or maintained together. The current leaders of Israel are extremists because they don't want to search a solution because they believe that the Westbank and gaza should stay with Israel (or at least a state completely military dominated by Israel WITH settlements and WITHOUT a solution for the refugees nor for Jerusalem) and that the palestinians should have no rights at all. (just read this board...). With such a vision of course there will never be peace.
(even you were labelled an Arab because you even doubted at Sharon, that is typical for extremism)
Whatever israel offered in Camp David, it was much less than required by the UN-resolutions, and despite Oslo the settlements were growing and the end of the occupation was nowhere in sight by 1999, the year palestine should declare its independance....

[NewsGuy]

"watcher, if you consider that Israel doesnt occupy any territories and that all palestinians are just foreign squatters, than further discussion is pointless."

This is true factually, but nonetheless it sadly seems that these Arab squatters will wind up with part of the Jewish homeland.


"Victot, Israel will remain a predominantly Jewish country, even after the refugees came back. Even if all the refugees would return (very doubtfull) they would still largely be outnumbered by the Jewish Israeli."

Not true. The Arabs, already plagued by overpopulation, would outnumber the Jews in about 10-15 years, at which point, I would expect a civil war to result, making the current violence between Israelis and Arabs look like nothing more than a shouting match between kids.


"The question of Jews in Arab countries could eventually be linked to the question of returning palestinians. In fact those two historical events were always linked together. "

Right, they should be linked, although I highly doubt that the Jews will ever be compensated for the Jewish property stolen by the Arab countries who ethnically cleaned their Jewish citizens.

I think that any ME resolution will only be designed to be a one-way street to hand over Jewish land to Palestinian enemies, and not to bring justice to Jews victimed by Arabs.



"didn't you say that any negotiation with Arafat is out of the question and that Westbank and Gaza belong to Israel? "

Well, Arafat is certainly a mass murderer who should be taken out and shot to benefit the entire world. But as befitting the Palestinian people, a mass murderer is exactly who best represents them at the moment.

So, if it takes dealing with Arafat to achieve a state of non-war and a total separation from the Palestinians, then I support it, having no other choice.

And certainly, the West Bank and Gaza are part of the jewish homeland and should never be handed over to the Arabs. The best solution by far would be to transfer the Palestinians back to their first palestinian state of Jordan, or any other Arab country they came from.

However, I recognize that the world being dependent on Arab oil, will force Israel to reward Arab terrorism with Jewish land, and so I need to be pragmatic and support a solution that will being an end to the death of innocent Jews (and Arabs for that matter).


But the main reasons that your plan will not work, is that I highly doubt that there will be an end to Arab terrorism, IMHO, becuase the Jihad against non-Muslims, as well as ethnic cleansing are very much admired in the Arab culture, and so, it is doubtful that progress can ever never be made until there is a major shift in the Arab culture.

Also, just as importantly, there is no situation in which millions of Arabs can be allowed to settle in Israel. They will outnumber the Israeli population in a matter of a few years and start a violent civil war that could destroy the Jewish people.

So any plan that includes the calculated destruction of Israel, by forcing millions of Palestinian enemies into its midst, cannot ever be accpeted.

[victot]

sometimes i see these arguments that israel is violating all these un resolutions and what not... though i do think un's law is important, it shouldn't be the end all determinant of what is fair, and how country's should behave. it's like, if the zionoist movement would have started up 100 years ago, it would have all been ok?
there are MANY arab countries which are almost exclusively arab...
i think it might be more racist to say that the planet earth's 13 million jews should be forced to split their only country with a people who has what... 80 million arabs? and how many arab countries?
israel represents about one 800th of the middle east... let the jews frikkin have their part of it to do as they will.
here, i got these zionism is not racism arguments from some zionism site; tell me if you think they are irrelevant or untrue:

-History has demonstrated the need to ensure Jewish security through a national homeland. Zionism recognizes that Jewishness is defined by shared origin, religion, culture and history.

-The realization of the Zionist dream is exemplified by more than four million Jews, from more than 100 countries, including dark-skinned Jews from Ethiopia, Yemen and India, who are Israeli citizens. Approximately 1,000,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs, Druze, Baha'is, Circassians and other ethnic groups also are represented in Israel's population.

-The Arab states define citizenship strictly by native parentage. It is almost impossible to become a naturalized citizen in many Arab states, especially Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Several Arab nations have laws that facilitate the naturalization of foreign Arabs, with the specific exception of Palestinians. Jordan, on the other hand, instituted its own "law of return" in 1954, according citizenship to all former residents of Palestine, except for Jews.

-The presence of thousands of black Jews in Israel is the best refutation of the calumny against Zionism. In a series of historic airlifts, labeled Moses (1984), Joshua (1985) and Solomon (1991), Israel rescued almost 42,000 members of the ancient Ethiopian Jewish community.

-To single out Jewish self-determination for condemnation is itself a form of racism. "A world that closed its doors to Jews who sought escape from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to complain about Israel's giving preference to Jews," wrote noted civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz.


if the palestinians have control over the west bank and gaza, they'll have thier own free homeland, which they as a people can thrive in, (as long as they don't mess with israel, heh)
also, i still maintain that jerusalem really isnt that important to muslims... it has nowhere near the importance jeruslaem has to jews. i consider myself to be relatively left wing as far as the middle east situation goes... but seriously, it is unfair to equate the importance of jerusalem to Muslims with the importance of jerusalem to jews.

[takeo]

"This is true factually, but nonetheless it sadly seems that these Arab squatters will wind up with part of the Jewish homeland. "

So in fact you agree with Watcher in theory, but you're more realistic to accpet that Israel can never live in peace if it continues occupying the Westbank and gaza?
Well, that's a start, however in fact you still deny that the palestinian people lived in what is now Israel and you deny them the right as a people, the only reason why you support a peaceful solution is because you fear worldcondamnation and Arab violence. This seems like good PR for Hamas!
but the real reason why the whole world is against Israel is not Arab petrol(that has been there since the 50's) but the illegitimate occupation that was perceived by the whole world as illegal and fascist. Whatever that Jews lived there 2000 years ago and have some religious buildings there, the christians have a lot of religious buildings too in jerusalem yet they don't want to politically claim jerusalem! (they did 1000 year ago).
The fact is that the Al-aqsa mosque is since many years on the temple mount is a living testimony of the importance of jerusalem for the Muslims (and in the time it was build nobody had ever heard of zionism) . It doesn't mean that you have a religious monument there that you have the right to politically occupy it, certainly not according modern standards. fact is that Jerusalem was for many years the capital of the Palestinian people and for centuries more Palestinians live there than Jews. Of course that doesn't mean Jerusalem can exclusively be claimed by the Palestinians, western jerusalem is a recognised part of Israel, but Eastern Jerusalem is not, it has been taken by greedy Israel in 1967, the beginning of a lot of trouble.
About the question of the refugees: you agree that the Jews fleeing from Arab countries as a result of etnic cleansing should be compensated AND that the two matters are linked, yet you don't come to the logical conclusion that also Palestinians were etnically cleansed and need to have the right to return if they wish so. This is not only a un-resolution, according to the Geneva-conventions or a precondition for peace, but as well it would be justice. whatever how many Arabs there are on the world, Palestinians are a little people as well, and whereas Jews can also find safe refuge in the US, France, in fact a lot of countries where they lived for centuries, the palestinians are newcomers in the regions they fled to and are not integrated.
And yes zionism in its concept is racist, whatever the fact that Israel rescued Ethiopians (even this was a racist act, ethiopian Jews ere rescued, their Christian or Muslim neighbours could starve to death!) one has to be of the jewish race to immigrate to Israel. Just imagine the US making laws that one need to be Christian and western-European to make a chance to immigrate!
But if it was only immigration-policy, unfortunately the palestinians are no immigrants (at least not since the latest centuries or millenium) but the people who live there. In every democratic Western country (with the exception of Israel) only one principle is important to become civilian: "how long have you or your family stayed here?"
And please leave the Shoah out of this, it is not because you have been victim of a murder that you have the right to murder someone else! also the gypsies and communists and yehova-witnesses and gays, and members of the resistance etc were victim, do they all have the right to take the land of another people because of this?
Besides the idea that Pals will outnumber jews in a few decades is not true, you just have to know some math! even if they have a much higher birthrate due to poverty, once they have a higher living standard their birthrate will slow down too, as happened with the Israeli Palestinians. Any middle eastern resolution will and did condamn people who didn't act according to the Geneva-conventions and other international laws, it also condamned Hamas and co. fo attackin civilians.
the reason violence doesn't end is because israeli and some people like you, are not committed to the peace-process but only do it out of fear, and would like to reverse the clock whenever possible(as did Netanyahu). With such kind of duality the palestinians will gain nothing, and a surpressed people will turn to violence, that's just human, not especially Arab or palestinian!(i gave you dosens of examples).





"Victot, Israel will remain a predominantly Jewish country, even after the refugees came back. Even if all the refugees would return (very doubtfull) they would still largely be outnumbered by the Jewish Israeli."

Not true. The Arabs, already plagued by overpopulation, would outnumber the Jews in about 10-15 years, at which point, I would expect a civil war to result, making the current violence between Israelis and Arabs look like nothing more than a shouting match between kids.


"The question of Jews in Arab countries could eventually be linked to the question of returning palestinians. In fact those two historical events were always linked together. "

Right, they should be linked, although I highly doubt that the Jews will ever be compensated for the Jewish property stolen by the Arab countries who ethnically cleaned their Jewish citizens.

"I think that any ME resolution will only be designed to be a one-way street to hand over Jewish land to Palestinian enemies, and not to bring justice to Jews victimed by Arabs. "

This is BS, even the US signed most of the 80's and 90 resolutions/. it only wants to install international law, as it did in Indonesia and else where.




"Well, Arafat is certainly a mass murderer who should be taken out and shot to benefit the entire world. But as befitting the Palestinian people, a mass murderer is exactly who best represents them at the moment. "

arafat said exactly the same about Shaon

So, if it takes dealing with Arafat to achieve a state of non-war and a total separation from the Palestinians, then I support it, having no other choice.

And certainly, the West Bank and Gaza are part of the jewish homeland and should never be handed over to the Arabs. The best solution by far would be to transfer the Palestinians back to their first palestinian state of Jordan, or any other Arab country they came from.

"However, I recognize that the world being dependent on Arab oil, will force Israel to reward Arab terrorism with Jewish land, and so I need to be pragmatic and support a solution that will being an end to the death of innocent Jews (and Arabs for that matter).
about the etnicity of Arafat countries...
this is not completely true, as in Marocco the majority of the population is berber!
. The best solution by far would be to transfer the Palestinians back to their first palestinian state of Jordan, or any other Arab country they came from.

"However, I recognize that the world being dependent on Arab oil, will force Israel to reward Arab terrorism with Jewish land, and so I need to be pragmatic and support a solution that will being an end to the death of innocent Jews (and Arabs for that matter).
about the etnicity of Arafat countries...
this is not completely true, as in Marocco the majority of the population is berber!

Peace will only happen if israel is REALLY committing itseld to condamn the withdawel and accomplying the un-seleution,
Arafat isn't born in Morocco

[cerulean]

Originally posted by takeo
Arafat isn't born in Morocco

Of course not. He was born in Cairo.

[NewsGuy]

" the only reason why you support a peaceful solution is because you fear worldcondamnation and Arab violence. This seems like good PR for Hamas!"

No, Arab violence can be defeated quickly with a military solution. Based on that alone, Israel would not need to give away even an inch of its land.

The only factors that will unfortunately force Israel to hand over parts of the Jewish homeland to the Arabs, is European slavery to Arab oil, and the fact the Arab and Muslim countries are excellent weapons clients for Russia, and China.

These factors will make sure that large parts of the world will disregard their moral values and choose Arab oil and money over truth and justice.


"but the real reason why the whole world is against Israel is not Arab petrol(that has been there since the 50's) but the illegitimate occupation that was perceived by the whole world as illegal and fascist."

No, it is Arab oil and weapons deals, and the fact that tiny Israel is too small to provide a big enough consumer base for foreign products.

So far as I know, the Europeans, Russia and China never did anything out of moratlity alone. It was always self-interest, and today their self-interest lies with the Arabs.



