2/3 Of Israelis Against Assassinations [Archive]

yehudi

06-13-2003, 08:49 AM

as I often said, the general opinion on this forum is not representative of what the people think.... unlike the American Likoudniks on this forum, most israelis support the roadmap and oppose the assasination policy of Ariel Sharon

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, June 13 - Two-thirds of Israelis want a halt to Israel's practice of "targeted killings" of Palestinian activists, which escalated in recent days, according to a poll published Friday, June 13, as Israeli press blasted Premier Ariel Sharon over ‘the same policy’.

The poll, published in the daily Yediot Aharonot, showed that of the two-thirds, 58 percent of those interviewed said the assassinations should be "provisionally suspended" to give new Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmud Abbas time to assert his authority. Nine percent want them stopped altogether.

In contrast, 30 percent favored continuing the campaign to kill senior Palestinian leaders, such as the helicopter attacks this week on leaders of the resistance group Hamas. Three percent had no opinion.

Twenty-four Palestinians have died in five Israeli helicopter missile attacks this week, including a failed attempt Tuesday to kill Hamas political leader Abdul Aziz al-Rantissi that triggered strong protests in the Arab world.

U.S. President George W. Bush, who is pushing efforts to revive the peace process, said he was "troubled" by the raid.

The poll showed that 75 percent of Israelis expected Bush to put pressure on Israel to implement the roadmap for peace that provides for confidence-building measures ahead of establishment of a Palestinian state in 2005.

Twenty-two percent thought Bush would not put pressure on the Jewish state and three percent had no opinion.

The poll was conducted by the Dahaf Institute, which interviewed a sample of 500 Israelis. The margin of error was 4.5 percentage points.

Sharon Under Fire

On Wednesday, June 11, the Israeli press was very critical of the helicopter raid that targeted Rantissi and charged that all it achieved was to weaken the position of Abbas, who has promised to put an end to the armed Intifada.

"When the talks are renewed, what remains of these partners' ability is questionable. Is this what we want?", Yediot asked.

Maariv bluntly described Tuesday's operation as a fiasco.

"Israel was reprimanded, predictably enough. Abu Mazen was pushed into a corner and Hamas came out looking like great heroes," the daily said.

However, a poll – published Wednesday - revealed that a majority of Israelis supported the strike, while only 33 percent disapproved of its timing and less than 10 percent even questioned such ‘killings’ in principle.

The press and opposition politicians echoed a rare U.S. rebuke over the timing of Tuesday's strike against Rantissi.

However, Sharon Wednesday stood by his hard line stance and said the army would seek out what he termed “radical militants” threatening the country's security wherever they are.

"Our policy has not changed - we will continue to fight terrorism everywhere," he was quoted as saying during Wednesday morning's cabinet meeting.

"I told (U.S. President George W.) Bush and Abu Mazen (Palestinian prime minister Mahmud Abbas) that I am willing to walk a long path of compromise-making for the sake of a settlement, but on one issue there will be no compromises: harm to Israelis," the Yediot Aharonot quoted him as saying.

Sharon remained defiant despite being criticized by Bush, who said he was "troubled" by the recent Israeli helicopter gunship attacks.

"I'm concerned that the attacks will make it more difficult for the Palestinian leadership to fight off terrorist attacks. I also don't believe the attacks help the Israelis' security," Bush said.

The strike on Rantissi was a violation of the roadmap for peace, which both Israel and the Palestinians accepted. The surge in violence has dashed hopes that the summits Bush convened early last week in Egypt and Jordan might put the peace process back on track.

http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20030613084547748

Am Yisrael

06-13-2003, 09:09 AM

The poll, published in the daily Yediot Aharonot, showed that of the two-thirds, 58 percent...

Two-thirds is not 58%. Whoever wrote this sure has some numeracy difficulties.

Let me remind you that ~20% of Israelis are Arabs. Im sure most of these are keenly against Sharon. Now most people on this forum express views that are towards the Jewish majority of Israel not towards the Israeli Arabs. That leaves, according to statistical figures of the Jewish majority of Israel, 38% against targeted assasinations, and 62% for assasinations.

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, June 13 - Two-thirds of Israelis want a halt to Israel's practice of "targeted killings" of Palestinian activists

Just the start of the news article shows the blatent bias in it. Notice how this newspaper refers to terrorists as "activists", and refers to Jerusalem as "occupied Jerusalem".

A famous quote:
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Benjamin Disraeli

Mediocrates

06-13-2003, 09:20 AM

"Provisionally suspended" does not mean "against"

It actually means installing an Islamic cease fire until times are more propitious to continue assassinations.

Sorry , yud ~

yehudi

06-13-2003, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Am Yisrael
Two-thirds is not 58%. Whoever wrote this sure has some numeracy difficulties. Well this is better quality writing, but just the same fact. Reuters

Anyway, I find it strange to have a forum whose animators and prominent posters are pushing for an assassination policy, for aborting a frail peace process, while the isrealis themselves want peace.

I guess it's easier to call for bombings, ethnic cleansing whatever, when you do it from a safe distance... and that's typical american-style war: launching missiles from submarines, getting to the point where you are more dangerous to your own troops than your ennemy....

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel pledged on Friday a "war to the bitter end" against Hamas but an opinion poll showed a majority of Israelis oppose the stepped-up attacks on leaders of the militant Islamic group.

With his peace "road map" threatened by Israeli-Palestinian violence that has killed 38 people in two days, President Bush planned to send a veteran U.S. diplomat to Israel this weekend to try to stem the bloodshed.

"As a government responsible for the security of its citizens, we must wage a war to the bitter end (against Hamas) because no one else, at least at this stage, will do it," Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Zeev Boim told Army Radio.

But a poll in the Yedioth Ahronoth daily found 67 percent of Israelis wanted what the survey termed the "assassination policy" to stop, at least temporarily, to give new Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas a chance to grow stronger.

Yedioth Ahronoth commentator Sever Plotzker described as unprecedented the widespread opposition to the assassinations amid a dizzying cycle of violence.

Keeping up pressure on Hamas, which opposes the existence of the Jewish state, Israel launched a helicopter missile strike in the Gaza Strip on Thursday that killed seven people, including senior militant Yasser Taha, his wife and one-year-old daughter.

At their funeral processions on Friday, gunmen fired in the air and a Hamas loudspeaker blared: "God's revenge is coming soon and the Zionists will pay the price of their crimes."

The army issued a statement expressing "sorrow over the death" of Taha's family.

In separate incidents near the West Bank city of Jenin, gunmen killed an Israeli civilian buying charcoal in a Palestinian village and soldiers shot dead two militants. Hamas' armed wing claimed responsibility for the Israeli's death.

On Wednesday, helicopter gunships killed four militants and seven bystanders in Gaza, after a Hamas suicide bomber killed 17 on a Jerusalem bus, an attack that followed the wounding of senior Hamas figure Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi in a missile strike.

U.S. ENVOY DUE AT WEEKEND

(...)

The plan calls for an end to violence and the start of confidence-building steps, including a Palestinian crackdown on militants and an Israeli freeze in settlement construction on occupied land, before creation of a Palestinian state by 2005.

(..)

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2924073

peacelover

06-13-2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Am Yisrael
Two-thirds is not 58%. Whoever wrote this sure has some numeracy difficulties.

I think it's cos the 9% who want them stopped altogether are lumped with those who want them suspended to make the two thirds who are opposed to them, but I've never been too much of a fan of polls - and who am I to argue with Benjamin Disraeli? (He's a particular hero of mine, seriously!)

Am Yisrael

06-13-2003, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by yehudi
But a poll in the Yedioth Ahronoth daily found 67 percent of Israelis wanted what the survey termed the "assassination policy" to stop, at least temporarily, to give new Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas a chance to grow stronger.

This isnt what I got from Jerusalem post:

58 percent of Israelis believe that the killing of militants should be temporarily halted to give the new Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, time to establish himself in his position, according to a poll published Friday in Yediot Ahronot.

Same words... two different figures. Statistics can be manipulated to suit the needs of the user.

peacelover

06-13-2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Am Yisrael

Same words... two different figures. Statistics can be manipulated to suit the needs of the user.

Well, it's of little consequence to me seeing as I don't trust the poll either way, but if 58% want the assassinations to stop temporaily, then this explains the figures from J-Post.

If 58% want it to stop temporarily, and 9% want it to stop permanently, then 58+9=67% who want it to "stop, at least temporarily". I don't see a problem with the numbers, although the language surrounding them is indeed suspiciously manipulative

gev

06-13-2003, 02:09 PM

as I often said, the general opinion on this forum is not representative of what the people think.... unlike the American Likoudniks on this forum, most israelis support the roadmap and oppose the assasination policy of Ariel Sharon

I looked and didn't see the polls that you talk about, I saw another poll in Maariv that says that 58% of the israeli public beleive that it was right to eliminate Rantisi even at this time.

The opinions of the majority of the israelies maybe not represented here, but they are far from against Sharon's policy.

Let me describe to you what I think the opinion of the majority of the Israeli people, I Base it on recent polls:

1. Kill/Arrest who ever plans, funds, Participates in Terror attacks (like Rantisi and others).

2. Build a strong border to be able to defend and stop terrorism.

3. Support Two States solution including evacuating most of the settlements.

4. No for the Right of return.

Actually, The majority Israeli public is rational in his opinions - kill who wants to kill you, but dont stop looking for a just peace in the other side.

MGB8

06-13-2003, 02:25 PM

I think that, in the end, the majority will come behind Sharon's impossition of quicker reprisals against Hamas, and that, behind closed doors, Abo Mazen is frankly happy.

Hamas murdered 2 civilians and attacked and killed 5 soldiers over the weekend as their statement after Aqba - Israel responed
against Ratisini or however its spelled. Hamas had 1 of 20 suicide bombers get through (yes, about 20 were stopped according to accounts), Israel responded again.

An area of Gaza fired missles at Sderot, within hours missles were hiting that area.

Its is time to finsih this war.

Originally posted by gev
I looked and didn't see the polls that you talk about, I saw another poll in Maariv that says that 58% of the israeli public beleive that it was right to eliminate Rantisi even at this time.

The opinions of the majority of the israelies maybe not represented here, but they are far from against Sharon's policy.

Let me describe to you what I think the opinion of the majority of the Israeli people, I Base it on recent polls:

1. Kill/Arrest who ever plans, funds, Participates in Terror attacks (like Rantisi and others).

2. Build a strong border to be able to defend and stop terrorism.

3. Support Two States solution including evacuating most of the settlements.

4. No for the Right of return.

Actually, The majority Israeli public is rational in his opinions - kill who wants to kill you, but dont stop looking for a just peace in the other side.

gev

06-13-2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by MGB8
I think that, in the end, the majority will come behind Sharon's impossition of quicker reprisals against Hamas

I believe they are now. This not just Sharon's policy, it comes from the Security services, and Army intelligence. Most of The Israeli public from Right To Left trusts the objectivity and the proffesional recomandations of the security services and the Army.
Thats Why Sharon will have a full support on this, and gets a lot of critic on the slow building of the border - which security officials always says it will help on stopping Terror attacks.

yehudi

06-13-2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by gev
I believe they are now. This not just Sharon's policy, it comes from the Security services, and Army intelligence. Most of The Israeli public from Right To Left trusts the objectivity and the professional recomandations of the security services and the Army.
The security services and the army are expert at telling to do what they know how to do: raid, kill.

When you are a hammer everything is a nail.

Originally posted by MGB8
I think that, in the end, the majority will come behind Sharon's impossition Of course they will.

The more terrorism the policy of Sharon produces, the harder it will be to establish a just and lasting peace.

Anyway, I can only agree with what you are saying. When the situation is degraded enough, the only way out will be what most posters on this forum overtly or covertly pursue: mass killings (called "elimination of terrorists"), ethnic cleansing (renamed "the forcefull evacuation of populations") and, ultimately, wiping out the palestinian people from the face of the earth ("they never existed anyway")

.

ibrodsky

06-13-2003, 04:00 PM

It doesn't matter so much what percentage of Israelis want Israel's attacks against Hamas to stop. Israel is a representative democracy, and the people elected leaders to examine, decide, and plan the best course of action--not take a popularity poll on each issue.

Still, it's telling that a majority of Israelis would like attacks against even admitted mass murderers stopped, while the majority of Palestinians support killing Jews at random.