"The fact is that the Al-aqsa mosque is since many years on the temple mount is a living testimony of the importance of jerusalem for the Muslims"

In Israel's history, it made two HUGE mistakes:

1. Ben Gurion let the Arab population remain inside Israel, instead of sending them back to where they belong, i.e., in Jordan and Saudi Arabia mostly.

2. Israel left the mosque standing on holy Jewish ground.

Now, Israel may pay the price forever for these mistakes.


"fact is that Jerusalem was for many years the capital of the Palestinian people and for centuries more Palestinians live there than Jews."

That has never been the case. The "Palestinians" never had ownership over any of Israel and certainly not over Jerusalem. The land always belonged to others.



"About the question of the refugees: you agree that the Jews fleeing from Arab countries as a result of etnic cleansing should be compensated AND that the two matters are linked, yet you don't come to the logical conclusion that also Palestinians were etnically cleansed and need to have the right to return if they wish so."

No, I don't come to that solution at all. Most of the Palestinians voluntarily ran away from Israel when the Arab armies in 1948 instructed all Arabs to leave so that the invading Arab armies could massacre everyone in sight without harming their brothers.

Then, a great number more of the Arabs left after Israel won the war, because they mistakenly figured that Israel would treat them the same way the Arabs treated the Jews. So, for those Arab cowards who voluntarily abandoned their homes, I see no reason to compensate them or allow them to return.

Also, I personally think that the issue of the refugees should be linked in that the Jewish refugees from Arab countries should simply stay in Israel, and the Arab refugees should stay in the Arab countries they went to, and let's call it even and move on.

And, btw - why do you think that there has never been a UN resolution to compensate the Jewish refugees who were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries? Kind of curious, no? This just shows that all these UN resolutions have always been biased against Jews, and should be disregarded completely as a mark of shame for the world.

[L@mplighterM]

Skitz!

[takeo]

How possibly can you agree with any peace-plan (and the one i proposed) if this are your opinions?

"In Israel's history, it made two HUGE mistakes:

1. Ben Gurion let the Arab population remain inside Israel, instead of sending them back to where they belong, i.e., in Jordan and Saudi Arabia mostly.

2. Israel left the mosque standing on holy Jewish ground. "

in fact this are more negev-lomplighter remarks, both fascist, utterly backwards and fundamentalist. For you too the palestinians are less than animals and shouldn't have any rights at all, you even deny that they ever lived there (of course they didn't have political power, but they lived there, as a people, even that was not allowed by Israel).
And if this is your definition of refugees, cowards, than all Jewish refugees are cowards too and in fact all refugees everywhere in the world.
Not only do this words show no mercy at all for the palestinians, you clearly don't believe in the right of human equality, human respect and human rights, you are not better than Hitler and Bin Laden, and you show that you are not at all better than Hamas, and a lot worse than Arafat, who accepts Jewish presence in the region and condams attacks on civilians. Of course if this are your positions, than any discussion is indeed senceless, than only war will remain as the viable option, a war Israel will certainly loose (and yes we are going to sell weapons to the Arabs, as long as Israel thinks Eretz israel is for the jews and the Palestinians should ****. ), it would be just too easy if only Israel got all the weapons from their dear US-friends, it was too much like that in the past and it stimulated Israel to launch the 1967 war.
And you will never be able to destroy the palestinians, unless you kill them all, so the war will go on. And sooner or later the Arab neighbours will be strong enough to interfere themselves. It would be the worst possible outcome and so much easier if some reasonable Israeli pm really believes that Palestinians have rights to and deserve their own state, not only say this for the purpose of retorics (indeed, how can i explain that you support a peace-plan and a palestinian state and some hours later call for the total genocide against the palestinians and destruction of Mosques?). Of course such reactions will provoke even more violent Arab reactions, than you can complain how barbarian the Arabs are, take even harder actions against the Arabs, these one too replying with brutal atrocities, and the circle of violence slowly destroys everything.
The UN isn't an anti-israeli body but an organisation to the principles that were embraced after the war by the people who defeated the nazi's and saved the Jewish people from nazism.
Israel time after time behaved as it was still the 19th century and colonisation and expulsion were still acceptable, so that provoked some heavy reactions, its war in 1955 even provoked hostile reactions from the US (but France, that at that time had its own colonial wars in Algeria and Vietnam, supported israel at that time)

[takeo]

It is very easy to accuse your ennemies not being committed to peace if you yourself are not committed to peace, resisted every peace-move and blocked it (as your friend Netanyahu did) by building more settlements and make the life of palestinians even more miserable as before.
in the two sentences in your last post you made it very clear what are your real objectives, and people with such ideas will never do all they can to come to a peace-deal with the Palestinians, their final goal is the destruction of the palestinians as a people living in palestine.
And about jewish refugees in Iraq, they also left voluntarily in 1951 when they were permitted to go to Israel. All this happened under zionist encouragement, they were not forced to flee, the same in other Arab countries.
Akiva Orr in his book Israel: Politics, Myths and Identity Crises wrote the following: “in 1948 Jews were not expelled from countries like Iraq, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya, but induced to leave by Zionist emissaries from Israel who often used dirty tricks like throwing bombs into synagogues to create the impression of anti-Jewish persecution to stampede the Jews to Israel.”
Wilbur Crane Evenlan, a former senior officer in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) wrote in his 1980 book Ropes of Sand: America's Failure in the Middle East:
"In attempts to portray the Iraqis as ani-American and to terrorize the Jews, the Zionists planted bombs in the U.S. Information Service library and in synagogues. Soon leaflets began to appear urging Jews to flee to Israel. ... Although the Iraqi police later provided our embassy with evidence to show that the synagogue and library bombings as well as the anti-Jewish and anti-American leaflet campaings had been the work of an underground Zionist organization, most of the world believed reports that Arab terrorism had motivated the flight of the Iraqi Jews whom the Zionists had "rescued" really just in order to increase Israel's Jewish population." (pp. 48-49)
So I guess they are cowards???
And another thing i found on the net: ""The PLO Charter has been amended and all clauses calling for Israel’s destruction were cancelled. On April 24, 1996, the Palestine National Council voted 504 to 54 to cancel those clauses. "
and also about the so-called fact that israel has already given most of the occupied territories to Arafat (whhic should be according to Oslo) : in 1999 only 12% (zone a) was in full controll of the PA, and 26(areab) in joint controll, still 61 % was fully controlled by Israel, many suicide-killers came from the areas controlled by Israel (maybe Sharon can commit suicide because he can accuse himself of "hosting terrorism???"i wouldn't mind!)

this latest i found on the website of Gush shalom
here a link to a report against israeli discrimination in 2000 against its own citizens, by the U.S. State Department's Democracy, Human Rights and Labor division:
(since than it could only be worse)
http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/scripts/article.asp?mador=14&datee=09/21/00&id=93909
"An annual report prepared by the U.S. State Department's Democracy, Human Rights and Labor division criticizes Israel for unfair treatment of Arabs, for vandalism and discrimination against Christian groups and non-Orthodox Jewish streams, and for sanctions against Muslim citizens who want to go to Mecca on hajj pilgrimages.

This second edition of the State Department report, entitled "2000 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom," was released two weeks ago. It comes in response to a demand made by U.S. Congressmen that the status of Christian groups around the globe be reviewed, to ascertain whether they suffer from discrimination or persecution. Larry Schwartz, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Israel, confirmed that the report's findings are relayed to governments in the countries reviewed by it.

The first section of the report's review of Israel provides a demographic breakdown of religious groups in the country. In the second section, which deals with government-sponsored restrictions of religious freedom, the report claims that the state of Israel provides lower quality services and opportunities in education, housing, employment and other spheres to non-Jewish citizens, who make up 20 percent of the population.

The report charges that government programs drafted to reduce gaps between the Jewish and Arab sectors have not been implemented. It details protests registered by Israeli Arab organizations against plans to "Judaize" the Galilee. It emphasizes that government allocations made through the Religious Affairs Ministry are highly uneven, with only 2 percent of this money going to the non-Jewish sector.

Striking one positive chord, this second section praises last March's Supreme Court ruling against Jewish Agency policies of restricting land sales to non-Jews.

The report's writers note their inability to determine whether discrimination against "non-Jews" in Israel stems from religious sources. They acknowledge that full freedom of religious worship is protected in the country.

As in last year's report, the 2000 survey deals with harassment and vandalism against various religious groups in Israel. Giving special emphasis to the plight of Jehovah's Witnesses, this year's report says that 120 complaints submitted to the police by members of this sect in 1998 and 1999 went unanswered. The report also notes that Reform and Conservative synagogues have been the targets of vandalism in Israel.

In a special passage relating to restrictions hampering hajj pilgrimages to Mecca, the report claims that age limits are enforced (allowing departure only of Muslim pilgrims older than 30), and that hajj pilgrims who leave for Syria without authorization are not allowed to return to Israel.

Asked by Ha'aretz to respond to these State Department findings about hajj restrictions, the Interior Ministry spokesman clarified that security officials set criteria for departures for Saudi Arabia. The ministry is not aware of cases in which return clearance was denied to pilgrims who left the country without authorization, he said. "

[takeo]

Here is the view of Jimmy Carter, but i guess he has been paid too by the Arabs?
"For Israel, Land or Peace
By Jimmy Carter, Washington Post, Sunday , November 26, 2000 ; Page B07
An underlying reason that years of U.S. diplomacy have failed and violence in the Middle East persists is that some Israeli leaders continue to "create facts" by building settlements in occupied territory. Their deliberate placement as islands or fortresses within Palestinian areas makes the settlers vulnerable to attack without massive military protection, frustrates Israelis who seek peace and at the same time prevents any Palestinian government from enjoying effective territorial integrity.

At Camp David in September 1978, President Anwar Sadat, Prime Minister Menachem Begin and I spent most of our time debating this issue before we finally agreed on terms for peace between Egypt and Israel and for the resolution of issues concerning the Palestinian people. The bilateral provisions led to a comprehensive and lasting treaty between Egypt and Israel, made possible at the last minute by Israel's agreement to remove its settlers from the Sinai. But similar constraints concerning the status of the West Bank and Gaza have not been honored, and have led to continuing confrontation and violence.

The foundation for all my proposals to the two leaders was the official position of the government of the United States, based on international law that was mutually accepted by the United States, Egypt, Israel and other nations, and encapsulated in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. Our government's legal commitment to support this well-balanced resolution has not changed.

Although the acceptance of Resolution 242 was a contentious issue at Camp David, Prime Minister Begin ultimately acknowledged its applicability, "in all its parts." The text emphasizes "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security." It requires the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent [1967] conflict" and the right of every state in the area "to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

It was clear that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories were a direct violation of this agreement and were, according to the long-stated American position, both "illegal and an obstacle to peace." Accordingly, Prime Minister Begin pledged that there would be no establishment of new settlements until after the final peace negotiations were completed. But later, under Likud pressure, he declined to honor this commitment, explaining that his presumption had been that all peace talks would be concluded within three months.

There were some notable provisions in the Camp David Accords that related to Palestinian autonomy and the occupation of land. A key element was that "the Israeli military government and its civilian administration will be withdrawn as soon as a self-governing authority has been freely elected by the inhabitants of these areas to replace the existing military government." This transition period was triggered by an election in the occupied territories in January 1996, approved by the Palestinians and the government of Israel and monitored by the Carter Center. Eighty-eight Palestinian Council members were elected, with Yasser Arafat as president, and this self-governing authority, with limited autonomy, convened for the first time in March 1996.

It was also agreed that once the powers and responsibilities of the self-governing authority were established, "A withdrawal of Israeli armed forces will take place and there will be a redeployment of the remaining Israeli forces into specified security locations."

We decided early during the Camp David talks that it would be impossible to resolve the question of sovereignty over East Jerusalem, but proposed the following paragraph concerning the city, on which we reached full agreement:

"Jerusalem, the city of peace, is holy to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and all peoples must have free access to it and enjoy the free exercise of worship and the right to visit and transit to the holy places without distinction or discrimination. The holy places of each faith will be under the administration and control of their representatives. A municipal council representative of the inhabitants of the city shall supervise essential functions in the city such as public utilities, public transportation, and tourism and shall ensure that each community can maintain its own cultural and educational institutions."

At the last minute, however, after several days of unanimous acceptance, both Sadat and Begin agreed that there were already enough controversial elements in the accords and requested that this paragraph, although still supported by both sides, be deleted from the final text. Instead, the two leaders exchanged letters, expressing the legal positions of their respective governments regarding the status of East Jerusalem. They disagreed about sovereignty, of course, but affirmed that the city should be undivided.

As agreed, I informed them that "the position of the United States on Jerusalem remains as stated by Ambassador Arthur Goldberg in the United Nations General Assembly on July 14, 1967, and subsequently by Ambassador Charles Yost in the United Nations Security Council on July 1, 1969." In effect, these statements considered East Jerusalem to be part of the occupied territories, along with the West Bank and Gaza.

The Camp David Accord was signed by all three of us leaders with great fanfare and enthusiasm. President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin embraced warmly at the White House ceremony, and the final document was overwhelmingly ratified by their respective parliaments.

With the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan, there was a period of relative inactivity in the Middle East, except for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the subsequent expulsion of PLO forces from Beirut. President Reagan used the announcement of this event on Sept. 1, 1982, to address the nation on the subject of the West Bank and the Palestinians. He stated clearly that "the Camp David agreement remains the foundation of our policy," and his speech included the following declarations:

"The Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza will have full autonomy over their own affairs."

"The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transition period. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated."

In 1991 there was a major confrontation between the governments of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and President George Bush concerning Israeli settlements in the West Bank, with U.S. threats of withholding financial aid if settlement activity continued. A conference was convened that year in Madrid with participants of the United States, Syria, other Arab nations and some Palestinians who did not officially represent the PLO. At a press conference on Nov. 1, Secretary of State James Baker said, "When we negotiated with Israel, we negotiated on the basis of land for peace, on the basis of total withdrawal from territory in exchange for peaceful relations. . . . This is exactly our position, and we wish it to be applied also in the negotiations between Israelis and Syrians, Israelis and Palestinians. We have not changed our position at all."

Norwegian mediators forged an agreement in September 1993 between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Arafat committing both sides to a staged peace process. Although U.S. officials were not involved in this effort, our government commemorated the Oslo Accords in a ceremony at the White House, and built subsequent peace talks on its terms and those of the Camp David Accords. So far, these efforts have not succeeded, and this year there has been a resurgence of violence and animosity between Israelis and Arabs unequaled in more than a quarter of a century.

The major issues still to be resolved remain unchanged: the final boundaries of the state of Israel, the return of, or compensation for, Palestinians dislodged from their previous homes and the status of Jerusalem. It seems almost inevitable that the United States will initiate new peace efforts, but it is unlikely that real progress can be made on any of these issues as long as Israel insists on its settlement policy, illegal under international laws that are supported by the United States and all other nations.

There are many questions as we continue to seek an end to violence in the Middle East, but there is no way to escape the vital one: Land or peace?

Former president Carter is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta. "
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56757-2000Nov25.html

[NewsGuy]

I would personally love to see a transfer of Palestinians to their own countries where they can live peacefully and do as they please without mass murdering Jews. I would like to see a defensible international border between Israel and the Arab countries and the best case scenario would be some kind of peace arrangement in a few generations.

This is not thinking that the Palestinians are animals -- just the opposite. I wish them the best possible existence, where they have total freedom. They can have any corrupt leadership they choose, have as many Jihads as they dream of within their own territory, teach their kids to murder people with machine guns if that's what they really want. On the other hand, I hope they choose to reject their Arab culture of mass murder, racism and ethnic cleansing, and live a peaceful and prosperous life, similar to civilized cultures.

In a few generations, if and when the Palestinians have proven themselves that they are capable of living peacefully without trying to mass murder their neighbors, then we can talk about real peace.

But I know that in reality Israel will not be able to reach this preferred state of being, and that parts of the Jewish homeland will be handed over to the Arabs due to world pressure.

It is very unfortunate, but I think that everyone needs to face the reality of the situation and be pragmatic. There will be a second Palestinian state alongside Israel and the bigger question is how to successfully defend against it.

Obviously, any agreement with the Palestinians is completely worthless in stopping attacks on Jews, so there needs to be a different enforcement mechanism.

What is clear to me is that there can be no allowances for millions of Palestinian enemies to be inserted into the heart of Israel. That would be disasterous.

Remember, so far, Israel has survived many wars with the Arabs. The question now is whether Israel will be able to survive peace with the Arabs.


* * *

Now, takeo, I'm not really sure what points you are making with all those cut-and-paste speeches, so if you can make your points clear, I can respond to them.

Anyway, the Iraqi stuff is a complete joke. As soon as you start blaming all kinds of conspiracies on "The Zionists..." everyone knows that we are about to read complete nonesense, that either originates with Nazi or Arab lies.

[L@mplighterM]

# 1 Mr. Muhammad Saheed takeo I'm not a fascist. Words like racist and fascist are just words used loosely to stifle the truth nowadays. If anyone is a fascist or a racist it's you. Why are you a fascist? Because in your earlier posts where YOU lent justification for the killing of innocent Jews. Even if you're right which you are NOT regarding your ridiculous statements about the Jews stealing the Palestinians land, you cant tell me that a child should be murdered just because she's a settler or because there's settlers on what Arabs feel is their land.

# 2 People like you with your philosophical nonsense are the hate mongers of the world. You spread your lies to gain support for evil. What are your lies? Well there's too many to keep track of them all. Distorted truth lying by omission (not telling the whole truth). You can start with article 246 for example. Read the bloody article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

# 3 I think that I have as much claim to what these gypsies that call themselves Palestinians as they do. Lets start with their leader when did he become a Palestinian? When he saw $$$$$$$$$ floating in front of his eyes and power. He's no more Palestinian than I am or a Chinaman, Eskimo or anyone else for that matter. Well now he's an old man who's near a nervous breakdown, last time I saw him on TV his lower lip quivered like a child before the tears come. I guess your enemies must be getting to him. His end is near and I wouldn't be surprised if one of his associates plugs him.

There's a 4.5.6.7 etc but what's the use your hate against Jews causes you to be blind to the truth. I'm sure that the evil books Sad, Twister and you read have damaged your mind.

[takeo]

Hey, so Jimmy Carter has read this books too? And even Reagan seems to be on my position that the settlements have to disappear and that Gaza, eastern jerusalem and Westbank belong to the Palestinians(a nation that does exist, even in all your extremism you refuse to see it). And not only strategically israel will have to comply to the un-resolutions (and yes i read it completely and agree with it completely but you don't) but as well morally. this is not about Arabs "murdering jews" (they lived together for centuries) but about israel occupying and destroying the palestinin nation and denying them their land (and their land is Palestine, israel and the occupied territories), the whole world wants them to give the occupied territories to the palestinians, and they can keep the country of Israel, but only if they accept that the original people live there too. And if you can't accept a minority within Israel and consider that the country is only for Jews in would only show your fascist nature, as if Germany would send away all people not exclusively from the German race.
And you call me a fascist, why???
I did not allow the murder of innocent Jews, only people responsible for the occupation and ARMED setllers. I don't believe in an etnic country only for one race as you do(the most important gasget of fascism), but believe in the right to live in a country your family lived in, whatever race or religion you have.
You however allow the murder of palestinian civilians who did the crime to live in "Eretz israel" and want to take their land, destroy their house (and their most sacred Mosque) and shoot at their children. After this you are really surprised that they turn to violence!!!
And finally none of you really want to give up the occupied countries, and i'm sure none of you want to leave the settlements, which is in clear condradiction with the whole world, a large part of Israeli society, who wants to live in peace with the Palestinians and don't believe in "Eretz Israel" or an etnically pure Israel, and finally in contradiction to your best friend's and saver's opinion.

[L@mplighterM]

Jimmy Carter got the boot because he was weak. Regan was in the early stages of Alzheimer's when he was president. All that is moot right now.

A country is sort of like a big house. In a small house you couldn't have people stealing, raping and murdering each other. If a person were anti-social they would be expelled from any home. From everything and I've seen and heard I'm sorry to tell you that hate has been instilled in the Palestinians so its become deep rooted. Mad dogs get shot and so should members of terrorist organizations.
My reasoning has nothing to do with race color or creed. Contrary to what you may believe there's' even non-Arabs that I would like to see executed.
Israelis are a hard working people that have worked very hard to achieve a green Israel. Damn hard!
The non-Jews living in that area have had every opportunity to work alongside Jews and have refused. They are lazy and would rather spend their time throwing rocks and killing Israelis. Did you know it's become an easy way for them to make spare change?

Anyways thanks for finally admitting your Arab ethnicity it was about time. All your other immature postings under new nicks should also stop; you're not the only one that can play that game. Get a job and get on with life there's plenty of opportunity in the Arab world for you. Don't go blaming others for your social inadequacy on forums and chats. Deprogram yourself and discard all the lies that you've been told.

[takeo]

Palestinians never had any chance in Israel or the occupied territories.
And carter is week and Reagan has Alzheimer, please could you find some better arguments to support your views!!!!!!!!
And were did i say that i was Arab????????
of course the idea the Jewish "traitors" don't believe in your ideas in insupportable.
You know from some distance this discussion seems the more and more absurd, why in fact do i need to defend myself against insanity? History will judge upon you.
With the pastes i was making clear that i'm not alone in my opinion that Israel was not interested in real peace, but supported by facts and by the first president who ever brought peace between Israel and an Arab country. And that Israel did not hold onto the Oslo agreements and was not willing to retreat from the occupied territories in return for peace.
And newsguy you may be realistic enough to see that the occupied territories should be independant, yet in your heart you would despise such a decision, and always find excuses to postpone it, as does Sharon.

"It is very unfortunate, but I think that everyone needs to face the reality of the situation and be pragmatic. There will be a second Palestinian state alongside Israel and the bigger question is how to successfully defend against it. "

as egypt, and even hesbollah to some extend have shown, if you retreat from their territories they will stop the violence, and some international troops can controll the border and controll eastern Jerusalem. I think europe and the US would give a lot of $ for a final solution in the middleEast.



"What is clear to me is that there can be no allowances for millions of Palestinian enemies to be inserted into the heart of Israel. That would be disasterous. "

It wouldn't be any more disastrous than the Palestinians already inside Israel who never causes any harm to Israel, even if they have been discriminated. As long as they stay a minority, nothing much would change, only israel would become a more open civilisation and recognise its Palestinian civilians are aqual to Jews and not second-class.

"Remember, so far, Israel has survived many wars with the Arabs. The question now is whether Israel will be able to survive peace with the Arabs. "

Israel will not only survive but really benefit from it in economical way, and it would also improove daily life and mentality.(but of course a more open mentality would be a deterioration for you)

[L@mplighterM]

Make up your mind as far as I'm concerned I read your post as you being an Arab. Thank You!!!!!!

The Jews live there, lived there seeking peace. Move to France and take Arafat with you. He's the biggest con man I've ever seen. One day he wants peace the next war.

I saw him almost cry when he was interviewed on TV. His bottom lip quivering because he knows he's played his last con. He should go home and call it a day and take you with him. The buck has stopped!!!!! No more takeos or Arafats.

[victot]

now that were on the subject of what former presidents think, didnt bill clinton pretty much blame arafat exclusively for the current violence?
and he was in the middle east more than any other president...
say what you want about ronald reagan; but one thing you can't take away...
at 80 whatever years old, that man has a magnificent head of hair!!

[L@mplighterM]

What's the point takeo? Anyways I didn't know Arabs had a sense of humor.

[victot]

errr, sorry if i am wrong...
but lomplighter, are you accusing me of being takeo?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by victot
now that were on the subject of what former presidents think, didnt bill clinton pretty much blame arafat exclusively for the current violence?
and he was in the middle east more than any other president...
say what you want about ronald reagan; but one thing you can't take away...
at 80 whatever years old, that man has a magnificent head of hair!!

Yes, Rockin' Ron Reagan was great.

As for Clinton, he did in fact put the blame squarely on Arafat for destroying the peace negotiations that the US wasted tons of time and energy putting together.

But had Clinton acted more forcefully against Arafat, there would have been a lot more progress made by this time.

One of the problems with Clinton's approach to the ME conflict was that he mistakenly thought that the Palestinians were civilized people able to make peace.

What Clinton had a hard time understanding is that he was dealing with Jihad mass murderers who were never looking to make peace in the first place, but to try to destroy Israel.