It's also revealing to watch videos of Palestinians crowding around the burned out shells of these cars, pulling out body pieces with their bare hands, and generally acting like a deranged mob.

These people need the right of return... back to Arab countries.

jewbyc

06-13-2003, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by yehudi
The security services and the army are expert at telling to do what they know how to do: raid, kill.

When you are a hammer everything is a nail.

Of course they will.

The more terrorism the policy of Sharon produces, the harder it will be to establish a just and lasting peace.

Anyway, I can only agree with what you are saying. When the situation is degraded enough, the only way out will be what most posters on this forum overtly or covertly pursue: mass killings (called "elimination of terrorists"), ethnic cleansing (renamed "the forcefull evacuation of populations") and, ultimately, wiping out the palestinian people from the face of the earth ("they never existed anyway")

.

Their will only be peace when the Palestinians love their children more than they Hate Jews Golda Miar said that And its stillholds true today

jewbyc

06-13-2003, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by yehudi
as I often said, the general opinion on this forum is not representative of what the people think.... unlike the American Likoudniks on this forum, most israelis support the roadmap and oppose the assasination policy of Ariel Sharon

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, June 13 - Two-thirds of Israelis want a halt to Israel's practice of "targeted killings" of Palestinian activists, which escalated in recent days, according to a poll published Friday, June 13, as Israeli press blasted Premier Ariel Sharon over ‘the same policy’.

The poll, published in the daily Yediot Aharonot, showed that of the two-thirds, 58 percent of those interviewed said the assassinations should be "provisionally suspended" to give new Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmud Abbas time to assert his authority. Nine percent want them stopped altogether.

In contrast, 30 percent favored continuing the campaign to kill senior Palestinian leaders, such as the helicopter attacks this week on leaders of the resistance group Hamas. Three percent had no opinion.

Twenty-four Palestinians have died in five Israeli helicopter missile attacks this week, including a failed attempt Tuesday to kill Hamas political leader Abdul Aziz al-Rantissi that triggered strong protests in the Arab world.

U.S. President George W. Bush, who is pushing efforts to revive the peace process, said he was "troubled" by the raid.

The poll showed that 75 percent of Israelis expected Bush to put pressure on Israel to implement the roadmap for peace that provides for confidence-building measures ahead of establishment of a Palestinian state in 2005.

Twenty-two percent thought Bush would not put pressure on the Jewish state and three percent had no opinion.

The poll was conducted by the Dahaf Institute, which interviewed a sample of 500 Israelis. The margin of error was 4.5 percentage points.

Sharon Under Fire

On Wednesday, June 11, the Israeli press was very critical of the helicopter raid that targeted Rantissi and charged that all it achieved was to weaken the position of Abbas, who has promised to put an end to the armed Intifada.

"When the talks are renewed, what remains of these partners' ability is questionable. Is this what we want?", Yediot asked.

Maariv bluntly described Tuesday's operation as a fiasco.

"Israel was reprimanded, predictably enough. Abu Mazen was pushed into a corner and Hamas came out looking like great heroes," the daily said.

However, a poll – published Wednesday - revealed that a majority of Israelis supported the strike, while only 33 percent disapproved of its timing and less than 10 percent even questioned such ‘killings’ in principle.

The press and opposition politicians echoed a rare U.S. rebuke over the timing of Tuesday's strike against Rantissi.

However, Sharon Wednesday stood by his hard line stance and said the army would seek out what he termed “radical militants” threatening the country's security wherever they are.

"Our policy has not changed - we will continue to fight terrorism everywhere," he was quoted as saying during Wednesday morning's cabinet meeting.

"I told (U.S. President George W.) Bush and Abu Mazen (Palestinian prime minister Mahmud Abbas) that I am willing to walk a long path of compromise-making for the sake of a settlement, but on one issue there will be no compromises: harm to Israelis," the Yediot Aharonot quoted him as saying.

Sharon remained defiant despite being criticized by Bush, who said he was "troubled" by the recent Israeli helicopter gunship attacks.

"I'm concerned that the attacks will make it more difficult for the Palestinian leadership to fight off terrorist attacks. I also don't believe the attacks help the Israelis' security," Bush said.

The strike on Rantissi was a violation of the roadmap for peace, which both Israel and the Palestinians accepted. The surge in violence has dashed hopes that the summits Bush convened early last week in Egypt and Jordan might put the peace process back on track.

http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20030613084547748

According to the last poll taken before the 2000 election Gore wasw ahead by at 8% over bush it ended up being one of the closest pres races in history. So much for the validity of polls.

jewbyc

06-13-2003, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by jewbyc
Very few jews want to kill people just for the sake of killing we bevieve in something called tikkun olam meaning to repair the world. So sadly we must eliminate terrorists from the world inorder to it make it a better place or the Palestinians could just lay down their weopons and we all just go have a beer

jewbyc

06-13-2003, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by yehudi
The security services and the army are expert at telling to do what they know how to do: raid, kill.

When you are a hammer everything is a nail.

Of course they will.

The more terrorism the policy of Sharon produces, the harder it will be to establish a just and lasting peace.

Anyway, I can only agree with what you are saying. When the situation is degraded enough, the only way out will be what most posters on this forum overtly or covertly pursue: mass killings (called "elimination of terrorists"), ethnic cleansing (renamed "the forcefull evacuation of populations") and, ultimately, wiping out the palestinian people from the face of the earth ("they never existed anyway")

.

I think one other fact should mentioned here before you cry us a river and that is more jews have been kill in the last 1500 years than all people killed in war during the twentieth centry

humus_sapiens

06-14-2003, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by yehudi
[B]as I often said, the general opinion on this forum is not representative of what the people think.... unlike the American Likoudniks on this forum, most israelis support the roadmap and oppose the assasination policy of Ariel Sharon

Yehudi,
Still can't come up with answers to the questions I posted the other day? Too busy bashing Israel on IsraelForum. It's funny how anti-semites use words they don't know. Hope you'll have more time to learn now that the schoolyear is over. For example, what Likud means and stands for.
See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likud or any other resource.

The Israel's enemies hate Sharon with all their guts because he brought them one humuliation after another. Name me one Israeli leader that was acceptable to the Arabs. Even mushy leftist Rabin and Barak were "bloodthirsty" (check the Arab press of the time) and the Arab terror was going strong. Ah, but it's all Sharon's fault.

Don't forget, your ancestors persecuted Jews for millenia. Hard habit to break (seems like an addiction), but you Europeans have to keep trying.

yoyo

06-14-2003, 02:33 AM

According to JPOST

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1055482891614

this survey also shows that only 9% wanted the military strikes to stop. So yes 58% would like a temporary halt but if you read the question, that is for Abba to fight terrorist not have tea with them!

gev

06-14-2003, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by yehudi
The security services and the army are expert at telling to do what they know how to do: raid, kill.

When you are a hammer everything is a nail.

The Israeli security services are expert in bringing the security to the israeli citizens, sometimes their opinion is called leftists and sometimes right-winged, that means it is objective.

few examples of leftist recomendations:
1. Senior Security personnels always say that the evacuation of
some remote settelments will give more security to israel and
give the palestinians free passage.
Sharon from political reasons and the continuation of terrorism
does not do it, but he will, the plans have already been made.
2. The army suggested not to go in to Gaza although there is a
large terror infrastructure, but to give the control to a
palestinian leader.

The security service suggests to continue the fight against terrorism until there is someone who can do it in the palestinian side. And There is a large amount of terror attacks that are prevented by the army and other security services, some of them nobody hears about.

A few months ago the army prevented a Twin Towers Style terror attack, the plan was that a truck will blow up in the underground parking lot of a large building in Tel-Aviv, if the army and intelligence services would not be there, hundreds would be dead, and ofcourse Abu-Mazen and Arafat would have said that they didn't know about it and couldn't prevented it, and then there would have been more legitimacy to army's actions in the terretories but with what price?

If the army stops it's activity in the Terretories there will be a lot more terror attacks, as Abu-Mazen himself says he cant stop the terror attacks, I don't see any other option here.

The more terrorism the policy of Sharon produces, the harder it will be to establish a just and lasting peace.

The Hamas and Jihad organizations does not want to stop terror attacks until "there will be no jew left in palestine" and ofcourse "Haifa, Tel-aviv and The Settlements are all the same" to them. so it's actualy Hamas policy, and Islamic Jihad policy that need to change or be changed.

Anyway, I can only agree with what you are saying. When the situation is degraded enough, the only way out will be what most posters on this forum overtly or covertly pursue: mass killings (called "elimination of terrorists"), ethnic cleansing (renamed "the forcefull evacuation of populations") and, ultimately, wiping out the palestinian people from the face of the earth ("they never existed anyway")

Well I dont think so, when the palestinian agree that they have to take matters to their own hand and fight the organizations that do not want peace with Israel - The same as Israel fights and arrests Israeli extrimists, Then there will be peace.
The only thing the palestinians have to do is lay down their arms and stop terror, what have they got to lose? Israel has a lot to lose if it lay down it's arms before terror is stopped - many israeli citizens dead.

peacelover

06-14-2003, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
Don't forget, your ancestors persecuted Jews for millenia. Hard habit to break (seems like an addiction), but you Europeans have to keep trying.

Quit the self-righteous attacks on "Europeans". It adds nothing to your debate other than to be unacceptably insulting to Europeans in general, and send out a cry of "I am a Jew, so I am better than you".

I've never been one for holding the present generations as guilty for the crimes of their ancestors. Whogets persecuted in this life is down to who is in the majority - Jews were unlucky to be in the minority, but had they been the majority, you can bet your life they'd have been the persecutors, not the persecuted - just look at how they treated the Christians in Jesus' times.

This is not to undermine the tragedies Jews have suffered in the past, or to excuse those who perpetrated the atrocities, it is to submit an argument that these tragedies do not give the Jews of today a right to claim a superiority over Europeans (or anyone else, or vice-versa).

To accuse all Europeans of being addicted to persecuting Jews is a racist statement indeed. I fight all people who make anti-semitic statements, in return I don't expect bitter and racist attacks.

MichaelC

06-14-2003, 08:46 AM

jewbyc

06-14-2003, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by peacelover
Quit the self-righteous attacks on "Europeans". It adds nothing to your debate other than to be unacceptably insulting to Europeans in general, and send out a cry of "I am a Jew, so I am better than you".

I've never been one for holding the present generations as guilty for the crimes of their ancestors. Whogets persecuted in this life is down to who is in the majority - Jews were unlucky to be in the minority, but had they been the majority, you can bet your life they'd have been the persecutors, not the persecuted - just look at how they treated the Christians in Jesus' times.

This is not to undermine the tragedies Jews have suffered in the past, or to excuse those who perpetrated the atrocities, it is to submit an argument that these tragedies do not give the Jews of today a right to claim a superiority over Europeans (or anyone else, or vice-versa).

To accuse all Europeans of being addicted to persecuting Jews is a racist statement indeed. I fight all people who make anti-semitic statements, in return I don't expect bitter and racist attacks.

Yea You and every other European wants that to be true that way you are obsolved of all the jews you have killed over the past 1,500 years. If you are going to make those old tired comments about jesus at least know the truth. which is that Jesus just another jew preaching the word of g-d. Up until paul Christians were a sect of judaism. For the last time it was the Romans that KILLED Jesus :rolleyes:

yoyo

06-14-2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by peacelover
Jews were unlucky to be in the minority, but had they been the majority, you can bet your life they'd have been the persecutors, not the persecuted - just look at how they treated the Christians in Jesus' times...To accuse all Europeans of being addicted to persecuting Jews is a racist statement indeed. I fight all people who make anti-semitic statements, in return I don't expect bitter and racist attacks

Is it possible to be so stupid as to deny antisemitism yet do a message like this? Hey "peacelover", The Jesus (Yeshua) story has been used to justify your pogroms, your inquisitions, your Holocausts, did I forget any? Never mind... The fact you come so casually about it today prooves the kind of education passed from generations to generations. Let me tell you a story, at the Wansee Conference (infamously known to have architected the Holocaust) a question was raised:

Q: "How are we going persuade the local population on occupied land to give them their native Jews?"

A: "We will wake dormant antisemitic feeling amongst the people".

And that has been the story of Europe, with dormant antisemitism. Forms of racism generally die given a few generations - Indians, Black, etc... Only the Jewish form or racism never really die.