Clinton and his advisors were way too naive and never understood the Arab mentality of racism and ethnic cleansing. He made the same mistake with Osama bin Ladin, and he made the same mistake with Arafat bin Ladin. Noth were allowed to carry on, and both have caused the murder of thousands of innocent people.

[NewsGuy]

"With the pastes i was making clear that i'm not alone in my opinion that Israel was not interested in real peace, but supported by facts and by the first president who ever brought peace between Israel and an Arab country."

That's a complete distortion and misrepresentation of Jimmy Carter's position.


"And that Israel did not hold onto the Oslo agreements and was not willing to retreat from the occupied territories in return for peace."

Not true. Israel withdrew its troops completely from Arafatistan until Arab mass murderers did a few suicide bombings iun downtown Tel Aviv.


"And newsguy you may be realistic enough to see that the occupied territories should be independant, yet in your heart you would despise such a decision, and always find excuses to postpone it, as does Sharon."

No, expecting the Arabs to stop their terrorism for 7 days until negotiations can resume is not an excuse. It is a ridiculously low demand, but apparently something that the Arabs are incapable of accomplishing.


"as egypt, and even hesbollah to some extend have shown, if you retreat from their territories they will stop the violence"

Right. Hizbullah is a perfect example of what to expect from Arafatistan: Buying weapons from Iran, training terrorists to murder Jews, incitement to anti-semitism and hatred of Christians, support for al Qaeda terrorists, the kidnapping of the 4 Israelis, and continouosly firing missiles into Israeli towns.

I agree with you that the Lebanon lesson of withdrawing and giving prizes for Arab terrorism is a very important lesson to learn from when negotiating with the Arabs.

[Negev]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
No, expecting the Arabs to stop their terrorism for 7 days until negotiations can resume is not an excuse. It is a ridiculously low demand, but apparently something that the Arabs are incapable of accomplishing.

looking back at all these complaints about sharon, people are forgetting that he wanted only one simple thing to be able to withdraw israel's troops from the pa areas, which was for the arabs to stop their terrorism for 7 short days.

of course the french at the time were very shocked at this request becuase they knew that arabs cannot possibly do this.
a leopard cannot change its spots. arabs cannot stop terrorism against their neighbors. that's why they want to hand arafart a second palestinian state without a peace agreement.

until the arabs learn (or have all their their cities bombed into a parking lot) there can be no more land given to them. period.

and to dump a few million arabs into israel is pure lunacy that even arafart knows he must smoke on his arabian hooka to imagine such an outcome.

[L@mplighterM]

Sharon is a wimp he has to get a lot tougher a few lousy buildings here and there don’t even come near to sending a message. Give me a few examples where negotiations since 1948 have stopped terrorism in the Middle East. How about two examples? I'll settle for one. The Palestinians have prostetitis but instead of pi****g they kill, seven days without a shot being fired will never be a reality.

There’s no one to blame in Israel for failed agreements, plain and simple Palestinians/Arabs want all of Israel. ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s the story of Cinderella she makes something out of nothing the sister’s want it and they resort to violence ripping it from her body.

I suppose that’s the cost of doing business in Israel. I hate to sound hard like that but I feel that’s the reality of the situation. What exactly has the annual loss of Jewish life since 1948? 100 life’s per year? Now don’t get me wrong because I think one is too many. The Israelis like to listen to the radio news and know exactly (more or less) where their family is at any given time. So I suppose they’ve come to expect terrorism as a way of life and that’s why they stay tuned to their surroundings.

Truthfully I could not live there for any sustained period of time because I know my goal would be to destroy everything standing in order to stop terrorism. In other words all out war with a scorched earth policy, with the goal of achieving peace in my household.

The only TRUE ally Israel has is the US without it there would be no Israel. The US is a big brother that protects its sister. It could be argued that a bit more support should be forthcoming and I believe it will. In an indirect way Israel was helped by Dessert Storm (NATO) because it whittled Iraq down to size.

Since it doesn’t seem that peace will be forthcoming the focus should be on containment like it is now but to a larger degree. Continue on the covert avenue of assassinations but on a larger scale. The US has/will lift is ban on assassinations in foreign countries and Israel eventually should consider that as well (Not that it hasn’t been done already).

And the killing continues.

[L@mplighterM]

errr, sorry if i am wrong...
but lomplighter, are you accusing me of being takeo?

Why would I do that?????? Just because you spell my nick the same way.

[takeo]

"That's a complete distortion and misrepresentation of Jimmy Carter's position. "

oh really?
Didn't he say in the article i posted that israel was not willing to leave the occupied territories the same way it left Egypt and didn't he say the settlements were illegal and were blocking peace-efforts?. (by the way that was a perfect example of land for peace with an arab country, despite the murder and oppression in gaza and westbank, Egypt did hold onto it's agreements with israel, and concerning Libanon, could you honestly maintain that violence escalated or stayed the same at israel's northern border since israel withdrew from libanon?)




"Not true. Israel withdrew its troops completely from Arafatistan until Arab mass murderers did a few suicide bombings iun downtown Tel Aviv. "

lol, still 62 % was under full controll of Israel.
Go to the website of the israeli peace-movement, they have a map.




"No, expecting the Arabs to stop their terrorism for 7 days until negotiations can resume is not an excuse. It is a ridiculously low demand, but apparently something that the Arabs are incapable of accomplishing. "

There has never been 7 days of peace because israel never stopped its war against the palestinians and even continued its violence and killed "terrorists" the same day arafat called for a cease-fire in december. (and after which the violence seriously diminished, at the palestinian side only!!!)






"I agree with you that the Lebanon lesson of withdrawing and giving prizes for Arab terrorism is a very important lesson to learn from when negotiating with the Arabs."
the lesson from Egypt and libanon is if if you retreat without a peace-agreement you will receive much less violence, if you retreat with a peace-agreement you will receive a total cessation of violence.
The lesson from oslo is if you sign a peace-agreement but you are not willing to commit to it (netanyahu, palestinian independance in 1999, cessation of settlements, remember?) than you won't receive peace.



"until the arabs learn (or have all their their cities bombed into a parking lot) there can be no more land given to them. period. "

no,Israel will learn that there is no way it will ever live in peace untill it is prepared to comply to the un-resolutions. The sooner the negociations start, the sooner there will be peace. And by killing more palestinians (civilians) you will only receive more violence and more world-wide condamnation, including a weapon-embargo and european economical embargo, and probably war with a united arab-islamic coalition if you are really willing to bomb to palestinians to a parking lot.





"Sharon is a wimp he has to get a lot tougher a few lousy buildings here and there don’t even come near to sending a message. Give me a few examples where negotiations since 1948 have stopped terrorism in the Middle East. How about two examples? I'll settle for one."

With Egypt, camp david.

"There’s no one to blame in Israel for failed agreements, plain and simple Palestinians/Arabs want all of Israel. ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s the story of Cinderella she makes something out of nothing the sister’s want it and they resort to violence ripping it from her body. "

Cinderella never stole something from her sisters if i remember well, and palestinians don't want all of israel, all they are getting and the world will give them is the occupied territories, and that's what they will get.



"The only TRUE ally Israel has is the US without it there would be no Israel. The US is a big brother that protects its sister. It could be argued that a bit more support should be forthcoming and I believe it will. In an indirect way Israel was helped by Dessert Storm (NATO) because it whittled Iraq down to size. "

yes, however, israel hurts the us-interests in the middle-east, and the us is really interested in peace, and sharon's policy won't bring peace, that's why all us-presidents, even Bush, wants israel to comply to the un-resolutions (as well signed by the US).

"Since it doesn’t seem that peace will be forthcoming the focus should be on containment like it is now but to a larger degree. Continue on the covert avenue of assassinations but on a larger scale. The US has/will lift is ban on assassinations in foreign countries and Israel eventually should consider that as well (Not that it hasn’t been done already). "

israel isn't a world power, assasinations in foreign countries will make israel officially a state supportering terrorism, and it would further isolate Israel in the world. Without trade with Europe or any Arab country (the whole mediterranean and the whole region israel is in) israel will decline.

[NewsGuy]

"Didn't he say in the article i posted that israel was not willing to leave the occupied territories the same way it left Egypt and didn't he say the settlements were illegal and were blocking peace-efforts?."

Since the Arabs themselves don't consider the settlements to be the barrier to peace (as there was total agreement on the settlements reached with Arafat in Camp David 2000), I find it ridiculous that you would think that Jimmy Carter would consider it to be more of a problem than Arafat does. What year was Carter's speech from?



"and concerning Libanon, could you honestly maintain that violence escalated or stayed the same at israel's northern border since israel withdrew from libanon?)"

Before Barak's fleeing Lebanon, there was violence against Israeli soldiers in Lebanon, but there were no missiles shot into Israeli Northern towns becuase the security zone worked just fine.

But, after Barak's shameful fleeing out of Lebanon, there are now regular Hizbullah missiles being shot into Northern Israeli towns and massing of Iranian midrange missiles on Israel's border, just like before Israel had to establish the security zone there.

btw - The Lebanese security zone was one of the only two solutions that worked to stop Arab terrorism in Israel's history. The other one that worked very well was to destroy Lebanon's electrical infrastructure as a warning. These are two methods that I hope will be implemented to control Palestinians terrorism against Israel, as well.



"lol, still 62 % was under full controll of Israel.
Go to the website of the israeli peace-movement, they have a map."

No, he withdrew the troops completely from several palestinian major cities like Nablus, like Jericho, Nzareth, Gaza City, Hebron, etc., as terrorism temporarily quieted down in each city. When Israeli troops were withdrawn the terrorism resumed and then it was necessary to bring in the tanks again, because the truth is that the only thing the Arabs have ever understood is overwhelming force.


"There has never been 7 days of peace because israel never stopped its war against the palestinians and even continued its violence and killed "terrorists" the same day arafat called for a cease-fire in december. (and after which the violence seriously diminished, at the palestinian side only!!!)"

Right, Israel's war against Arab terrorism did not stop, since during that time there were 4 attempted suicide bombings and more than 170 acts of Arab terrorism, which to you may be considered some kind of achievement.


"the lesson from Egypt and libanon is if if you retreat without a peace-agreement you will receive much less violence, if you retreat with a peace-agreement you will receive a total cessation of violence."

Right, Israel should never have retreated shamefully from Lebnon becuase it showed the Arabs that Israel would reward terrorism. Many Israelis have since then died in pizza stores and in malls as a direct result of that lesson from Lebanon.

But in Egypt there was no terrorism in the Sinai before or after the handover. That's the real lesson to be learned. Unless there is total quiet, there can be no further handover of land to the Arabs.

Another lesson is that the Egyptians violated their peace agreement by withdrawing their ambassador from Israel and by printing incitement and anti-semitic content in the government newspapers, and so the Sinai should be returned to Israel if they cannot keep their end of the bargain.


"Without trade with Europe or any Arab country (the whole mediterranean and the whole region israel is in) israel will decline."

Yes, but it is a very small price to pay to be able to take real action against Arab terrorism.

[NewsGuy]

This was just published a few minutes ago on The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/breaking/2002/02/17/FFXSU4ZPRXC.html):

Hizbollah chief urges Palestinians to wage guerrilla war

The leader of Lebanon's fundamentalist Shi'ite Hizbollah urged the Palestinians today to imitate his group's guerrilla tactics in their uprising against Israel.

"A guerrilla war needs to be waged against the Zionist army in order to achieve victory," Hassan Nasrallah said in a speech in the eastern village of Nabi ****, in Lebanon's Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley.

Hizbollah spearheaded the fight against Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon which led to a troop withdrawal in May 2000.

...

The Shi'ite leader's speech appeared to be a thinly veiled incitement to the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas to step up its use of its home-made Katyusha-like Qassam-2 rockets, one of which struck Israeli territory today for the second time in a week, causing no casualties.

"Some might say the Qassam rockets wouldn't frighten a cat. But don't minimise their importance because the Zionists are more cowardly than cats," Nasrallah said.

* * *

Here's the "peace" that Israel achieved by rewarding Arab terrorism in Lebanon.

[takeo]

This are only words, in reality a lot LESS Katiouchkas are being shot at the northern towns of Israel since the occupation ended, and no more soldiers die in a senceless occupation. This wasn't terrorism, even if it was a rather extreme group as Hesbollah, it was legitimised defense against occupation and any occupation will provoke such a reaction. I supported Hesbollah as long as israel was in libanon, as well as most Libanese, even most christian Libanese, who feld that Israel had no right to terrorise and occupy Libanon. Terrorism has to be revenged, indeed, that's why there can be no tolerance for occupation and attacks. The reason why there wasn't any resistance in sinai is because almost nobody lives there, it is desert.