And when you say that you attack anyone saying anything antisemitic, what is antisemitism to you? Because if you are looking for anyone to say that "Jews are Blood Sucker" you won't find many in Europe. However you will find something new, the new way to be antisemitic "Anti-Zionism". You listen to the old arguments:

[Jews] control finances
[Jews] control the media

and the new argument

[Zionists] control finances
[Zionists] Control the media.

Those antisemite rally the "palestinian" cause against "zionism" but if you look at the number they [the pro-palestinian] hate Irael because it is Jewish. Otherwise they would protest with the same energy against the other models of state in the region who are the racists and bigots ones. To the likes of these "peace lovers" a "Palestine" has to be created, but a Palestine that has to be JUDENRIEN (I suppose you know what that means). On the other hand they are also the firsts to condemn ZIONISM - the only model in the region that has prooved arabs and jews can cohabitate under a Jewish majority. Instead of focusing on arabs having 0-0.0001% Jews in their countries, they blast Israel who has 20% arabs. If Zionist is Racism then Arabism is Evil! And of course Jews should not be entitled to the same religious right. If anyone wanted to share the Vaticans or Mecca you would see WWIII but with Jerusalem, since it belong to the Jews, it must be shared, ruled by antisemite arabs and the United Nations.

peacelover

06-14-2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by jewbyc
Yea You and every other European wants that to be true that way you are obsolved of all the jews you have killed over the past 1,500 years. If you are going to make those old tired comments about jesus at least know the truth. which is that Jesus just another jew preaching the word of g-d. Up until paul Christians were a sect of judaism. For the last time it was the Romans that KILLED Jesus :rolleyes:

Erm, WTF?

Where did I say that the Jews killed Jesus?
I said that the way the Christian minority were treated by the Jewish majority was hardly symbolic of equality. I have given you the benefit of the doubt of being of a certaind egree of intelligence, and therefore I know that if you read my post again you will see you were wrong to infer that i accused Jews of killing Jesus.

If I am not absolved of guilt for something that happened before I was born, as you imply, please tell me how I am responsible. What have I done, or could I have done, in my life that could have changed what happened in the past?

Seriously - please answer that. Tell me how I am to blame for what happened.

So are you rejecting my premis that Jews and Europenas are equal humans? Do you suggest that Europeans are sub-human, inferior to Jews? If so, it's a shame that a Jewish person has still not learned the dangers of eugenics, and lumping people together on ethincity.

Or do you agree with my suggestion of equality?

ibrodsky

06-14-2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by MichaelC

The ambivalence of the Israeli people concerning their own self defense speaks volumes about their inherent humanity. Especially so, in contrast to the bitter savagery of those who assault them.

It's also interesting that Jews recognize racism can be aimed at any ethnic group. The Arabs see racism as dislike for Arabs or other groups sympathetic to their cause. They condemn such racism even as they slander and murder Jews, and it would never occur to them that they are racists because their hatred of Jews is so deeply ingrained that it is almost an involuntary reflex.

Am Yisrael

06-14-2003, 10:47 AM

Hey come on guys take it easy on peacelover. I think what peacelover is trying to say is that no-one is perfect. However I think peacelover should know that unlike most nations/people around the world, Jews have not resorted to attacking Europeans due to their immense persecution of Jews in the past. You might take this for granted but it is an immense symbolic gesture by Jews. Many Jews have a grudge against Europe because of history, but Jews have held themselves back nevertheless. Israel could have openly declared war on Austria and Germany because of history but they held themselves back. Why? because most Jews want to forget there hatred from being persecuted and move on into the future. Rejecting hatred and moving into the future is one thing many nations/people cannot do.

yoyo

06-14-2003, 11:57 AM

Am Yisrael.

That's not the point. The Point is that there is a majority of people that want to make us beleif their irrational support for a state that never existed and demonization of Israel is not antisemitism. Would they boycott the Chinese for Tibet? NO! Would they fight for an independent Kurdistan? NO! But of course, the Jewish peope having a state is unbearable to them. Talk to them about Jewish State - Zionism - They say it is racist. Talk to them about another state free of Jews where Jews must be exiled so it can be created they say "so what?".

I reamin of the opinion that the "antizionist" are nothing less than antisemite, they act like them, smell like them and talk like them! Just look at the so called "peace lovers" that goes and protect Yasser Arafat - what did he ever do? Let his people starve so they haven't done it for this reason. The second thing he do is kill Jews, that is the only logical deep down reason why you would protect a terrorist that murders thousands and is planning a genocide!

Originally posted by Am Yisrael
Hey come on guys take it easy on peacelover. I think what peacelover is trying to say is that no-one is perfect. However I think peacelover should know that unlike most nations/people around the world, Jews have not resorted to attacking Europeans due to their immense persecution of Jews in the past. You might take this for granted but it is an immense symbolic gesture by Jews. Many Jews have a grudge against Europe because of history, but Jews have held themselves back nevertheless. Israel could have openly declared war on Austria and Germany because of history but they held themselves back. Why? because most Jews want to forget there hatred from being persecuted and move on into the future. Rejecting hatred and moving into the future is one thing many nations/people cannot do.

peacelover

06-14-2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by yoyo
Am Yisrael.

That's not the point. The Point is that there is a majority of people that want to make us beleif their irrational support for a state that never existed and demonization of Israel is not antisemitism. Would they boycott the Chinese for Tibet? NO! Would they fight for an independent Kurdistan? NO! But of course, the Jewish peope having a state is unbearable to them. Talk to them about Jewish State - Zionism - They say it is racist. Talk to them about another state free of Jews where Jews must be exiled so it can be created they say "so what?".

hang on. We're talking about 2 separate things. You're saying that those who hate Israel are anti-semites. I'm saying that Europeans, such as myself, who support the existence of Israel and abhor terrorism (you will see from my posts that this is the case) are not guilty of anti-semitism purely because of the crimes of our ancestors. We are individuals to be judged on our own merit, not to be called racist murderers because of something that we could not have changed or helped, because it happened before we were born. This is something which every single human being has the right to - to be judged on their individual actions as a person, without their ethnicity/religion/nationality condemning them in the eyes of some who don't even know them.

However, if your point is that those in Europe who make excuses for terrorists etc etc are anti-semites, then that's fine, but they're anti-semites because of their own choices, actions and beliefs, not because they are descended from nationalities which have far from proud records of treatment of Jews.

Originally posted by Am Yisrael

Hey come on guys take it easy on peacelover. I think what peacelover is trying to say is that no-one is perfect. However I think peacelover should know that unlike most nations/people around the world, Jews have not resorted to attacking Europeans due to their immense persecution of Jews in the past. You might take this for granted but it is an immense symbolic gesture by Jews. Many Jews have a grudge against Europe because of history, but Jews have held themselves back nevertheless. Israel could have openly declared war on Austria and Germany because of history but they held themselves back. Why? because most Jews want to forget there hatred from being persecuted and move on into the future. Rejecting hatred and moving into the future is one thing many nations/people cannot do.

Yes, I guess I am saying no one is perfect, but on top of that I'm saying that ethincities and nationalities are diverse, and you cannot generalise and say all Europeans are bad, all Jews are good, or any other such generalisations. But my main point is, as outlined above, current generations are not blameworthy unless they show themselves to be like their ancestors; they were not doomed to guilt from the moment they were born.

I think you are right that it is of credit to the Jewish people the way most of them look to the future, and I wish them the best with that future in your country of Israel - I want nothing more then for peace there - G-d knows you guys deserve it.

I also think that there are two perspectives to this - I'm sure no one could blame Jewish people of thse generations for a grudge, because it was their memorable relatives, or even themselves that suffered. But on the other hand, I'm sure you can appreciate why the innocent generations of Europeans do not like being accused of being in some way culpable for crimes which they find abhorrent.

However, I'm interested by what you say about declaring war on Germany/Austria - do you think this would have been justified? What would it have achieved except revenge? You know what they say about two wrongs and all. I know lots of other countries have done it, but that doesn't make it right.

But I'm interested on your thoughts, and open to be persuaded - it's something that never occurred to me before, and it'd be great to hear some more of your thoughts on the matter.

yoyo

06-14-2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by peacelover
hang on. We're talking about 2 separate things. You're saying that those who hate Israel are anti-semites. I'm saying that Europeans, such as myself, who support the existence of Israel and abhor terrorism (you will see from my posts that this is the case) are not guilty of anti-semitism purely because of the crimes of our ancestors. We are individuals to be judged on our own merit, not to be called racist murderers because of something that we could not have changed or helped, because it happened before we were born. This is something which every single human being has the right to - to be judged on their individual actions as a person, without their ethnicity/religion/nationality condemning them in the eyes of some who don't even know them.

Are you telling me that antisemitism is always reborn from nothing? For millenium the Church demonized the Jews right up to the Holocaust. Same goes for institutionalize antisemitism. How many people do you know that does support "the poor and opressed palestinian people" and does not espouse that Zionism is not far from or equal to Nazism? These same people tend to beleive that the "zionist lobby" control America thus is responsable for the lack of peace? Do those people really beleive that before Zionism "Jews and Arabs lived at peace".

There is a specifity about antisemitism that is recurrent every 40/60 years. And to illustrate how European do not differ the slightest about their ancestor I will say the following: Many people are saying "how could we have known?" when referring to Hitler and the Nazi. But that is the wrong question because they knew damn well what was happening. The REAL question is "how could we have hated so much to be so appathetic to death of millions from a regime that claim it very publicly". Today the pacifist are acting in exactly the same way as their grand-parents. You know that from "moderate" countries at "peace" such as Jordan or Egypt, programs are shown on TV and in medias about the Protocol of the Elders of Zion, you know that in the PA Medias and the PA School Curriculum, Jews are to be "exterminated" as a "holy duty". You know that blood libel that Europe embraced once upon a time grossely presented as "facts" in the arab world yet you are asking Jews to make peace with them. Worst you are asking the Jewish State to destroy any security territory and give them to a people that has swore to exterminate every single Jews in the Holy Land. IS THAT WANTING PEACE? IS THAT NOT ANTISEMITISM?

No, there is similarities between generations of Europeans that today like once upon time separated in 2:

1) the ones that wanted to kill the Jews
2) the ones that were willing to let it to happen and were ready to cooperate in the name of G-d knows what, today it is "peace" (aka appeasement of arabs because you all suffer from the Stockholm Syndrome).

Either Jews are responsible for inciting hatred every 2 generations - in the same way with the same protocols and blood sucking story - or antisemitism is a disease deep inside Europe.

As for England, since you are in England, I will admit that anglo-saxons have not been as criminals as the rest of the continent but it is precisely because of antisemitism from Britain that Israel was amputated from 76% of what was legally the Jewish National Homeland and today Tony Blair wants to finish the job of Malcom McDonald. And I know for a fact (I showed it visually to my MP and I had a response from the Foreign Minister) that the Blair governement knows that the PA Medias and curriculum is something Hitler's youth would have been proud of, still he continues to promote Arafat. The world did not make peace with the Nazis they made peace with the Germans and no matter how much pacifists (or pacificator like French President Chirac says) or appeasers wants Jews to "drop it" and "trust the European to insure their protection", Jews do not trust Europe, full stop.

andak01

06-14-2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by jewbyc
"Whoever saves a single life is as if one saves the entire world" - Talmud.

As confirmed by...

Qur'an 5:32
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.

yoyo

06-14-2003, 01:59 PM

2 questions to Peacelover

1) How do you think the media will react in England would react if an indian professor is kicked out of university boards or a black artist is forbidden to show in an art gallery because of Kashmir or Zimbabwe?

2) What would have Great Britain do at the Durban conferance if the main topic was "Blacks are animals, they have little hair on the body like bulls"? Would they have left the conferance if it was the main topic of leaflet distributed?

jewbyc

06-14-2003, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by peacelover
Erm, WTF?

Where did I say that the Jews killed Jesus?
I said that the way the Christian minority were treated by the Jewish majority was hardly symbolic of equality. I have given you the benefit of the doubt of being of a certaind egree of intelligence, and therefore I know that if you read my post again you will see you were wrong to infer that i accused Jews of killing Jesus.

If I am not absolved of guilt for something that happened before I was born, as you imply, please tell me how I am responsible. What have I done, or could I have done, in my life that could have changed what happened in the past?

Seriously - please answer that. Tell me how I am to blame for what happened.

So are you rejecting my premis that Jews and Europenas are equal humans? Do you suggest that Europeans are sub-human, inferior to Jews? If so, it's a shame that a Jewish person has still not learned the dangers of eugenics, and lumping people together on ethincity.

Or do you agree with my suggestion of equality?

When you make comments that refer to how the jews treated jesus most jews will think you mean killing him. After all Jews have been persecuted for that lie for 2000 years.

Second I guess I should explain what I meant. When I said you were responsible I mean in a moral way and that it falls on the people of europe as well as all people to teach their children that hating someone based on thier religion, sex, color and so forth is not to be tolorated. As A jew by choice I have seen both sides . I expect people to allow me and other Jews to pray to our g-d in our own way just as you have that right. I will demand no less and give no less. I think all people should be treated as equals.

jewbyc

06-14-2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by andak01
As confirmed by...

Qur'an 5:32
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.

Guess what your Koran was taken from the Torah and talmud just as the bible was. There were no muslums present when jews received G-ds Laws. the Islamic period took place between 500 a.d to 1500 A.d

Moses led the Hedrews out of egypt around 1200 bc to 1100

Revkha

06-14-2003, 09:43 PM

kauffner

06-15-2003, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by Am Yisrael
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Benjamin Disraeli

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not Disraeli, but Lord Courtney. Ironically, Courtney was later president of Royal Statistical Society.

http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/meanings/375700.html

humus_sapiens

06-15-2003, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by peacelover
[B]Quit the self-righteous attacks on "Europeans". It adds nothing to your debate other than to be unacceptably insulting to Europeans in general, and send out a cry of "I am a Jew, so I am better than you".

Quit putting your own words in my mouth. Please show where I was wrong factually? Was it Europeans or Martians who persecuted and expelled their loyal Jewish citizens? The number of Jews would be in the range of hundreds of miliions taday, if not that never-ending genocide, continuing today in the form of the Roadmap. As we can see in the news and even here on this forum, not much have changed. The rotten European anti-semitism is on the rise again. If it feels bad, it should.

To accuse all Europeans of being addicted to persecuting Jews is a racist statement indeed. I fight all people who make anti-semitic statements, in return I don't expect bitter and racist attacks.

Sorry, you've misread, I didn't say "all". I respect and praise those who fight bigotry. If exposing an anti-semite is racism, fine then, call me a racist. I guess, after being branded "Zionist Likudnik", I have nothing to lose :rolleyes:

Am Yisrael

06-15-2003, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by peacelover
However, I'm interested by what you say about declaring war on Germany/Austria - do you think this would have been justified?

Yes and No. Yes in the eyes of alot of Jews. No in the eyes of alot of Europeans.

What would it have achieved except revenge? You know what they say about two wrongs and all. I know lots of other countries have done it, but that doesn't make it right.

It doesnt make it right and yes it is revenge. But isnt revenge one of the most common causes of Wars being started? You could say that the Palestinian Intifada is unjustified, all they are doing is revenge against Israelis. The war on terror is revenge. WW2 was revenge by Germans against the humiliating defeat in WW1 by the British. All those tribal wars in Africa are started due to revenge. Are they justified? Yes in the eyes of those starting the war.... and no in the eyes of others.

peacelover

06-15-2003, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by jewbyc
When you make comments that refer to how the jews treated jesus most jews will think you mean killing him. After all Jews have been persecuted for that lie for 2000 years.

I was not aware that I said Jesus. I thought I had said Christians, which is something entirely different. To say the Christians were persecuted does not mean that I said anything about how Jesus was treated, nor that I think he was killed by the Jews. Not in the slightest. Nor do I believe that Pontius Pilot condemned him because of the Jews - Romans didn't really tend to base their decisions on a crowd of Jews, not as far as I know anyway. I still maintain that I didn't imply that Jews killed Jesus, however, if anyone misunderstood me and was offended, I apologise.

Second I guess I should explain what I meant. When I said you were responsible I mean in a moral way and that it falls on the people of europe as well as all people to teach their children that hating someone based on thier religion, sex, color and so forth is not to be tolorated. As A jew by choice I have seen both sides . I expect people to allow me and other Jews to pray to our g-d in our own way just as you have that right. I will demand no less and give no less. I think all people should be treated as equals.

OK, that I agree with - but can you appreciate that that is different to being in some way culpable for the massacre of 6 million in the Holocaust? Or the pogroms? Being responsible for implementing change is different to being responsible for the fact the crimes happened. But I definitely agree about teaching their children to make sure it doesn't happen again.

humus_sapiens

Quit putting your own words in my mouth. Please show where I was wrong factually? Was it Europeans or Martians who persecuted and expelled their loyal Jewish citizens?

It wasn't the vast majority of Europeans alive today, that is for sure. They can be to blame only for the present, not for the past.

The number of Jews would be in the range of hundreds of miliions taday, if not that never-ending genocide, continuing today in the form of the Roadmap.

No need to convince me your ancestors suffered. You're preaching to the converted. The issue is how I am, simply for being a European, responsible for this, despite the fact it was unequivocally and absolutely NOT MY FAULT. The moment it is suggested that it is, it sort of turns into a battle of races/nations etc - we've been better than you throughout history blah blah, and that is dangerous and unnecessary, and completely impossible to debate anyway, as all people found themselves in different situations.

As we can see in the news and even here on this forum, not much have changed. The rotten European anti-semitism is on the rise again. If it feels bad, it should.

Firstly, a lot (granted not all, but the rise may be attributed to this) of the anti-semitism is from the Muslim and Arab factions of Europe, as opposed to the indiginous peoples. OK, that doesn't make it any less dangerous or any more acceptable. But by your logic, Israel is also a disgraceful haven of anti-semitism, due to the views of some of the Israeli-Arabs.

Secondly, why should it feel bad for me? Because I happen to be the same nationality as some bastards, I am automatically a bastard?
It feels bad for me because I despise any kind of xenophobia, and anti-semitism is one that is paricularly important to me, because I'm part Arab. In this sense, I feel an extra responsibility to fight anti-semitism, because it is from the Arab world that so much anti-semitism arises.

But that responsibility does not equate to collective guilt. Please appreciate that crucial difference - I will not be made to feel guilty for the fact I am of a cetain ethnicity. Nobody should be. Not unless they prove themselves individually guilty of the crimes of their ancestors. This applies both in my capacity as an Arab, and as a European.

Sorry, you've misread, I didn't say "all". I respect and praise those who fight bigotry. If exposing an anti-semite is racism, fine then, call me a racist.

You said this:

Don't forget, your ancestors persecuted Jews for millenia. Hard habit to break (seems like an addiction), but you Europeans have to keep trying

Therefore, impliedly, you did say all. You lumped all Euroepans together and stereotyped them as addicts of anti-semitism. You Europeans does imply a certain collective guilt. You may not have meant to do this, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if someone had commented like this upon Jews, they would be called on it. For example, if someone objected to the settlers, and then said "You Jews, can't help land-grabbing" or whatever, I think there might have been a few angry responses.
(NB this wasn't meant to provoke a debate on the validity of settlers, I'm merely demonstarting how an objection to the actions of certain Jews does not make it OK to accuse all of them). Can you not see that on certain readings of your post, you do make European and anti-semite fairly closely linked? And if so, that this reflcts on all Europeans?

Listen, perhaps I read too much into your post, but I think it is important to take care not to lump millions of people together and accuse all of them of the crimes committed only a percentage of them (the degree of the percentage is, within reason, not the issue). I think this applies to all groups of people. If I did overreact, I am sorry, but please understand why I get upset when I am made to feel bad just for being of a certain ethnicity - when I have done nothing to deserve the accusations I receive. The suspicion you get in everyday life when people hear you have Palestinian blood in you means you are too ashamed to reveal it - because people do lump you together with the bad guys. I've got really pale skin - whiter than most white people's! - so I can hide the fact I have an Arab Grandmother, because people do make assumptions about you when they find out. That's not fair, and I do feel that when expresing concerns with a group of people, care ought to be taken not to implicate the innocent among them.

I did not mean to call you a racist - it does appear I may have misunderstood your meaning. Apologies, but hopefully you can understand why I feel so strongly about this.

peacelover

06-15-2003, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by Am Yisrael
Yes and No. Yes in the eyes of alot of Jews. No in the eyes of alot of Europeans.

It doesnt make it right and yes it is revenge. But isnt revenge one of the most common causes of Wars being started? You could say that the Palestinian Intifada is unjustified, all they are doing is revenge against Israelis. The war on terror is revenge. WW2 was revenge by Germans against the humiliating defeat in WW1 by the British. All those tribal wars in Africa are started due to revenge. Are they justified? Yes in the eyes of those starting the war.... and no in the eyes of others.

I think all the wars you outlined are completely unjustifiable. (POssibly not the War on Terror if you believe it is motivated out of security and not revenge). And I don't think Israel waging war on Austria and Germany would be objectively justifiable either.

However, I suspect your point isn't so much that it would have been right for Israel to act like this, so much as that most other peoples act like this and the Jewish people didn't. This is indeed to their credit, although I don't think all nations behave like that. France/Britain/US didn't wage war for revenge on the Germns for WW1, or WW2, or on France for Napoleonic wars etc.
But it is certainly laudable of Israel not to have behaved like this.

Am Yisrael

06-15-2003, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by kauffner

Not Disraeli, but Lord Courtney. Ironically, Courtney was later president of Royal Statistical Society.

http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/meanings/375700.html [/B]

Cheers for that info! :) Most people however usually refer that phrase to Benjamin Disraeli. No denying however that it is a brilliant quotation :D

Am Yisrael

06-15-2003, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by peacelover
This is indeed to their credit, although I don't think all nations behave like that. France/Britain/US didn't wage war for revenge on the Germns for WW1, or WW2

Maybe it was because they won the wars. The only reason why Germany hasnt started WW3 yet is because they were so shocked at how they behaved in WW2 that most believed in the end that the Allies actually "liberated" Germany (in one way or another).

or on France for Napoleonic wars etc.

France and Britian has a HUGE disgusting history of war after war for the past 1500 yrs. Nearly all of these wars were started due to revenge.

andak01

06-15-2003, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by jewbyc
Guess what your Koran was taken from the Torah and talmud just as the bible was. There were no muslums present when jews received G-ds Laws. the Islamic period took place between 500 a.d to 1500 A.d

Moses led the Hedrews out of egypt around 1200 bc to 1100

Or another explanation is that both revelations have the same author, G-d. Even if you choose to believe what you state, it should then be obvious that there are many many similarities between our faith. Monotheism, belief in the abstract nature of G-d, respect for parents, love of the community and cooperation, etc. This is a basis for communication and mutual growth. Calling someone else's religion a sham is not.

http://www.geocities.com/mihraab786/Quran.html
P.S. Moses (SAW) (Musa) is mentioned by name 135 times in the Qur'an. Abraham (SAW) (Ibrahim) is mentioned by name 67 times. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is mentioned by name 5 times.

peacelover

06-15-2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Am Yisrael

France and Britian has a HUGE disgusting history of war after war for the past 1500 yrs. Nearly all of these wars were started due to revenge.

This can't be used as a touchstone of modern morality. You cannot compare Jews and Britain's history for the past 1500 years, as Jews were not in a possession of a state and not in a position to wage war. You can argue that you don't think they would have done so because Jews are nicer than people like me or whatever, but I reckon that's only assertion, and can't be proven. You also can't compare actions of states in modern times to those of the past centuries; things change - the world has changed.

That's not to say that European history is any more acceptable. I'm only saying that those people on this board (and I do not accuse you of being one of them) who consider themselves somehow automatically superior because they are Jewish and I'm the nasty one who kills them are sorely misguided. The difference in history can be attributed to situation, and not to the fact that some races are born nicer people than others.

Revkha

06-15-2003, 03:07 PM

Adversary2Arabs

06-15-2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Revkha
The commentaries in the Qur'an often refer to specific passages in the Bible.

In my copy of the Qur'an the commentary on the passage prior to the one that Andak01 quoted and which is directed to Allah sending a crow to show how to cover a dead body says - " The Bible is silent on this point......"

I go to a religious based school (non-Jewish) and we are required t ostudy all religions. In my study of Islam I noticed there are many cases in which there are direct copies from the Torah, Talmud and "New" Testament. Although the Quran cannot be written in any language but Arabic as stated by Islamic Law, people who do translate it are still able to translate it to see the copies.