"Since the Arabs themselves don't consider the settlements to be the barrier to peace (as there was total agreement on the settlements reached with Arafat in Camp David 2000), I find it ridiculous that you would think that Jimmy Carter would consider it to be more of a problem than Arafat does. What year was Carter's speech from? "

I don't remember, you can see it at the link i posted(I think 2000). Anyway, it is a common believe among Americans, Palestinians and even many Israeli that the settlements were a major obstruction for oslo to succeed.
Anyway the camp david agreements weren't so bad, but some things were unacceptable, as israeli soldiers controlling all trade between palestine and neighbouring countries for example, and israel wasn't prepare to accept any deal or negociation over the refugee-question, i read also the settlements of the jordan-valley were a main problem. It could be however an excellent starting point for new negociations, that means, if Sharon is gone of course, he was never in favor of the camp david agreements and it was pressure from the right-wing that prevented Barak from doing more concessions regarding the refugees, the settlements, eastern jerusalem, etc. .





"Before Barak's fleeing Lebanon, there was violence against Israeli soldiers in Lebanon, but there were no missiles shot into Israeli Northern towns becuase the security zone worked just fine. "

LOL
That's why one could hear almost monthly or weekly shootings at kiriat shmona and many soldiers died, that's why now you very rarely hear from shootings at kiriat shmona...
I my God it did work well to prevent violence...



"btw - The Lebanese security zone was one of the only two solutions that worked to stop Arab terrorism in Israel's history. The other one that worked very well was to destroy Lebanon's electrical infrastructure as a warning. These are two methods that I hope will be implemented to control Palestinians terrorism against Israel, as well."

Sharon did all that but it clearly didn't help, nor did it in Libanon.





"No, he withdrew the troops completely from several palestinian major cities like Nablus, like Jericho, Nzareth, Gaza City, Hebron, etc., as terrorism temporarily quieted down in each city. When Israeli troops were withdrawn the terrorism resumed and then it was necessary to bring in the tanks again, because the truth is that the only thing the Arabs have ever understood is overwhelming force."

I wasn't even talking about reoccupation of land given earlier to the palestinians, i did mean the situation before the new intifadeh!!!!




"Right, Israel's war against Arab terrorism did not stop, since during that time there were 4 attempted suicide bombings and more than 170 acts of Arab terrorism, which to you may be considered some kind of achievement."

it was clear to everyone that there was LESS violence, yet Israel was responding to that by even more violence and killing of militant group leaders, which was clear an attempt to destroy the pact between the PLO, Hamas and other armed groups to stop violence, because israel knew killing their leaders would provoke new attacks.


"Right, Israel should never have retreated shamefully from Lebnon becuase it showed the Arabs that Israel would reward terrorism. Many Israelis have since then died in pizza stores and in malls as a direct result of that lesson from Lebanon. "

this is not a result of libanon, but a result of 35 years of oppression. the result of the "shamefull" withdrawel from Libanon was much less violence at the border with libanon!



"Another lesson is that the Egyptians violated their peace agreement by withdrawing their ambassador from Israel and by printing incitement and anti-semitic content in the government newspapers, and so the Sinai should be returned to Israel if they cannot keep their end of the bargain."

we were talking about terrorism and violence, Egypt has the full right to conduct its own foreign policy, signing a peace-treaty doesn't mean Egypt has become a puppet of Israel, there is anti-egytian incitement in the israeli media as well. and go on reoccupying the Sinay, watch and see what will happen!!!

"Yes, but it is a very small price to pay to be able to take real action against Arab terrorism. "

very small price? We will see about that... you have easy talking in the US, yet i think if every israeli begin to feel the war in their wallet, the resistance against Sharon will seriously grow.

[NewsGuy]

"This are only words, in reality a lot LESS Katiouchkas are being shot at the northern towns of Israel since the occupation ended, and no more soldiers die in a senceless occupation."

Yes, so Israel can aspire to "LESS" missiles being shot by Arab terrorists into Israeli towns? How many missiles are ok with you? Or come to think of it, how many missiles would be ok to be shot into Paris for example? a few dozen? a few hundred? 2 or 3 per year?

For you, a few missiles here or there, and few hundred Jewish deaths is just fine, because you apparently believe that it is the right of the Arabs to mass murder Jews.

But, I can say that for me any missiles at all being shot into Israeli population centers shows a complete failure of Barak's shameful retreat from Lebanon, and giving any prizes as a reward for Arab terrorism is a big mistake.



"I supported Hesbollah as long as israel was in libanon..."

Yes, I have no reason at all to doubt that you are a Hizbullah supporter and that you are proud of that fact. I can't say that it really surprises me.



"Anyway, it is a common believe among Americans, Palestinians and even many Israeli that the settlements were a major obstruction for oslo to succeed."

Like I said earlier, there was an agreement reached about that issue. The thing that exploded the Camp David 2000 agreement was Arafat's insistence on destroying Israel by injecting a few million Arab enemies into Israel's heart.




"... if Sharon is gone of course, he was never in favor of the camp david agreements and it was pressure from the right-wing that prevented Barak from doing more concessions regarding the refugees, the settlements, eastern jerusalem, etc."

Even Barak and his leftist advisors, as well as Clinton and his token Jews, knew that agreeing to any more concessions was outright suicide for Israel. But if the Camp David agreement was so attractive, your Arab comrades should have taken it when they could. Instead, they decided to do a little Jihad number, so they got Sharon, and soon enough they will get Netanyahu again (hopefully), who knows exactly how to deal with Arab terrorism.

[takeo]

"Yes, so Israel can aspire to "LESS" missiles being shot by Arab terrorists into Israeli towns? How many missiles are ok with you? Or come to think of it, how many missiles would be ok to be shot into Paris for example? a few dozen? a few hundred? 2 or 3 per year?
For you, a few missiles here or there, and few hundred Jewish deaths is just fine, because you apparently believe that it is the right of the Arabs to mass murder Jews. "

the french also occupied algeria and that resulted in terrorism in the heart of france, after this occupation was finiahed the problems were not immidiately finished, yet slowly diminished and now only very rarely algerian terrorism hits France, one can't expect a very wrong situation to heal in one day. Anyway, every policy to escalate the situation will result in more Katiuchkas, and so leaving libanon was better than staying in libanon, when the other siuations in the region are settled i'm sure hesbollah will be stopped too.
By the way, i mean that i supported hesbollah in their struggle against the occupation of Lebanon, an occupation that killed 10 times more people than died in Israel since the beginning of the new intifadeh (to put things in their propper proportions..., not only Jews are murdered but many more Arabs and pals by Israel, and for me every life has the same value, if they are Jew or Arab, for you apparently not, and no Arabs are not the perpetrator, as israel started invading palestine and libanon)
However i disagree with any aggression against israel from Lebanon since it was liberated. (there were a few isolated cases, but not as before)




"Even Barak and his leftist advisors, as well as Clinton and his token Jews, knew that agreeing to any more concessions was outright suicide for Israel. But if the Camp David agreement was so attractive, your Arab comrades should have taken it when they could. Instead, they decided to do a little Jihad number, so they got Sharon, and soon enough they will get Netanyahu again (hopefully), who knows exactly how to deal with Arab terrorism."

Hey, newsguy, please be honest, you never supported the camp david agreements as well... you want war and think the palestinians need to leave palestine...
and meretz and some labour-personalities, among wich peres(!!!that man is like a cameleon!!!) was in favour for the influx of more refugees, as long as it wouldn't make them more than 30% of the population.
I think both Sharon and bibi (both share some responsability for the current war) share the same ideas and one can't possibly be more extreme and unrealistic than Sharon. (well, if i hear lomplighter or negev it is aparently possible)
Anyway i think Arafat was under pressure from Arab countries and his more radical people not to concede about the refugees. I think he should have accepted the deal, yet other things like the refugees needed to be open for later discussion. (and of course israeli soldiers at the borders of palestine need to be replaced by international soldiers, american or european)

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
Hey, newsguy, please be honest, you never supported the camp david agreements as well... you want war and think the palestinians need to leave palestine...

My personal wish is that they will be forced (or better yet, choose independently) to leave Israel, including Gaza, the Golan, Judea and Samaria). IMHO, these are part of the Jewish homeland.

But I am a pragmatist.

Although I thought that Barak went too far on the Jerusalem issue and not far enough on what the Palestinians (and the other Arab countries) would do in return, I would have supported the agreement as it was presented. My only condition would have been that the plan be brought to a national referendum. If a large enough majority of Israelis would support the plan, then I would, too.

In fact, I still believe that there should be a referendum in Israel about whether Israel should unilaterally withdraw from the Palestinian-occupied territories, and dismantle some Jewish settlements and recognize a second Palestinian state.

If the answer is yes, then as a democratic country, the Israeli governement should carry out the people's will.

But if the answer is no, then the governement should carry out a full-scale war and destroy the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure once and for all, no matter what the cost is to the Palestinias civilians who support terrorism. That way, everyone can get on with their lives when the dust settles.

[takeo]

so your personal choice is etnic cleansing and fascism, and "cleansing" the population that lived there over 2000 years and is not recognised by nobody as a part of israel, yet you are pragmatic enough to see that such things are no longer tolerated in the th century.


About the referendum: I agree, but than it should happen as well on the palestinian side, that will allow both sides to negociate in full compliance with the wishes of their people. As i'm sure both israeli and palestinians want peace, and as both know they can only make peace by allowing eachother to exit, it will be a good thing for peace. Certainly after a long and bloody war with no winners but huge amounts of blood that is to come (at least if this plans you are talking about will become reality).



"But if the answer is no, then the governement should carry out a full-scale war and destroy the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure once and for all, no matter what the cost is to the Palestinias civilians who support terrorism. That way, everyone can get on with their lives when the dust settles."

If the answer is no, new negociations should be carried out untill a solution is found. However genocide against the palestinians as you propose will and should destroy Israel as well. It will mean an international coalition against israel and when the dust settles Israel (and palestine) will be nothing but ruins. I believe Israeli people are more realistic than you are and will not allow this to happen, nor will the palestinians. Any negociation should happen with the un-resolutions (and the camp david agreemetns) as a base to start.

[victot]

"so your personal choice is etnic cleansing and fascism, and "cleansing" the population that lived there over 2000 years and is not recognised by nobody as a part of israel, yet you are pragmatic enough to see that such things are no longer tolerated in the th century."

i think what the jewish settlers thought, and some still think that the 23 or so arab countries control 99.5% of the middle east, and this small piece of land which was in the hearts and prayers of jews everyday for 2000 years of dispora should belong to the jewish people.
that being said, i do think that the palestinians have also shown a deep attatchment to the land...
but i resent this whole "ethnic cleansing" and "israel is racist" attitude being said all gun-ho by people's who who have both vast populations, and vast countries which are vastly large...
let the small number of jews live in their small land which they love so much... even if it means giving half of it to the palestinians so they can do the same.

[takeo]

Jews can live there, of course, but only in the part that belongs to them. Palestinians (the people of palestine, who have suffered tremendously since 1984) also have rights to live there, and currently all that is internationally recognised as palestine is one quarter of their original land. All what they want is to take that quarter back as their own land(while the other 3 quarters will be controlled by Jews) and return to the land where their families lived for centuries. Is this too much asked?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
(the people of palestine, who have suffered tremendously since 1984)


All what they want is to take that quarter back as their own land(while the other 3 quarters will be controlled by Jews) and return to the land where their families lived for centuries. Is this too much asked?

The Palestinians have only themselves and their corrupt terrorist leaders to blame for their own misery.

They have no interest in a quarter of the land. Where did you get this figure? They want ALL the land to be ethnically cleansed of Jews.

And, yes, this is too much to ask.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by victot
[Bbut i resent this whole "ethnic cleansing" and "israel is racist" attitude being said all gun-ho by people's who who have both vast populations, and vast countries which are vastly large...[/B]

You are right to recognize the Arab mentality of greed and cruelty to their neighbors.

The Arabs have never even began to make proper use of their own vast territories, yet they want to steal away that little piece of land known as the Jewish homeland and mass murder the Jewish people in the process.