Islam, if only followed via the Quran is the peace loving religion we always hear it to be. It's the "holy book" called the Surah which is about Muhammed's life. This is where all the "kill Jews and Christians" comes from.

richcrassus

06-15-2003, 07:02 PM

richcrassus

06-15-2003, 07:05 PM

If jewish israelis dont want to end the violence and attack hamas theres no point in even suporting israel, i mean if they dont wanna defend themselves, maybe the pals are right after all.
Anyone heard the saying "jews are amongst the worst smartest people and amongst the worlds dumbest" if this pole in israel is true. I totally shock and dissapointed, and dumbfounded, they they realise u cant make deals with the devil? do they seriously believe u can bargain with the devils representatives here on earth?
Is everyone else here as dumbfounded as me as to this pole saying 2/3 of israelis dont want to attack hamas? i know 20% are muslims.

Adversary2Arabs

06-15-2003, 07:36 PM

Either the poll was conducted at a Labor Party Political Function or it was wrigged. If 2/3 of Israelis don't support Israel as they should, there is NO POINT for Israel to exist. Why stop them from committing suicide when they are so adamant about it? (if that's true which it can't be).

eyl

06-15-2003, 11:06 PM

If they "don't support Israel as they should"? Who decides how they "should" support Israel? You? By what right?

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
Either the poll was conducted at a Labor Party Political Function or it was wrigged. If 2/3 of Israelis don't support Israel as they should, there is NO POINT for Israel to exist. Why stop them from committing suicide when they are so adamant about it? (if that's true which it can't be).

eyl

06-15-2003, 11:09 PM

News to me...

Originally posted by Am Yisrael
The war on terror is revenge.

humus_sapiens

06-16-2003, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by peacelover
It feels bad for me because I despise any kind of xenophobia, and anti-semitism is one that is paricularly important to me, because I'm part Arab. In this sense, I feel an extra responsibility to fight anti-semitism, because it is from the Arab world that so much anti-semitism arises.

It would be a pleasure to make/enjoy peace with people like you. If that's collective punishment, so be it :)

Listen, perhaps I read too much into your post, but I think it is important to take care not to lump millions of people together and accuse all of them of the crimes committed only a percentage of them...
I did not mean to call you a racist - it does appear I may have misunderstood your meaning. Apologies, but hopefully you can understand why I feel so strongly about this.

We're on the same page here. I apologize if I sounded offensive rather than defensive.

Adversary2Arabs

06-16-2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by eyl
If they "don't support Israel as they should"? Who decides how they "should" support Israel? You? By what right?

Of course I decide. Who else? By what right? My right. That's right.

PS. If you don't like your government - don't live there. Israel isn't former Iraq or North Korea or East Germany or the Soviet Union, etc.

PPS. They "should" support Israel by supporting their own government when it makes non-suicidal actions. If not, why not just stick the gun in your own mouth - same the Arabs the time since you love them so much.

eyl

06-16-2003, 11:29 AM

So what, it's support the government or leave? Gee, where have I heard that before?

I'm a citizen of a democracy - and so are they. Each of us has the right and the duty to his own opinion; and that opinion does not have to be in support of the government's actions (or of all of them).

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
Of course I decide. Who else? By what right? My right. That's right.

PS. If you don't like your government - don't live there. Israel isn't former Iraq or North Korea or East Germany or the Soviet Union, etc.

PPS. They "should" support Israel by supporting their own government when it makes non-suicidal actions. If not, why not just stick the gun in your own mouth - same the Arabs the time since you love them so much.

Mediocrates

06-16-2003, 12:20 PM

Few of live where the decisions of the government will directly dictate where thousands of us can live w/o fear of ethnic cleansing.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=8068

Settlers Vow Bush Push
As outposts come down, activists vow to take fight to White House.
Michele Chabin - Israel Correspondent

Efrat — Faced with an Israeli public increasingly aligned against them and a government that has begun dismantling uninhabited West Bank outposts, settler leaders are vowing this week to launch a major campaign to bring political pressure on President George W. Bush.

“Guidelines are being drawn up for a major campaign to try to change the policies of the Israeli government,” said David Wilder, a spokesman for the Jewish community of Hebron. “A major effort is being undertaken to work with the American Jewish community and the Christian fundamentalist community in an attempt to exert pressure on Bush.

“Basically, they will tell him if you continue to pressure Israel, we won’t vote for you in the next election.”

Talking about his community’s lobbying efforts, Wilder said, “There’s a tremendous amount of behind-the-scenes activity going on with people in the Knesset and the government.”

One large-scale demonstration, which drew 50,000 to 70,000 settlers and their supporters, was organized in Jerusalem last week, the same night Prime Minister Ariel Sharon shook hands with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas in Aqaba, Jordan. Other rallies are in the planning stage, though no dates have been set.

In Washington, Evangelical activists strongly opposed to the “road map” have been increasingly active on Capitol Hill in recent days, raising objections to the peace plan and trying to forestall new U.S. pressure on Israel.

“Obviously, in view of what the president said today [Tuesday] about Israel’s attack on a Hamas leader, we haven’t been too successful,” said Gary Bauer, president of American Values and a former presidential candidate. (Bush said he was “deeply troubled” by the attack on Abdel-Aziz Rantisi; a White House spokesman indicated that the president regarded the attack as a violation of the road map’s requirements.)

Joint Jewish-Christian groups that have focused on opposition to Palestinian statehood, such as the National Unity Coalition, have increased their visibility in recent weeks.

The road map calls for Israel to dismantle unauthorized outposts built since March 2001. This week, the army dismantled 10 such tiny outposts. The final disposition of other settlements will be decided in the last phase of negotiations leading to a permanent Palestinian state.

“We’re trying very hard to find ways to neutralize Sharon and the positions he’s taking,” Wilder said.

Those positions, especially the dismantling of the outposts, aren’t playing very well here in Efrat. This West Bank settlement is home to some 1,300 modern religious families and many yeshiva students, a large number from the New York area.

With its manicured lawns, bright and airy homes and picturesque red-tiled roofs, Efrat could be Riverdale or Scarsdale. But located just a few miles south of Jerusalem, it is a settlement sharing territory with not-always-friendly Arab villages. Since the start of the current Palestinian uprising, several Efrat residents and others from nearby settlements have been ambushed on the road. Some have died from their wounds.

In spite of the reassurances from successive Israeli governments that Efrat and its bloc of settlements will not be dismantled under any peace treaty because of its location adjacent to Jerusalem, residents here worry that one day they could be asked to leave their homes.

“I don’t care about the outposts,” said Elana Alexander, a 36-year-old mother of three, referring to the settlements the Israeli army began dismantling this week.

Seated on her living room sofa, holding her squirming 2-year-old daughter, Rachel, in her arms, Alexander said, “It’s the precedent that concerns me. Who’s to say it won’t be our turn some day? The Palestinians’ demands are endless.”

Alexander’s friend Orit Zilberberg, 37, another Efrat resident, believes that no major settlements will be dismantled.

“I don’t think it will succeed,” Zilberberg, a mother of five, said of the road map. “The Palestinians will torpedo it, just as they have every other time Israel has been ready to make concessions.”

Though many if not most residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip share Zilberberg’s faith that no long-established settlements will be dismantled, settler activists and their supporters aren’t taking any chances.

Months ago, when they realized that the American administration intended to pressure Israel to make significant territorial concessions to the Palestinians in the aftermath of the war with Iraq, the settlers sent their existing PR and lobbying campaigns into overdrive.

According to an opinion poll published this week in Haaretz, the settlers could be facing greater odds than ever. In the survey, 59 percent of the Israelis polled said they would favor the dismantling of settlements outside the major blocs if it meant an end to the conflict. A year ago, that figure was just 50 percent.

Wilder, the settler leader, is careful to stress that when he uses the word “neutralize” to characterize his community’s battle against Sharon’s policies, he is referring to purely political initiatives, not violence, given the shadow cast by the assassination of Yitzchak Rabin by a religious Zionist.

The Israeli right, he said, “is to a large degree fairly disciplined. Most people know where the red line is. But because we’re not talking about one solid group of people, it’s difficult to have control over everybody. There’s always the possibility that someone will lose control.”

A recent study conducted by Haifa University’s Center for National Security Studies determined that settlers are actually less apt to adopt violence than certain segments of the Israeli population living within Israel proper. These included new immigrants and graduates of state religious schools.

Of the new immigrants surveyed, 55 percent said it would be justified to use weapons in order to stop the government from carrying out its policies.

Approximately 50 percent of those who graduated from the state religious school system said they might disobey the law if it contradicted their religious faith, compared to 29.4 percent who graduated from state secular schools.

Among young settlers aged 30 or younger, the potential for violence was 48 percent, compared to 33.3 percent among settlers 31 or older.

Dr. Ami Pedhatzur, a co-author of the study, told The Jewish Week, “What we found is that settlers are not more inclined to support violence than other citizens of Israel. This could of course change if [the government orders a ] withdrawal from settlements. The more intense the peace process becomes, the threat on settlers will increase. Some could turn to violence.”

In contrast to the mid-1990s, Pedhatzur said, “In recent days the settler leaders have condemned the use of violence.” This is noteworthy, he said, “because it will not give the radicals the justification to turn to violence. If they do, they will find themselves isolated.”

When Rabin was prime minister, Pedhatzur said, “the settler leadership was united behind a very militant agenda.”

The settler leaders’ stance against violence offers no guarantees, Pedhatzur stressed.

“It doesn’t mean there are no lone wolves or radicals, especially on the hills and in the small settlements, who will not try to escalate the situation, maybe through some hostile activities against the Palestinians,” he said.

Wilder chafes at the notion that settlers and right-wingers have a monopoly on extremism.

“I have the feeling that the left and the media, along with people in Sharon’s administration, are trying to create an atmosphere by which anything we say will be labeled incitement, incitement to assassination. That’s not accurate.”

The result, Wilder said, will be a population afraid to fight for its rights.

“People will be afraid to open their mouths. They don’t want to be accused of being responsible for a prime minister being shot at or, God forbid, anything worse than that,” he said.

While he could not rule out violence among the settlers, Ezra Rosenfeld, press liaison at the Yesha council that represents settlers in the West Bank and Gaza, said it would be extremely unlikely.

“We don’t have control over all the people in Yesha or outside Yesha, but I believe that 99 percent of our people are law-abiding citizens,” Rosenfeld said. “The Yesha leadership has been calling on people not to use violence, not to raise a hand against a soldier or a policeman. They could be our brothers, our fathers or sons.”

Unfortunately, he said, “in every society there is a fringe. The people in Yesha are no different.”

Since the Aqaba meeting, right- and left-wing groups have strengthened their personal campaigns for or against dismantling the settlements, often via the Internet.

In a message to its supporters, the right-wing group Women In Green stated, “It is incumbent upon us to wage a determined struggle against these suicidal plans. ... The Oslo accords are a crime against the Jewish people in its land. The Oslo architects/criminals must be tried for the crimes of handing over to the Arab enemy arms, ammunition and parts of our homeland. Every plan for the uprooting of settlements, large or small, is to be resolutely opposed.”

Mediocrates

06-16-2003, 12:21 PM

The message does not elaborate on how exactly people should express their opposition.

Settlers themselves are deeply divided on how best to respond to the possible dismantling of settlements, whether their own or others. Would they remain in their homes if the Palestinians were to gain sovereignty over their land?

“If Efrat fell under Palestinian sovereignty I’d leave, with tremendous sadness,” said Alexander. “I don’t know any Jews who would stay.”

Her friend Orit disagreed.

“I feel that Gush Etzion is the last defense of Jerusalem. History tells us that,” she said.

At the same time, Orit conceded that “there may be a handful of places that are extremely isolated, which require a large contingent of soldiers to guard, and if the Palestinians show sincere intentions to live with us in peace, I might be willing to make some concessions.”

“But I don’t believe the other side truly wants peace,” she adds.

What both friends agree on is that they would never raise a hand against an Israeli soldier evacuating a settlement.

“We’re peaceful people,” Elana said. n

Washington correspondent James D. Besser contributed to this report.

Adversary2Arabs

06-16-2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by eyl
So what, it's support the government or leave? Gee, where have I heard that before?