[takeo]

You should inform yourself, and read the web or newssites, and you will notice that the plo and the PA have recognised Israel (=3 quarters of the original Palestine), but of course nobody recognises the "right " of Israel to occupy the other quarter, not even your most important ally. I read on the website of the peace now-movement that the occupation is the real cause for all the trouble Israel is experiancing right now and that more and more Israeli recognise this and have the opinion that the sharon-government only made things worse. (which is, by the way, verified by facts, the violence has expanded and escalated since sharon took power, his hard policies have brought the inverse of what Sharon promised they would bring, the only solution now seems negociations without any condition or total destruction of the palestinians, which would mean an all-out war against the whole Islamic world and probably the UN and EU as well, according to a poll conducted by "peace now" most people in israel seem to favour the first solution, the solution of common sence)

[watcher]

There have been anti-Israel propaganda machines millenniums before the label “palestine” was conceived to cover over Israel... unfortunately to present date the anti-Israel campaign is worldwide and now more rampant and infectious than ever due to misuse of global communications by bloodthirsty terrorists and their supporters, and individuals who prefer to be spoon-fed lies than to take time to understand the Truth.

The real cause for the trouble Israel is experiencing right now is that Israel came home to Israel, and the surrounding nations want Israel to be their land preferably by exterminating the people in it. Their main vehicle to preform such gruesome bloodthirsty atrocities is to retain the name “palestine” despite the fact that the arabs did not come up with the name, but by the Romans who controlled much of the region.

Under such name they can retain a fascade of innocence while supposedly secretly performing their plan of mass genocide upon Israel to the point in numbers that hitler would be surpassed if possible.

[cerulean]

I have read various sites and leaders saying something to the effect that if Israel just withdraws back to their 1967 borders, all will be fine and wonderful. If so, why wasn't it fine before 1967?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
I read on the website of the peace now-movement that the occupation is the real cause for all the trouble Israel is experiancing right now and that more and more Israeli recognise this and have the opinion that the sharon-government only made things worse.

Are you shocked that the Israeli minoruty of leftists oppose the policies of the moderates and the right wing?

Let's keep in mind that the leftist fringe has never been able to succeed because most Israelis are centrist. That's why Peace Now (which is a very misleading name for a party that has collaborated with Arafat and worked hard to bring about the destruction of Israel) is just a fringe group.

Let's also recall why Sharon was elected: Barak (a left-leaning centrist) dragged leftist sabateurs like Yossi Sarid along with him to Camp David to devise an extremely risky peace plan, that mistakenly depended on Palestinians being civilized neighbors.

That's when Arafat decided that to ensure the complete destruction of Israel, more terrorism was needed. And that's when Israelis understood that a center-right leader like Sharon was needed.

So, whatever the leftists are mumbling about is obviously out of touch with the democratic reality of Israel. That's why they lost in the elections.

And, btw - you know what all these suicide mass murders of innocent Israelis will bring? Your favorite Israeli prime minister will return to delight you -- Mr Bibi Netanyahu.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by cerulean
I have read various sites and leaders saying something to the effect that if Israel just withdraws back to their 1967 borders, all will be fine and wonderful. If so, why wasn't it fine before 1967?

It wasn't fine before 1967 because then, just like now, the Palestinians had no intention whatsoever to live as civilized people alongside any non-Muslim neighbors.

Then, like now, they have worked relentlessly to ethnically cleanse all Jews from the Jewish homeland.

[takeo]

watcher, Palestinians don't want to destruction of the Jewish people as the nazi's did, they only want to live in the land that they inhabited for 1000's of years.
cerulean, before 1967 there were serious tentions with neighbouring countries yet israel was not confronted with the same serious and bloody problems as today, and it still had the sympathy of the most part of the world. The 1967 invasion, certainly made things worse.
newsguy, the left-wing in israel has never conquered the center, that's true (if this happened Israel would live in peace now). However their analysis and their support are representing the most intellectual and best part of Israeli society, who are able to think for themselves and don't let themselves influence by indocrination in school and in the mass-media.
The israeli electorate choose according to the achievements. barak was defeated because he couldn't bring peace (i'm sure if camp david had succeeded he would be still in office). sharon was elected because he promised to bring peace, yet his policies (the same as the policies proposed by netanyahu, the man who destroyed Oslo) did bring the inverse, more violence (which is only natural of course). That's why i'm almost convinced that next election the left-wing and center will win the election, and negociations will resume where they will be left in camp david, i am as well convinced after the atrocities both sides will be more reasonable and a compromise can be found. I would like to read the frustration of the right-wing when this will happen!
"Peace with the palestinians and arafat, no more violence, withdrawel, yeiks!!!! how will we sell our theories about Eretz Israel and the unhuman nature of arabs now??? guess we have to kill the israeli president or stir unrest in israeli society as we did in the 90's!"

[takeo]

there are more and more signs of resistance against Sharon in Israel, two days ago a big demonstration on rabin-square, and military who refuse to serve in the occupied territories, and large parts of israeli who doubt the efficiency of Sharon's violent and uncompromising policy.

[watcher]

Originally posted by takeo
watcher, Palestinians don't want to destruction of the Jewish people as the nazi's did, they only want to live in the land that they inhabited for 1000's of years.

I never said “palestinians”, just most the people who assume the label. “palestine” is merely a label covering Israel if you feel that is incorrect then correct me with historical facts not propaganda lies.

So those foreigners lived in Israel “1000's of years” that never meant it’s their land, they have their own lands but obviously that is not enough since they try to strip land from Israel by playing the role of bloodthirsty mindless murderers.

[NewsGuy]

" Palestinians don't want to destruction of the Jewish people as the nazi's did, they only want to live in the land that they inhabited for 1000's of years. "

Sure they want to destroy all Jews and take over all of Israel, as they themselves say so plainly in their own pole. I don't understand why you bother to deny this, if the Palestinians themselves say so outright.



"newsguy, the left-wing in israel has never conquered the center, that's true (if this happened Israel would live in peace now)."

Israel would be part of history now, with a few Eurocrats making some nice speeches about how the Jews once had a homeland, but that history was unkind to them, leading to the Jews' unfortunate extinction from Israel. And now we all need to learn to live together to make a better world, blah blah blah.

Then the Eurocrat gets into his beautiful European car, which he fills up with Arab oil at $4.50 a liter and drives home humming some Octoberfest songs, maybe with a French twist. That's what the Israeli leftists would have brought by now.


"However their analysis and their support are representing the most intellectual and best part of Israeli society"

LOL.

Doesn't everyone just love limousine liberals who are so outwadly elitist. Very amusing.



"The israeli electorate choose according to the achievements. barak was defeated because he couldn't bring peace (i'm sure if camp david had succeeded he would be still in office)."

Yes, that's probably true. Arafat sabotaged any chance of reelection for Barak and Ben Ami.



"That's why i'm almost convinced that next election the left-wing and center will win the election"

You're wrong. Next time around, Bibi will return.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by watcher
So those foreigners lived in Israel “1000's of years” that never meant it’s their land, they have their own lands but obviously that is not enough since they try to strip land from Israel by playing the role of bloodthirsty mindless murderers.

The Arabs haven't been there for thousands of years. That figure is probably from a special textbook edition co-authored by Arafat bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein, and fact-checked by Fidel Castro for extra "accuracy".

The Arabs are squatters living in the Jewish homeland, trying to murder the true Jewish owners of the land.

[watcher]

Originally posted by NewsGuy


The Arabs haven't been there for thousands of years. That figure is probably from a special textbook edition co-authored by Arafat bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein, and fact-checked by Fidel Castro for extra "accuracy".

The Arabs are squatters living in the Jewish homeland, trying to murder the true Jewish owners of the land.

Sorry I just cut and pasted from his quote, you're right I should be more careful to not be taken the wrong way. Past postings doesn't shouldn't be so heavily relied upon... too much propaganda out there so I must always keep on guard to the very last post.

[takeo]

"The Arabs are squatters living in the Jewish homeland, trying to murder the true Jewish owners of the land."

We had that discussion before, you couldn't bring any historical fact prooving that jews lived continuously as a majority in palestine and i came with facts, not from Bin laden or saddam, but from Stanford university and other neutral scientific sources, where was stated that palestinians lived in palestine at least since the 7th century, and probably before as well (first they converted to christianism and spoke aramaic, later to islam and spoke arabic) , and that still in the end of the 19th century, palestinians were in the majority in lived in palestinian cities. (so they didn't come from other arab countries in the 30's as you stated somewhere, and palestine wasn't empty before the jews came there). Please for once make a distinction between myths you would like to believe, and reality.

[takeo]

"Sure they want to destroy all Jews and take over all of Israel, as they themselves say so plainly in their own pole. I don't understand why you bother to deny this, if the Palestinians themselves say so outright. "

In your own statistics (which i doubt) less palestinians want the destruction of israel than palestinians that the ones who only want to live alongside israel in their own state.





"Israel would be part of history now, with a few Eurocrats making some nice speeches about how the Jews once had a homeland, but that history was unkind to them, leading to the Jews' unfortunate extinction from Israel. And now we all need to learn to live together to make a better world, blah blah blah. "

That's what you think, however not corresponding to reality, if the left-wing had the power than now arafat was the president of an independant palestine and israel would have a peace-treaty with most of its neighbours(or with all), while cooperating to prevent terrorism and with a strong border. It would be like in 1993, but permanent and final, no longer depending of internal policy changes in Israel (or palestine).
The EU would indeed favor such a solution, as it did support Oslo as well.



"Doesn't everyone just love limousine liberals who are so outwadly elitist. Very amusing. "

They are more sympathic than war-criminals and iron guards, and many left-wingers in Israel are young and not rich at all.




"You're wrong. Next time around, Bibi will return."

We'll see about that... (by the way, wasn't the man haunted by justice for fraud???)

[watcher]

Of course "palestinians" lived in "palestine" after all it was renamed that for that short length of time, historical time not your time so to be realistic it was a short length of time. It was not the issue of majority but who really owns the land there was no historical fact that the land was rightfully acquired by "palestine", just that the land was simply renamed "palestine" for the time being until Israel returned. Before bringing up the subject of reality perhaps you should try to understand it first.

[JustSad]

It does look like Takeo has a good idea.

Right now both parties are paralized by mutual fear.
Both sides are convinced that the other side does not want peace.
Each side is contantly looking for evidence that the other side is in fact looking for it's destruction.
Every suicide attack is evidence for the Israeli's.
Every military-action proves the same for the Palestinians.
Thus keeping a excalating spiral of revenge in order.

In this case a simple plan like Takeo's could just be what we need.

Israel shouldn't fear this. They are strong enough not to worry.
If it doesn't work they can easily go back to the present situation.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
"The Arabs are squatters living in the Jewish homeland, trying to murder the true Jewish owners of the land."

We had that discussion before, you couldn't bring any historical fact prooving that jews lived continuously as a majority in palestine and i came with facts, not from Bin laden or saddam, but from Stanford university and other neutral scientific sources..."


You're right that we've had plenty of discussions on this point, but to new members of the forum and to visitors, it might be uselful to repeat some of these ideas:

1. There is solid, indisputable scientific proof that there has been a continouos Jewish presence in Israel since ancient times. In additon to ancient literature that has been uncovered by hundreds of archaeologists and carbon-dated, there are ancient Jewish artifacts and temples being unearthed even today.

Every time someone starts digging in Israel, up come all kinds of ancient artifacts with Hebrew inscriptions, detailing Jewish day-to-day life on the land, including Judea and Samaria, which the Arab squatters are now trying to steal from the Jews, with international help.

The Arabs came riding in on their camels around 660 CE, from the Arabian peninsula, robbing and raping along the way and forcefully converting everyone on their path to Islam, by giving the new "converts" a simple choice: accept the tyranny of Islam, or be beheaded on the spot.

So, the Arabs are not new squatters, they are old squatters and thieves in the Jewish homeland, trying to grab by mass murder and violence just like they did for about 1400 years.


2. It's not that Stanford University published that report as an official position of the university. Rather, it is one particular professor making a personal hypothesis.

[watcher]

Originally posted by JustSad
It does look like Takeo has a good idea.

Right now both parties are paralized by mutual fear.
Both sides are convinced that the other side does not want peace.

What fear? It's just another day in Israel, unfortunately just used to the death from all the millennniums of actions against Israel. Just waiting for peace to arrive.

Originally posted by JustSad
Each side is contantly looking for evidence that the other side is in fact looking for it's destruction.
Every suicide attack is evidence for the Israeli's.
Every military-action proves the same for the Palestinians.
Thus keeping a excalating spiral of revenge in order.

Israel does not need to look for evidence... The evidence is all around. Just poorly defending Itself as if in peacetime situation when in fact war is upon Israel for some time now not only by these squatters "palestinians" as they like to be called, but in the roundabout way the families who sent these people to the land of Israel to cause this trouble. So even with any peace plan there will be no peace since Israel is not wanted in the region that's why they rejected all offers, that's why they try to take the homeland of Israel.

Originally posted by JustSad
In this case a simple plan like Takeo's could just be what we need.

Israel shouldn't fear this. They are strong enough not to worry.
If it doesn't work they can easily go back to the present situation.

Evidence that "palestine" is merely a label can't be covered over so instead of responding to that fact it must be ignored?

Can't argue against historical facts that's why so much propaganda lies are created to cover the Truth? It's been done all too many times before but the Truth is always uncovered! Israel is back home so the label "palestine" can simply be removed and they can go home in peace, perhaps starting states in the countries they came from...

But they don't want that do they? they want to stubbornly hold on to the label given to them by Rome as an excuse for slaughter in Israel to steal the land that does not rightfully belong to them but belongs to Israel in the first place!

When peace finally arrives and the wrongdoers are put in their place again Israel will remain and will stand forever as always. Only the tiny land of Israel is home nowhere else, unlike with the greedy neighbors.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by JustSad
If it doesn't work they can easily go back to the present situation.

Interesting point of view, but just the opposite has been true, so far.

In the past, when Israel gave up land in exchange for an Arab theoretical promise of peace, Israel wound up with no peace and also unable to recover the land.

For example, Israel gave up the entire Sinai in exchange for Egyptian lies.

There was never a normalization of relations with Egypt, as promised. Anti-Semitic rhetoric in the Egyptian press never stopped, as promised. Weapons continued to be smuggled in from Egypt to Gaza, in violation of the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement. And the Egyptians have kicked out Israel's ambassador, and withdrew their own, in complete violation of the peace agreement.

Still, Israel cannot get the Sinai back so easily as you describe. It would trake a full-scale war to do so.


In the case of the Palestinians, Israel handed over huge chunks of the Jewish homeland to Arafat, including major biblical cities like Schem (Nablus), Hebron, where the Jewish forefathers are buried, Jericho, where Joshua operated, as well as other important cities. In exchange, Arafat was obligated to prevent terrorism. Obviously this never happened.

Again, Israel cannot simply get back the land it handed over. It will take a full-scale war to do so.

This is why I think that you are wrong, and think that any peace agreement must be enforceable to make sure both sides keep their side of the deal, and just assuming that the palestinians will stop their mass murder of Jews would be naiive.

[takeo]

"1. There is solid, indisputable scientific proof that there has been a continouos Jewish presence in Israel since ancient times. In additon to ancient literature that has been uncovered by hundreds of archaeologists and carbon-dated, there are ancient Jewish artifacts and temples being unearthed even today.

Every time someone starts digging in Israel, up come all kinds of ancient artifacts with Hebrew inscriptions, detailing Jewish day-to-day life on the land, including Judea and Samaria, "

I'm not denying this at all, wathcher and newsguy, yet that's a long time ago. I have the opinion that politics today and etnic composition of a land can't be based one who lived there 2000 years ago. And maybe some jews continued living there, most people where Palestinians untill the etnic cleansing of 1948.


"which the Arab squatters are now trying to steal from the Jews, with international help. "

So you think as well that people who lived there for (at least) 14 centuries are squatters? That's a very uncommon view, to say at least.

"The Arabs came riding in on their camels around 660 CE, from the Arabian peninsula, robbing and raping along the way and forcefully converting everyone on their path to Islam, by giving the new "converts" a simple choice: accept the tyranny of Islam, or be beheaded on the spot. "

that's were you are wrong again, the fact that a considerable part of the Palestinians are christian, foloowing the same rites as the ones found in palestine in the 5th century, prooves that most palestinians lived earlier than 660 but most converted to Islam and adopted arab, as in many countries at that time.

"So, the Arabs are not new squatters, they are old squatters and thieves in the Jewish homeland, trying to grab by mass murder and violence just like they did for about 1400 years. "

the fract that jewish people lived in Palestine in the 19th century (yet a small minority) in peace prooves different. It wasc the idea of zionism to take over the land that they considered theirs that naturally started the troubles between palestinians and Jews, and this is only natural if you think about it. And according to your definition most people in the world are "old squatters", few people live already in their country more than 14 centuries.


"2. It's not that Stanford University published that report as an official position of the university. Rather, it is one particular professor making a personal hypothesis."
well, it had the label of stanford historical library, so i guess they must have approoved it.

[takeo]

and about Egypt: Why on earth should Israel reoccupy egypt? no terrorist actions had been launched from Egypt, no? Or does a peace-treaty means in your eyes that a country that signs it should always agree with the policy of Israel without complaining?
If this is your expectation of a peace-treaty, than of course it will never happen. For me a peace-treaty means that both countries agree not to attack eachother or allow armed groups to attack the other state from your territory.
But palestine isn't Egypt, israel could reoccupy palestine any time it wants, and if they have serious reason to do so (palestinians attacking Israel with rockets for example) they will have international support for this. but yes israel AND the palestinians need enforcement and garantees, and this can only be provided by international troops(american or european), who will garantee the palestinians that israel won't reoccupy them for an illegitimate reason (as the reasons you stated above) and will garantee Israel that the border will be safe. Of course that's why Sharon don't want international troops, he wants to have his hands free to do whatever in "his" territories.
And Justsad thanks for the comments, if even newsguy can agree with this plan than i'm sure that peace, sooner or later, will come and some solution can be found.

[watcher]

Perhaps i should reiterate the point for you: it was a short length of time in historical time not your time. You cannot disprove the historical fact that the land was never rightfully acquired by "palestine", just that the land was simply renamed "palestine" for the time being until Israel returned.

[watcher]

As far as the sinai penninsula... It was never a part of Israel so there was never any reason to keep it. Only the land of Israel belongs to Israel, which those people still calling themselves "palestinians" desparately want to steal away from Israel!

[takeo]

"Perhaps i should reiterate the point for you: it was a short length of time in historical time not your time. You cannot disprove the historical fact that the land was never rightfully acquired by "palestine", just that the land was simply renamed "palestine" for the time being until Israel returned"

I completely understand your point, yet this is distorted logic. No country in the world is "rightfully acquired" by any people, also the Jews didn't have any "papers" or proove that they are the real owners of the land and the people who came after or before them were just squatters.

[watcher]

By your form of logic it appears no country in the world has any right to be a country because when any other people who come to live there a bit can claim it from them for the reason they lived on that hosts land awhile. There was no transaction involved in this situation just the land was simply renamed "palestine".

[takeo]

no, according to modern standards people who are born in a country from parents who have established their life in a country are considered legitimate inhabitants, not squatters, otherwise you are a squatter tooin America and return the land to the natives, as for sure your ancestors didn't live in the US 2000 years ago . And people living in a country for 2000 years certainly are NO squatters.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
... otherwise you are a squatter tooin America and return the land to the natives, as for sure your ancestors didn't live in the US 2000 years ago

In all fairness, the European immigrants, escaping religious persecution who settled America, basically stole the land from its native population. It's difficult to deny this. What are the Indians left with today? A couple casinos and a Jeep named after them.

I suppose that Indians could make a strong case for their rights to the land.

By the way, notice how the Europeans haven't changed their religious discrimination tactics in over 200 years.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
And maybe some jews continued living there, most people where Palestinians untill the etnic cleansing of 1948.

The "ethnic cleansing" you are referring to is actually the Arabs voluntarily abandoning their land on direct orders of the invading Arab armies in 1948.

This is just another reason that Palestinians owe part of their misery to their Arab brothers, not Israel.

[takeo]

So you are prepared to voluntarily abandon the US as you are a squatter? ;)
It wasn't so voluntarily, first of all there was war, and people to tend to flee the war (by the way some actually were forced by israeli troops to leave, this is even recognised in the "jewish virtual library"), all over the world these people are not denied the right to return, and if this happens than it is etnic cleansing. This is exactly the term used by The hague tribunal (and the Geneva conventions) to describe a policy prohibiting refugees to return to their former homes.

[watcher]

Originally posted by takeo
So you are prepared to voluntarily abandon the US as you are a squatter? ;)

I would be more than happy to leave!:)

Originally posted by takeo
It wasn't so voluntarily, first of all there was war, and people to tend to flee the war (by the way some actually were forced by israeli troops to leave, this is even recognised in the "jewish virtual library"), all over the world these people are not denied the right to return, and if this happens than it is etnic cleansing. This is exactly the term used by The hague tribunal (and the Geneva conventions) to describe a policy prohibiting refugees to return to their former homes.

Do you know who really started the war? Or just won't admit it? And yes of course there has been a right of return but limited because of the "palestinian problem... the apparantly war hungry "palestinians" are too eager to steal land from Israel by their bloodthirsty means of terrorism.

[watcher]

Originally posted by takeo
no, according to modern standards people who are born in a country from parents who have established their life in a country are considered legitimate inhabitants, not squatters, otherwise you are a squatter tooin America and return the land to the natives, as for sure your ancestors didn't live in the US 2000 years ago . And people living in a country for 2000 years certainly are NO squatters.

If that's the case then you're saying those who live in America can divide up the land since they "according to modern standards are people born in a country from parents who have established their life in a country and are considered legitimate inhabitants". Each ethnic group can claim the land to become their own individual states. It would also apply to other countries too... For example part of france can now officially be called new "palestine"!

I'm gald you straightened out the rules for squatting in this modern day and age. The world is now expected to apply such changes effective immediately guru takeo?

[takeo]

It doesn't matter who started the war, refugees are refugees, whatever thei nationality.
And Israel only accepted a tiny minority back in Israel, if israel accepted them all in, according to you, Israel would have stopped to exist(not according to me). So according to you Israel needed the war (and the excuse it provided for getting rid of the palestinians) to survive as a Jewish state? So bad those damn palestinians didn't want to flee when israel attacked them again in 1967!
And nobody can just come and immediately claim a land for itself, it doesn't work like that(that's what the colonists in Gaza and Westbank ignored). You first have to adopt to your neighbours and to your new environment and it takes some time, maybe some generations, before you can consider this land as "yours". However if you are born in a land and your parents established their life in it you are a citizen of that land, that's why many jewish people who came to the us end 19th begin 20th century are now American citizens.
And that's why turkish people who came to Minor Asia in the middleages are now the legal inhabitants of Turkey (of course, as the palestinians, they mixed with a lot of other people)
And you may want to go for the israeli sun (why don't you?) most Jewish Americans prefere to stay causy in the US! (and most Jews are mixed and lost their Jewish identity, another proove that "race" is not something eternal).
this is not only my theory, this is the theory used in all democratic, western countries in the world, even everywhere else in the world. Only Hitler didn't agree with it, he wanted you to proove your genetic origin of centuries ago to gain the right to live in Germany. But i don't think he is your example, is he?

[watcher]

Originally posted by takeo
It doesn't matter who started the war, refugees are refugees, whatever thei nationality.

That has nothing to do with these people who assume the name "palestine". How can these people be called refugees when they have their lands to go to? Lands that surround Israel! If you want to be more accurate you could say people of Israel are the refugees, and victims of violent squatters.

Originally posted by takeo
And Israel only accepted a tiny minority back in Israel, if israel accepted them all in, according to you, Israel would have stopped to exist(not according to me). So according to you Israel needed the war (and the excuse it provided for getting rid of the palestinians) to survive as a Jewish state? So bad those damn palestinians didn't want to flee when israel attacked them again in 1967!

I don't know who you're responding to there let alone what you're saying and what point you're trying to make. Please clarify, perhaps someone else knows what you're talking about? Could be too much propaganda thoughts affecting you? Try laxatives... It may help.

Originally posted by takeo
And nobody can just come and immediately claim a land for itself, it doesn't work like that(that's what the colonists in Gaza and Westbank ignored). You first have to adopt to your neighbours and to your new environment and it takes some time, maybe some generations, before you can consider this land as "yours". However if you are born in a land and your parents established their life in it you are a citizen of that land, that's why many jewish people who came to the us end 19th begin 20th century are now American citizens.