I'm a citizen of a democracy - and so are they. Each of us has the right and the duty to his own opinion; and that opinion does not have to be in support of the government's actions (or of all of them).

No dip what I said was if you don't like the government NO ONE IS MAKIGN YOU STAY.

gev

06-16-2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
No dip what I said was if you don't like the government NO ONE IS MAKIGN YOU STAY.

You Can Love Israel, be a zionist and not like what the current government does. it may come as a suprise, but you can even protest against the government and act legally to replace it. That is the strength of Israel and the US and the weekness of the Arab world, Israel would not have survived if it wasn't a democracy.
At the rapid changes in the political map in Israel, if anyone who didn't like action of some govenment left Israel, there would be anyone in Israel.

Adversary2Arabs

06-16-2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by gev
You Can Love Israel, be a zionist and not like what the current government does. it may come as a suprise, but you can even protest against the government and act legally to replace it. That is the strength of Israel and the US and the weekness of the Arab world, Israel would not have survived if it wasn't a democracy.
At the rapid changes in the political map in Israel, if anyone who didn't like action of some govenment left Israel, there would be anyone in Israel.

I know for a fact that large numbers of people are required to change the leadership and government of Israel and/or the US. I also know for a fact that any one single person who has his or her own idea abotu government cannot do anything - anything at all.

In the US theres a phrase " take it or leave it" - that's what I was saying. It's not THAT complicated and confusing - don't read too much into it.

PS. Although all this remains true, I meant it regarding 2/3 of Israeli's against "occupation" of "Palestinian Land". Assassination, I can UNDERSTAND why you would be against it, but am still myself for it only if it is on a large and massive basis in which terrorist leaders would be very challenged to retaliate themselves. IE kill the off so quickly and massivly that they wouldn't be able to come out of the framework w/o dying. If that makes sense...

gev

06-16-2003, 03:59 PM

In the US theres a phrase " take it or leave it" - that's what I was saying. It's not THAT complicated and confusing - don't read too much into it.

I just don't like the saying that "if you don't like the govenment - leave". I wouldn't expect a settler to do it, when he is evacuated from his settlement, and I don't expect a leftist to do it when he is forced to fight in the Occupied terretories, if you do or encourage it, you missed the point.

PS. Although all this remains true, I meant it regarding 2/3 of Israeli's against "occupation" of "Palestinian Land".

well, actually in that sense the government is very much synchronised with the public, As Sharon also thinks that "Occupation is bad"

Assassination, I can UNDERSTAND why you would be against it, but am still myself for it only if it is on a large and massive basis in which terrorist leaders would be very challenged to retaliate themselves. IE kill the off so quickly and massivly that they wouldn't be able to come out of the framework w/o dying. If that makes sense...

I am actually for killing/stopping all terrorists planners, supporters and political leaders, (they are all the same to me).
The poll that was describedin the begining of the thread was ofcourse biased by the newpaper (what can you expect from a newspaper that reports from "Occupied Jerusalem"?), I saw 4 other polls that says the opposite, and besides the poll asked if You support in stopping the assinations if Abu-Mazen Fights terrorism (the end of the question was somehow neglected), so don't worry the Israeli public is not suicidal.

Adversary2Arabs

06-16-2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by gev
[b]

I just don't like the saying that "if you don't like the govenment - leave". I wouldn't expect a settler to do it, when he is evacuated from his settlement, and I don't expect a leftist to do it when he is forced to fight in the Occupied terretories, if you do or encourage it, you missed the point.

So you are saying (putting the situation in a hypothetical radical situation) that if you lived in North Korea where you are not allowed to leave and are subjected to all sorts of human rights violations, poverty is the onyl thing in abundance and food is something you know you've seen before but just can't picture it because it's been so long since you have seen it. People are trying to escape to South Korea constantly from North Korea. This is happening in many countries worldwide.

So you are saying these good people should stay?

I'll tell you this. If I don't like the government of my country amd it was static and unchanging in it's ways which are extremely contrary to every belief I hold, I'm not going to stay there and give that country my tax money, let alone my help and raising my family there. I would be gone before I had a chance to think about it.

In the case that I lived in Israel (I can't wait) and my government decides that it is going to give up not only Israeli land but Historical Jewish Land in which most if not all Holy Sites in which are not holy to Muslims will be desecrated and polluted (like Josephs tomb I think it was?), I would resist my government in every way, shape and form. I would not stand by idly while Jewish nor Israeli Land are being given in the name of the ILLUSION OF PEACE. Peace is not possible when thousands of your enemies have vowed to fight until everyone of your type is no longer in the entire region. I don't know how much more obvious it can get. Everytime Israel has offered all pre-'67 withdrawal and/or parts of it, it has been rejected. Not because it's not what the Arabs want, because it's not. Thats only half of what they want. The other half contains Haifa, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, etc.

Adversary2Arabs

06-16-2003, 07:17 PM

The only reason why I case about the future of Israel is because I am going to be a citizen of that country realtivly soon. If I was not moving there, I wouldn't care. I would be like the average Jew living in the Diaspora. If Israel gives any land away in Judea or Sumeria (Gaza I could care less about except for the northern area where Jewish cities are) I would most likely cancel my plans to move to emigrate if there was little chance of reclaiming Our Land.

I don't want to care. I don't want to be depressed everytime I watch the news. I don't want to have to be sad every time I hear of a bombing in Israel. I may not want any of this, but I choose to because it's for a greater good that I make my home in My Homeland - Israel.

alexbmn

06-16-2003, 08:57 PM

ok now I could understand the result of the poll if it was possible that Abu Mazen was genuine in his effort to disarm the terrorist organizations. However he isnt. He said it very clearly that he will not do it.Thus I have to make the following decisions staring from the most positive to the most negative.1- The poll was somehow uncientific or rigged. 2- Israelis dont know that Abu Mazen will not disarm the terrorists because they may have missed his statement.3 They like being blown up. Which is it? Honestly its either 1 or 2. Most Israelis didnt even read the terms of the Roadmap to Hell but endorsed it anyway. Its the apathy.

I cannot ever ever understand how people living under a terror threat would be against anti terror measures. However I sometimes think that if Hamas was a bit smarter and agreed to a cease fire for one week 2/3 of the Israelis would call it a legitimate peace partner and agree to transfer at least one armored division to it. Maybe some long range missiles too.

Mediocrates

06-17-2003, 06:35 AM

Details of arrests of Issa Muhammad Ismail Batat, Nidal Sayyed Husein
Halif, Ismail Mussa Muhhamad Hamdan

IDF Spokesperson 16 June 2003

The Arrest of the Bethlehem Regional Islamic Jihad Commander The
Bethlehem regional Islamic Jihad Commander, Issa Muhammad Ismail
Batat, was captured in a joint operation carried out by the Israeli
Security Agency (ISA) and the IDF Naval Commandoes.

Israeli security forces also arrested his deputy, Nidal Sayyed Husein
Halif, and senior Tanzim operative, Ismail Mussa Muhhamad Hamdan.

The three wanted Palestinians, apprehended in the area of Beit
Sahour, were found with two guns, an MP5 sub-machine gun, and an
anti-tank missile launcher.

Issa Batat:

Issa Batat, age 31, the commander of the Islamic Jihad in the
Bethlehem area, supervised the following attacks against IDF forces
and Israeli civilians.

May, 2001: The detonation of a booby-trapped car, laden with a mortar
in Jerusalem. The shrapnel from the explosion wounded 31 people.

October, 2001: The detonation of a booby-trapped car on the way from
Bethlehem to Jerusalem. The explosion wounded two people.

October, 2001: The terrorist attack in the Talpiot industrial area in
Jerusalem that wounded 2 people.

December, 2001: The suicide bombing near the Hilton Hotel that
wounded 5 people.

March, 2002: The suicide bombing at French Hill Junction that wounded
25 people.

April, 2001: The shooting attack in the Har Homa neighborhood of
Jerusalem that killed an IDF reserve soldier.

Nidal Sayyed Husein Halif:

Nidal Sayyed Husein Halif, age 31, was involved in shooting attacks
on bypass roads in the Bethlehem area, and commanded a terrorist cell
that carried out shooting attacks against the Israeli neighborhood of
Har Gilo.

Ismail Mussa Muhhamad Hamdan:

Ismail Mussa Muhhamad Hamdan, a senior Tanzim-Fatah operative, was
involved in dozens of shooting attacks against Gilo (Jerusalem), and
other locations,
including:

June, 2001: The murder of an IDF officer on the "Tunnel Road".

January, 2002: The murder of a resident of a resident of Maale Adumim
that took place in Beit Jala.

February, 2002: The shooting attack in the Tekoa area (West Bank),
that killed two Israelis and wounded one. March 2002: The shooting
attack on Route 60 that killed a resident of the Israeli community of
Efrat and wounded her husband.

Mediocrates

06-17-2003, 06:38 AM

Ok so what's missing? Anyone guess?

Suicide bombing that's what. Suicide bombing is the public front for 'freedom fighting' because the hundreds and hundreds of events like the ones listed above COULD NOT attract anyone to their cause.

OK what else is different about that report? Anyone?

The ages of the terrorists. You get to be a 31 year old terrorist by blowing yourself up.

gev

06-17-2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
So you are saying (putting the situation in a hypothetical radical situation) that if you lived in North Korea where you are not allowed to leave and are subjected to all sorts of human rights violations, poverty is the onyl thing in abundance and food is something you know you've seen before but just can't picture it because it's been so long since you have seen it. People are trying to escape to South Korea constantly from North Korea. This is happening in many countries worldwide.

A small difference that makes this example irrelevant: North Korea is not a democracy. these sort of things would not happen in a democracy, and if it did, it would have been repaired, because the majority would want the situation changed.

In the case that I lived in Israel (I can't wait) and my government decides that it is going to give up not only Israeli land but Historical Jewish Land in which most if not all Holy Sites in which are not holy to Muslims will be desecrated and polluted (like Josephs tomb I think it was?), I would resist my government in every way, shape and form. I would not stand by idly while Jewish nor Israeli Land are being given in the name of the ILLUSION OF PEACE.

Exactly my point, you would wanna change the decisions, not leave.

Peace is not possible when thousands of your enemies have vowed to fight until everyone of your type is no longer in the entire region.

I think it is possible, when millions of your enemies come to the conclusion that they just can't win Israel.

Ami Ayalon, a former head of the "Shabak" - Israeli internal Security and intelligence service, said once: "Israel has become so powerful, so powerful as it can get anywhere it wants, it just has to decide where that is".

I don't know how much more obvious it can get. Everytime Israel has offered all pre-'67 withdrawal and/or parts of it, it has been rejected.

Israel has no business in these terretories, as the majority don't want Israel to stay there, when there is no Terror. The only reason why Israel do not leave those terretories is The terror attacks. Israel should offer the withdrawl all the time and expect to get in return, peace and security - nothing less (and not fading out terror attacks, complete eradication of Terror). when this is done, an Israeli government - Left or right, would have no choice but to evacuate most of the settlements, if not - it will be replaced with a government who will, The majority have already decided.

Revkha

06-17-2003, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
The only reason why I case about the future of Israel is because I am going to be a citizen of that country realtivly soon. If I was not moving there, I wouldn't care. .................. I may not want any of this, but I choose to because it's for a greater good that I make my home in My Homeland - Israel.

Aliyah or no aliyah you would care. Because as you pointed out, it is our homeland. The decision that Israelis make will impact all Jews but it is an Israeli decision. We American Jews can opine but Israelis live the terror every day.

Adversary2Arabs

06-17-2003, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Revkha
Aliyah or no aliyah you would care. Because as you pointed out, it is our homeland. The decision that Israelis make will impact all Jews but it is an Israeli decision. We American Jews can opine but Israelis live the terror every day.

I know I was just being pissed because gev is being stubborn and not wanting to understand my point of view.

PS They live with it because they are afriad of the world and refuse - simple REFUSE - to get rid of the problem. The murder of 6 million Jews didn't even burn it into these idiots minds that appeasing these pigs DOES NOT WORK. How much more simple can it get? At any given time in history any and every world power (whether individually such as Assyrians, Romans etc or collectivly such as Chrsitians in the middle ages and up until a few centuries ago, the Arabs today) has opressed the Jewish people in every way they could without putting too much strain on themselves. The only ones who disregarded this strain on themselves were the Nazis.
Some say "Never Again", but as long as people IE the Israeli Left, President Bush who is the bigest piece of sh1t hippocrate who says the Israelis need to give Jewish land to the Arabs but WOULD HE EVER GIVE THE AMERICAN INDIANS ANY MORE LAND IN WHICH THEY CONTROLLED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS FROM ALASKA TO ARGENTINA AND CALIFORNIA TO NEW YORK? WHILE THE AMERICAN INDIANS WERE LIVING IN THEIR LAND, THE ANGLO WHORES CAME OVER HERE AND TOOK THEIR LAND. Will they ever get they land back? No. Will they get any maybe a STATE? NO. all they get is little specs of land scatered. Before Bush sticks his head in other countries business, he needs to fix his own . If Israel was Christian or had oil like the Arabs, THERE WOULD BE NO WAR. Israel could have expelled every last terrorist and have been living in peace for 55 years. It makes me sick how people are such two faced. DOUBLE STANDARD. I will die before I vote for that pig Bush. I used to like him...Now...I have to leave the room when he's on TV.

Worthless. I wish I didn't feel I should care. Life would be a breeze.

Alfred

06-17-2003, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
WOULD HE EVER GIVE THE AMERICAN INDIANS ANY MORE LAND IN WHICH THEY CONTROLLED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS FROM ALASKA TO ARGENTINA AND CALIFORNIA TO NEW YORK? WHILE THE AMERICAN INDIANS WERE LIVING IN THEIR LAND, THE ANGLO WHORES CAME OVER HERE AND TOOK THEIR LAND. Will they ever get they land back? No. Will they get any maybe a STATE? NO.

Actually, the American Indians today have about 10 times the land of Israel in size with about 1/10 the population. Historically, just because you have 5000 Sioux Indians in your tribe, and you were there first, doesn't mean you can claim the right to 6 States worth of land:)

Besides, the Indians stole the land among themselves also. And didn't the Israelites steal their land from the Phillistines, who probably stole it from someone else? And what about the locust- like New Yorkers moving into Florida??? Acht mein lieber, der Welt is nicht gut.

Sincerely,
Anglo Whore

Adversary2Arabs

06-18-2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Alfred
Actually, the American Indians today have about 10 times the land of Israel in size with about 1/10 the population. Historically, just because you have 5000 Sioux Indians in your tribe, and you were there first, doesn't mean you can claim the right to 6 States worth of land:)

Besides, the Indians stole the land among themselves also. And didn't the Israelites steal their land from the Phillistines, who probably stole it from someone else? And what about the locust- like New Yorkers moving into Florida??? Acht mein lieber, der Welt is nicht gut.

Sincerely,
Anglo Whore

Dear Anglo Whore,

The American Indians may have "Actually, the American Indians today have about 10 times the land of Israel in size with about 1/10 the population" but the United State as a whole and North and South American in whole are how many thousands of times larger than Israel. When it comes to things like this, A.W., things need to be proportional. Mathematics is the way to go. The American Indians once owned all North and South America. Today, they own less than 1%.

Secondly, the fallacy that the Israelites "stole the land" is just that - a fallacy. If you listen to many modern archaelogoists, "the Israelites emerged out of the Canaanite nations in which all owned the land." If you take the religious view - Christian, Muslim and/or Jewish, G-d have the Israelites that land. Either way, youre wrong. Nice try.

PS. Dont respond

Mediocrates

06-18-2003, 09:54 AM

Actually I think you two are agreeing with one another. Maybe you should reread. It's hard to pick out irony sometimes.

Adversary2Arabs

06-18-2003, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Actually I think you two are agreeing with one another. Maybe you should reread. It's hard to pick out irony sometimes.

I think he was, but wasn't at others.

Revkha

06-18-2003, 03:24 PM

There was an interesting article in today's New York Times by Rudy Giuliani on Anti-Semitism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/18/opinion/18GIUL.html?ex=1056947794&ei=1&en=9ef3ae6b005b949e

Revkha

06-18-2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by yehudi

Anyway, I find it strange to have a forum whose animators and prominent posters are pushing for an assassination )

I would think with your screen name you would not find our mindset "strange."

gev

06-18-2003, 03:34 PM

Adversary2Arabs,

Many Settlers and Extreme Right-Winged when asked about the evacuation of settlements are saying things like: we tried it before, they all want to kill us, the Arabs wants all Israel etc.
But I try to make it a little harder on them with the folowing question: "If you knew for a fact that Israel have full security and peace if only the settlements were evacuated, would you be for the evacuation?"
then you realize that all those claims were just an excuse when they say: "But it's our land, it is holy" etc.
you seem to be in the same category, but most Israelies are not, Most of us Israeli Idiots don't feel that we should die for keeping the settlements, we don't feel that the terretories is our land, nor we want to settle there. We want the palestinians to have full rights, and have their own state.
What keeps us from doing that is Terror ofcourse, but when it is eradicated, Israel won't hesitate.

You call for transfer? live the immorallity of it aside, what will it help?
I don't understand the logic of the transfer. if all arabs wants to kill us - we have to kill all of them, or transfer them to another planet, not to Jordan, what is the difference if the border will be with jordan or a palestinian state?

Revkha

06-18-2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by gev

then you realize that all those claims were just an excuse when they say: "But it's our land, it is holy" etc.
you seem to be in the same category, but most Israelies are not, Most of us Israeli Idiots don't feel that we should die for keeping the settlements, we don't feel that the terretories is our land, nor we want to settle there. We want the palestinians to have full rights, and have their own state.
What keeps us from doing that is Terror ofcourse, but when it is eradicated, Israel won't hesitate.

You call for transfer? live the immorallity of it aside, what will it help?
I don't understand the logic of the transfer. if all arabs wants to kill us - we have to kill all of them, or transfer them to another planet, not to Jordan, what is the difference if the border will be with jordan or a palestinian state?

Emotion and religion mixed with reality makes a difficult brew to drink. I have strong opinions but as I have said a number of times, it is an Israeli decision. I make not agree with the decision but I am not exposed to the daily threats of terror.

Revkha

06-18-2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
When it comes to things like this, A.W., things need to be proportional. Mathematics is the way to go. The American Indians once owned all North and South America. Today, they own less than 1%.

Life is not fair - never has been and never will be. The survival of the fittest, natural selection, ability to assimilate in various degrees dictate because "fair" in actuality does not exist. "Fair", if it did exist, would be corrupted by subjectivity thereby making its theory a contradiction.

The key to overcoming the corruptive, subjective perceived human trait of "fairness" has been survival with ability to adapt. Most Jews have mastered the survival adaptation through their quasi assimilation in the European countries. The Native Americans and the descendants of the African Americans who were brought to this country in slave ships have struggled to adapt for decades.

Speaking of slaves -- there were slave owning Jews during the Confederacy. Slave owning Jews celebrating Pesach. Is this an oxymoron?

Adversary2Arabs

06-18-2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by gev
Adversary2Arabs,

Many Settlers and Extreme Right-Winged when asked about the evacuation of settlements are saying things like: we tried it before, they all want to kill us, the Arabs wants all Israel etc.
But I try to make it a little harder on them with the folowing question: "If you knew for a fact that Israel have full security and peace if only the settlements were evacuated, would you be for the evacuation?"
then you realize that all those claims were just an excuse when they say: "But it's our land, it is holy" etc.
you seem to be in the same category, but most Israelies are not, Most of us Israeli Idiots don't feel that we should die for keeping the settlements, we don't feel that the terretories is our land, nor we want to settle there. We want the palestinians to have full rights, and have their own state.
What keeps us from doing that is Terror ofcourse, but when it is eradicated, Israel won't hesitate.

You call for transfer? live the immorallity of it aside, what will it help?
I don't understand the logic of the transfer. if all arabs wants to kill us - we have to kill all of them, or transfer them to another planet, not to Jordan, what is the difference if the border will be with jordan or a palestinian state?

Good question and thank you for being the first leftist in this forum who trys to understand - at least for me.

In my opinion, I believe that transfer is the best and most likely to succeed for the following reason:
Israel, as you know, requires all it's citizens to to be on active duty and reserve duty for 3 years and up untul 45 (or so) respectivly. With the Arabs out of Israel, incursions and holding of cities under curfues, outposts, and every other security measure that has been implemented in Israel which utilizes the IDF would freeup all these soldiers. These soldiers, in my opinion (note I am no military strategist of anykind), could be sent along the border on every side. Along with soldiers who could be within a relativly short distance between eachother (approx. every quarter mile more or less depending on availabiliy and terrain), there would be a large security fence as they have now with the exception that it would be built under ground as well to lessen the threat of tunnels. The fence would be equiped with technology that enables soldiers to be notified when the fence has been breeched via cutting of the wires - either this or electric fence (I don't know the effectivity of this). Within Israel with a small group of soldiers there will be military vehicles (cars, trucks, etc) patrolling outside of all cities and towns - the citiy size would be the factor in deciding how many vehicles used in patrols. Flight in would be resrticted to any country deem hostile in government of citizens to Israel. All other countries in which flight into Israel is allowed, will be accepted, although all its passengers would be given a "quick" background check prior to arriving at the airport in which the system would just show flags, as here in America. To get into the terminal, in addition to metal detectors, there will be (if the time has come and bomb detecters are available these will be used) bomb sniffing dogs and other such security measures, also to bee adapted as time and secuiry officials deem necessary. Also, the Navy will patrol the water border - Mediterranian AND Dead Sea.

Did I leave any aspects out? If so tell me, I'll try to propose a solution.

Adversary2Arabs

06-18-2003, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Revkha
Life is not fair - never has been and never will be. The survival of the fittest, natural selection, ability to assimilate in various degrees dictate because "fair" in actuality does not exist. "Fair", if it did exist, would be corrupted by subjectivity thereby making its theory a contradiction.

The key to overcoming the corruptive, subjective perceived human trait of "fairness" has been survival with ability to adapt. Most Jews have mastered the survival adaptation through their quasi assimilation in the European countries. The Native Americans and the descendants of the African Americans who were brought to this country in slave ships have struggled to adapt for decades.

Speaking of slaves -- there were slave owning Jews during the Confederacy. Slave owning Jews celebrating Pesach. Is this an oxymoron?

I see what you are saying.

Also, slave owning Jews is not contrdictory. There is a specific commandment in which requires Jews to free their slaves after seven years of "service". The Confederate Jews such as Judah Benjamin were very few and far inbetween.

There is actually a good chance my ancestors on my mothers mothers side owned slaves - they have been rednecks for generations living in West Virginia and Tennesee. They arrived here around the time slavery was abolished.

Mediocrates

06-18-2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Revkha
Speaking of slaves -- there were slave owning Jews during the Confederacy. Slave owning Jews celebrating Pesach. Is this an oxymoron?

Christians the world over owned slaves. God fearing Jesus loving Christians.

If you want to change the behavior, change the man. 'Amazing Grace' was written by a man who at an earlied time in his life owned a slave ship.

BTW Jews in the Torah owned slaves after the Exodus. That's not the point; national destruction and redemption is.

Mediocrates

06-18-2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
There is actually a good chance my ancestors on my mothers mothers side owned slaves - they have been rednecks for generations living in West Virginia and Tennesee. They arrived here around the time slavery was abolished.

WVA was formed in 1863 and was never much of a slave region. TN was more or less not in the Confederacy at all. Andrew Johnson, Lincolns 2nd veep was from TN. Sure he might have been drunk cracker poor white trash but those are the people who didn't want slavery because it was economic competition to them.

Mediocrates

06-18-2003, 05:38 PM

The oldest house in Raleigh is the Modechai House - we pronounce it Mord-i-kay. But the family was Jewish. When the patriarchs wife died he married a southern shkisa and went Protestant. They owned I believe a half dozen slaves.

Adversary2Arabs

06-18-2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
The oldest house in Raleigh is the Modechai House - we pronounce it Mord-i-kay. But the family was Jewish. When the patriarchs wife died he married a southern shkisa and went Protestant. They owned I believe a half dozen slaves.