So in essence are you saying since "palestinians" are living in Israel they are citizens of Israel? Funny way of acting like citizens. If that were the case not enough neighbors could remain under the label "palestine" by the sheer numbers of the resulting murders and suicides living as a citizen of Israel. Israel could benefit from that though... If the terrorists kill themselves off than Israel can finally live in peace.

Originally posted by takeo
And that's why turkish people who came to Minor Asia in the middleages are now the legal inhabitants of Turkey (of course, as the palestinians, they mixed with a lot of other people)
And you may want to go for the israeli sun (why don't you?) most Jewish Americans prefere to stay causy in the US! (and most Jews are mixed and lost their Jewish identity, another proove that "race" is not something eternal).
this is not only my theory, this is the theory used in all democratic, western countries in the world, even everywhere else in the world.

"palestinians" since being a label cannot be compared to the others. Those who like to proudly carry the label "palestine" apparently are mainly lawless people whose main goal in life is to mass-murder and steal any land that isn't theirs.

Originally posted by takeo
Only Hitler didn't agree with it, he wanted you to proove your genetic origin of centuries ago to gain the right to live in Germany. But i don't think he is your example, is he?

I'm certain you know more about him than I would care to know... then again maybe you don't. Still I don't care to know about such a vile form of matter like him nor arasquat or anyone like them.

[Negev]

"And Israel only accepted a tiny minority back in Israel, if israel accepted them all in, according to you, Israel would have stopped to exist(not according to me)."

correct. injecting millions more palestinian enemies into the heart of israel would destroy israel.

"So according to you [watcher] Israel needed the war (and the excuse it provided for getting rid of the palestinians) to survive as a Jewish state? So bad those damn palestinians didn't want to flee when israel attacked them again in 1967!"

israel was attacked and surrounded by 6 or 7 arab armies preparing to mass murder all jews in israel. and actually, you're right that it is too bad that the arab enemies living in israel didn't leave. that's exactly right. the world would be a much better place if they did.

" (and most Jews are mixed and lost their Jewish identity, another proove that "race" is not something eternal)."

only the jews who were never part of the community and never cared about their Jewish identity intermarried. that includes many jews whose parents failed them as parents.

of course, many of those failed parents now cry their eyes out, regretting that they never provided a solid jewish background for their kids, and now have grandchildren who they see as strangers, and feel that they are barely related to them.

anyway, we know that judaism is a religion and a worldwide community, not a physical race.

[takeo]

watcher, I think we both have our opinion, i think that people who live for 2000 years in a country have the right to live there and i think a palestinian people do exist, you don't.
And about being good neighbours: Israel has never been a good neighbour in the palestinians, etnic cleansing(1949) and attacking your neighbour(1967) is not being a good neighbour. Arab leaders may have started the war in 1949, that is not a good reason to punish innocent people for it. this has only provoked more violence for Israel. if those palestinians had the chance to be integrated in a jewish state and receive a propper job and a life in the land they were born, the current problems would not have occured.

"israel was attacked and surrounded by 6 or 7 arab armies preparing to mass murder all jews in israel. and actually, you're right that it is too bad that the arab enemies living in israel didn't leave. that's exactly right. the world would be a much better place if they did. "

So you don't even deny you are in favor of etnic cleansing and occupation. maybe you can help them a little by massacering them all. Of course you will have to deal with the consequences, a worldwide war against Israel, and you can start complain how the world hates innocent israel.



"only the jews who were never part of the community and never cared about their Jewish identity intermarried. that includes many jews whose parents failed them as parents.
of course, many of those failed parents now cry their eyes out, regretting that they never provided a solid jewish background for their kids, and now have grandchildren who they see as strangers, and feel that they are barely related to them. "

So, this are bad Jews as they failed to keep the jewish community pure and intermarried with non-Jews?

"anyway, we know that judaism is a religion and a worldwide community, not a physical race."

If it is a religion, how come that many people who consider themselves jew and or Israeli are non-religious? How come that even i can immigrate to Israel even if i'm not religious?

[watcher]

Originally posted by takeo
watcher, I think we both have our opinion, i think that people who live for 2000 years in a country have the right to live there and i think a palestinian people do exist, you don't.
And about being good neighbours: Israel has never been a good neighbour in the palestinians, etnic cleansing(1949) and attacking your neighbour(1967) is not being a good neighbour. Arab leaders may have started the war in 1949, that is not a good reason to punish innocent people for it. this has only provoked more violence for Israel. if those palestinians had the chance to be integrated in a jewish state and receive a propper job and a life in the land they were born, the current problems would not have occured.

Israel does not attack in fact Israel never sought war at any point as opposed to the neighbors who sought out every opportunity to attack and try to remove Israel once again form the homeland of Israel. And the people were given chances to integrate into Israel but they didn’t want to, they wanted a state of their own in Israel. Israel is a tiny country theirs are numerous and expansive... There’s no other reason they’re trying to create a state in Israel than to steal Israel.

Originally posted by takeo
"israel was attacked and surrounded by 6 or 7 arab armies preparing to mass murder all jews in israel. and actually, you're right that it is too bad that the arab enemies living in israel didn't leave. that's exactly right. the world would be a much better place if they did. "

So you don't even deny you are in favor of etnic cleansing and occupation. maybe you can help them a little by massacering them all. Of course you will have to deal with the consequences, a worldwide war against Israel, and you can start complain how the world hates innocent israel.

I nor anyone for Israel would never be in favor for ethnic cleansing nor any form of war. The only thing that is desired is peace, which is unwanted by the squatters within Israel. Just because
that happened to Israel many times which they were mass murdered in attempts to remove any signs of existence of Israel does not mean there should be revenge. Israel is never a nation of war but still Israel is not to be removed from existence by terrorists! Israel will not sit idly this time while being massacred... no there will be defense this time! Unfortunately the world becomes horrified when Israel attempts to defend the right to exist.

Originally posted by takeo
"only the jews who were never part of the community and never cared about their Jewish identity intermarried. that includes many jews whose parents failed them as parents.
of course, many of those failed parents now cry their eyes out, regretting that they never provided a solid jewish background for their kids, and now have grandchildren who they see as strangers, and feel that they are barely related to them. "

So, this are bad Jews as they failed to keep the jewish community pure and intermarried with non-Jews?

"anyway, we know that judaism is a religion and a worldwide community, not a physical race."

If it is a religion, how come that many people who consider themselves jew and or Israeli are non-religious? How come that even i can immigrate to Israel even if i'm not religious?

Israel does have an identity indeed that separates itself from the world... I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the 613 laws... Yes there are those who are extreme and unbending in these laws but these laws prevent Israel from becoming like the rest of the world. Plus where in the world is like a Kibbutz where there’s nobody above the other but everybody is a complete equal and shares equally? There’s no status or wealth but everyone is equal. Israel is to abide by these Laws and Commandments in respect to G-D... to know right from wrong and to abide by that to the fullest. So anyone who understands and abides by these Laws and Commandments in trying to do right and be right... then yes they can stay. Terrorism and hatred is not at all listed in the Laws so the squatters must leave... simple as that!

[takeo]

"Israel does not attack in fact Israel never sought war at any point as opposed to the neighbors who sought out every opportunity to attack and try to remove Israel once again form the homeland of Israel. And the people were given chances to integrate into Israel but they didn’t want to, they wanted a state of their own in Israel. Israel is a tiny country theirs are numerous and expansive... There’s no other reason they’re trying to create a state in Israel than to steal Israel. "

What about 1967, wasn't that a war where the first shot was fired by Israel, wasn't it? And the refugees have no problem with integrating in Israel, they only want to live in Israel, they don't want their own state inside Israel. (of course with Israel i mean within the internationally recognised borders).


"I nor anyone for Israel would never be in favor for ethnic cleansing nor any form of war. The only thing that is desired is peace, which is unwanted by the squatters within Israel. Just because
that happened to Israel many times which they were mass murdered in attempts to remove any signs of existence of Israel does not mean there should be revenge. Israel is never a nation of war but still Israel is not to be removed from existence by terrorists! Israel will not sit idly this time while being massacred... no there will be defense this time! Unfortunately the world becomes horrified when Israel attempts to defend the right to exist. "

Well, removing or banning people from Israel, who lived there for generrations, because they aren't jewish is etnic cleansing. Not all palestinians are terrorists and as long as israel occupies the occupied regions the people living in gaza or westbank have the right to resist against israel. If you steal something from someone and you are trying to protect what you stole than this is not self-defense.






"Israel does have an identity indeed that separates itself from the world... I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the 613 laws... Yes there are those who are extreme and unbending in these laws but these laws prevent Israel from becoming like the rest of the world. Plus where in the world is like a Kibbutz where there’s nobody above the other but everybody is a complete equal and shares equally? There’s no status or wealth but everyone is equal. Israel is to abide by these Laws and Commandments in respect to G-D... to know right from wrong and to abide by that to the fullest. So anyone who understands and abides by these Laws and Commandments in trying to do right and be right... then yes they can stay. Terrorism and hatred is not at all listed in the Laws so the squatters must leave... simple as that!"

Yes i heard about it. Yet as is the case with most religions, those rules can't be maintained anymore nowadays, besides this laws are excluding other people from it, even people who lived there, and as Israel is a liberal democratic country, those laws can't be the base for any policy. I don't believe that Jews are better or worse than other people, and that both jews and palestinians have the same rights to live in Palestine.

[watcher]

Originally posted by takeo
What about 1967, wasn't that a war where the first shot was fired by Israel, wasn't it? And the refugees have no problem with integrating in Israel, they only want to live in Israel, they don't want their own state inside Israel. (of course with Israel i mean within the internationally recognised borders).

It is highly unlike Israel to start any war and until recently Israel stood still awaiting peace while being slaughtered. Until recently I mean now Israel is starting to defend itself more... defending for the right to exist!

Originally posted by takeo
Well, removing or banning people from Israel, who lived there for generrations, because they aren't jewish is etnic cleansing. Not all palestinians are terrorists and as long as israel occupies the occupied regions the people living in gaza or westbank have the right to resist against israel. If you steal something from someone and you are trying to protect what you stole than this is not self-defense.

I never stated all "palestinians" are terrorists... just that it's a label synonomous with terrorism and those that proudly take up that name apparently do so with hatred, intolerance, and terorism. I've seen all those sites where they have photos and video series of them teaching hatred in their schools and how they teach their children to kill with weapons of mass murder in Summer camps. you can't deny that the "palestinians are the theives just by trying to steal Israel by using the obsolete name "palestine". Who can argue with the fact that "palestine" is just a label to cover Israel until Israel returned.

Originally posted by takeo
Yes i heard about it. Yet as is the case with most religions, those rules can't be maintained anymore nowadays, besides this laws are excluding other people from it, even people who lived there, and as Israel is a liberal democratic country, those laws can't be the base for any policy. I don't believe that Jews are better or worse than other people, and that both jews and palestinians have the same rights to live in Palestine.

If anyone knows right from wrong and can attempt to do the right thing... there are no exclusions. It's just difficult if there's constant hatred or murderous thoughts and such...

[takeo]

What is right for you may be wrong for other people.

"Who can argue with the fact that "palestine" is just a label to cover Israel until Israel returned. "

MANY people will argue with this idea, as well many Jews and even more historians. In fact all people who are not religious will argue with this idea.

[watcher]

Originally posted by takeo
What is right for you may be wrong for other people.

True I dislike terrorism, I'd rather see peace, I'd like to see the complete elimination of hatred, for starters... My thoughts are in agreement with Israel.

Originally posted by takeo
MANY people will argue with this idea, as well many Jews and even more historians. In fact all people who are not religious will argue with this idea.

If historians believe that then they would have to rewrite history as many have. I found one book that stated when Israel reached canaan it became "palestine" so Israel named it "palestine according to that book.

[NewsGuy]

Well, this thread has been a very successful one in the sense that it now spans 6 pages of insightful comments.

Nice!

To make it easier for new readers to follow our threads from beginning to end, I am archiving this one and opening up a continuation of this thread, as "Takeo's peace plan suggestion II" in this same section.

Please use Takeo's peace plan suggestion II (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?threadid=243) to continue this discussion.