Shiksa. I love that word :)

andak01

06-18-2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
Some say "Never Again", but as long as people IE the Israeli Left, President Bush who is the bigest piece of sh1t hippocrate who says the Israelis need to give Jewish land to the Arabs but WOULD HE EVER GIVE THE AMERICAN INDIANS ANY MORE LAND IN WHICH THEY CONTROLLED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS FROM ALASKA TO ARGENTINA AND CALIFORNIA TO NEW YORK? WHILE THE AMERICAN INDIANS WERE LIVING IN THEIR LAND, THE ANGLO WHORES CAME OVER HERE AND TOOK THEIR LAND. Will they ever get they land back? No. Will they get any maybe a STATE? NO. all they get is little specs of land scatered.

I've been drawing this, I call the "Indian Parallel" for some time now. The brutal savages that became more and more savage as they were being pushed from their homes. And no, they won't ever get that land back. Nor will the South African Zulus regain their land. But in both cases, some admission was made that land was indeed taken and some reparations were made. The point is, we don't still have Indians scalping people and committing terrorism on Americans. They were every bit as savage as the Palestinians in their day. I think Israel, if it ever actually admitted to having an apartheid situation, could begin to remedy it. I'm quite certain that the various Indian nations, approximately as united as the Arab world today, also wished the white man completely off their land. It wasn't to be a reality then, and I feel that the continuation of a state of Israel is a reality now, one the Arab world must face. I love America, contrary to what some here think. I am proud that my country is at least honest enough to look at its past and hope for a better future.

richcrassus

06-18-2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
Dear Anglo Whore,

Secondly, the fallacy that the Israelites "stole the land" is just that - a fallacy. If you listen to many modern archaelogoists, "the Israelites emerged out of the Canaanite nations in which all owned the land." PS. Dont respond

And the caananits were technically arabs, or from the area that is now saudi arabia or iraq or whatever.
What really pisses me off is that lots of people even PRIESTS, believe that PHILLISTINES are the modern palestinians.
The phillistines were greeks and from madedonia and asia minor, not arabia.
I couldnt believe it when i listened to some priest talking on radio and he said the palestinians were the phillistines, i wanted to go up to him and reign his skrauny neck.
er

richcrassus

06-18-2003, 07:12 PM

richcrassus

06-18-2003, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Revkha
[

Speaking of slaves -- there were slave owning Jews during the Confederacy. Slave owning Jews celebrating Pesach. Is this an oxymoron? [/B]

Hello self hating jew, did u know there were actually african american slave owners too?? did u know the black slave trade was actually helped by blacks??

Adversary2Arabs

06-18-2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by andak01
I've been drawing this, I call the "Indian Parallel" for some time now. The brutal savages that became more and more savage as they were being pushed from their homes. And no, they won't ever get that land back. Nor will the South African Zulus regain their land. But in both cases, some admission was made that land was indeed taken and some reparations were made. The point is, we don't still have Indians scalping people and committing terrorism on Americans. They were every bit as savage as the Palestinians in their day. I think Israel, if it ever actually admitted to having an apartheid situation, could begin to remedy it. I'm quite certain that the various Indian nations, approximately as united as the Arab world today, also wished the white man completely off their land. It wasn't to be a reality then, and I feel that the continuation of a state of Israel is a reality now, one the Arab world must face. I love America, contrary to what some here think. I am proud that my country is at least honest enough to look at its past and hope for a better future.

If Israel is apartheid, you a blind AND dumb. Take a look a Haifa - a prime example. Apartheid is separation. Israel is only separated just the same as the US. There is black neighborhoods, chinese, Italian, etc. In Israel - Arab, Jewish, Russian, etc.........

richcrassus

06-18-2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
If Israel is apartheid, you a blind AND dumb. Take a look a Haifa - a prime example. Apartheid is separation. Israel is only separated just the same as the US. There is black neighborhoods, chinese, Italian, etc. In Israel - Arab, Jewish, Russian, etc.........

So russian jews arnt jews?? anyway, why are there russian sections in israel, is it cos they dont wanna learn hebrew or cos they wanna be with their 'own kind'?? in some pathetic way??

Alfred

06-18-2003, 08:35 PM

The relative peace between the Indians and the Westerners came about after the government gave the Indians there own land and separated the two civilizations (for the most part). Luckily, we had a whole bunch of land to divide up.

Now, the Indians got quite a bit of land by the way, albeit much smaller than the whole Western US and Canada which they had before. Most the Eastern Indians will killed or died of disease. So I would venture that the western tribes made out a bit better. I would also argue that the Western Indian tribes at most had a million people at their peak. A bit few to claim half a continent.

What has this to do with Israel?

The Indians were not the "peace loving, noble braves, who were at one with the world." as Hollywood portrays them. They ate crickets and grasshoppers, never bathed, died young and stole everything they could grab. They sold their children to the Mexicans for slaves and killed their baby girls as a method of post birth control. They fought amongst themselves more than you know and used the white man as a tool to kill off their cousins down the valley. I know this because I am from Utah and I have first hand family records from that time.. and my fourth great grandfather was murdered by a bunch of "peace loving" young bucks.

We tried to "civilize" them, which may seem arrogrant....but they were starving. We bought their children/slaves when we could from the Mexicans and raised them, but alas, for the most part they wanted to remain the same; which was ok with us as long as they didn't murder or steal. In the end, they got their own land and we essentially separated. They became drunks and diabetics and slaves to the Federal Indian Agents and the Federal Welfare System. Sad, but their decision, as they did not want to assimilate. The Mormons were probably the most respectful white men toward the Indians as a whole, for the Mormons believe that the Indians had a special place in the future history of this land

You have a similar problem in Israel with the addition of a fanatical, intolerent relgion on the "indian" side. You will never be able to live together and they will never become good Jewish boys and girls with European values. Until Israel realizes that it will continue to have problems.

The solution?

Put them in their own reservation and put up a fence. Stop trying to "get along" and stop bringing them in to work. Fence them out and shoot any of them that try to sneak across for whatever evil purpose. After a generation then you might be able to let some in with green cards.

So, fence in Gaza, place artillery on the outskirts and tell the world. Gaza is Palestinian and we wash our hands of the whole affair. Take out your outposts and settlements. If anyone shoots at Israel from Gaza, then it is a legitimate war and you can use the artillery. If they want to live in rubble that is their affair.

For the West Bank you are going to have to make a decision. Either force them to Jordan....which is probably too late to do. You should have done that in 1967. Or, unilaterally decide where the border will be and fence it. You will have to give up a large number of settlements to pacify the Europeans. Set up the border, fence it, mine it and set up artillery. Let know one across. Isolate it for a generation.

Just some advice from an old Indian fighter.

regards,
Anglo Whore

Adversary2Arabs

06-18-2003, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by richcrassus
So russian jews arnt jews?? anyway, why are there russian sections in israel, is it cos they dont wanna learn hebrew or cos they wanna be with their 'own kind'?? in some pathetic way??

Okay, when did I say Russian Jews aren't Jews? I want you to show me one time in any of my posts since my accounts creation where I said this. SHOW ME.

Thast right. It never happened. Just because Russians are in Israel doesn't mean they are Jewish. They may have had a great great grandfather who happened to be Jewish doesn't make them Jewish. They still can come to Israel - not necessarily through Right of Return, but still are allowed. What about the Asians in Israel - the workers - are they Jewish? Take a guess. The answer: No. What about the millions of Arab Muslims? They obviously aren't Jewish - but they live in Israel. Get it?

There are sections in Israel in which the people speak Russian, not Hebrew as their main language. There's even neo Nazis in Israel according to posters at this forum that say that some of these Russians are the leaders. All this in Israel, by gentiles - not Jews.
PS dont put words in my mouth

alexbmn

06-18-2003, 08:47 PM

Gev, honestly you may think that you are making the settlers appear as uncompromising religious fanatics but you are not. Your proposed scenario where Arabs finally accept a Jewish state in the Middle East is very nice but its not going happen. The fact is the settlers understand the situation as it really is,that there are two peoples laying claim to the same piece of land.Even the leftist secular Mapai with Ben Gurion in charge believed that all of "Palestine" belonged to the Jews.The only thing that prevented Israel from conquering the West Bank in 1948 was a threat of British intervention. However the difference between Jews and the Arabs is that to avoid an eternity of bloodshed the Jews were ready to compromise but the Arabs were not. However that didnt mean that Israel somehow didnt have a right to be in the West Bank. And here's the problem with your (and the current Oslo mentality) By saying that Israel has no right to the West Bank you are undermining the very concept of compromise.Compromise is needed when both sides believe that they have a valid case. But if Israelis themselves say that they dont have a valid case then there's no need to compromise. Thats exactly why Arafat rejected Barak's proposal. By accepting it he would really be selling himself short, after all why compromise for something that is being given to you anyway for free. That's why he demanded the right of return. Of course by doing that he revealed his true intentions.He should have demanded the Negev. Barak would have conceded it.

gev

06-19-2003, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
Good question and thank you for being the first leftist in this forum who trys to understand - at least for me.

In my opinion, I believe that transfer is the best and most likely to succeed for the following reason:
Israel, as you know, requires all it's citizens to to be on active duty and reserve duty for 3 years and up untul 45 (or so) respectivly. With the Arabs out of Israel, incursions and holding of cities under curfues, outposts, and every other security measure that has been implemented in Israel which utilizes the IDF would freeup all these soldiers. These soldiers, in my opinion (note I am no military strategist of anykind), could be sent along the border on every side. Along with soldiers who could be within a relativly short distance between eachother (approx. every quarter mile more or less depending on availabiliy and terrain), there would be a large security fence as they have now with the exception that it would be built under ground as well to lessen the threat of tunnels. The fence would be equiped with technology that enables soldiers to be notified when the fence has been breeched via cutting of the wires - either this or electric fence (I don't know the effectivity of this). Within Israel with a small group of soldiers there will be military vehicles (cars, trucks, etc) patrolling outside of all cities and towns - the citiy size would be the factor in deciding how many vehicles used in patrols. Flight in would be resrticted to any country deem hostile in government of citizens to Israel. All other countries in which flight into Israel is allowed, will be accepted, although all its passengers would be given a "quick" background check prior to arriving at the airport in which the system would just show flags, as here in America. To get into the terminal, in addition to metal detectors, there will be (if the time has come and bomb detecters are available these will be used) bomb sniffing dogs and other such security measures, also to bee adapted as time and secuiry officials deem necessary. Also, the Navy will patrol the water border - Mediterranian AND Dead Sea.

Did I leave any aspects out? If so tell me, I'll try to propose a solution.

Nice Security Analisys, But you didn't answered my question.
I ask you to assume that you don't have feelings for the terretories, you don't care for a minute whether Israel keep them or leave them. You don't care if Israel evacuate settelements or not, Based on that objectivity, does it really matter where the border of Israel goes - Between the Terretories and Israel, or between Jordan and Israel?
I think not, all of these suffisticated technology and other measures you mentioned(which large part of it being implemented right now!!) can be implemented in a border with Gaza (Which works perfectly now - 100% success ) and With the West Bank.

Originally posted by richcrassus

I dont believe im reading this balony, how can u be so nieve, the if the arabs had to ABILTY u would all be dead right now, u think syria hasent attacked israel in the past 15yrs is because they want to be friends? NO its because they CANT afford more wars!!!

About Syria, I agree and actually, I said that exactly in one of my posts, But I repeat it for you to stress the point:

Adversary2Arabs Said:
"Peace is not possible when thousands of your enemies have vowed to fight until everyone of your type is no longer in the entire region. "

I replied:
"I think it is possible, when millions of your enemies come to the conclusion that they just can't win Israel."

The Majority of the Arab World and especially it's leaders realize that they don't stand a chance against Israel. Israel has the strongest army in the middle East. It's not that Syria can't afford more wars - Israel can conquer and destroy all Syria's Army in a few weeks - thats the power difference.
Israel has somewhat the same technology as the American Airforce does, in some things Israel is actually the leading in the world - we had a presentation of this technology in Iraq by the US.

Why should I care wether the Arabs love me or fear me, as long as there is no war, nobody get killed.

Originally posted by richcrassus

Jordan wont attack israel for the same reason, is cos they CANT afford to, cos they are 'friends' with the USA and dont want to be labelled a terrorist state or an axis of evil member.

I expect you say that after a hard work of Intelligence gathering and Analisys, because you are actually go against the opinions of three Israeli Intelligence services: The Mosad, Shabak and Army Intelligence all present a very different picture about Jordan leadership. but humor me, please, how did you get to this conclusion about Jordan - besides the obvious: they are Arabs = they want to destroy Israel.

Originally posted by richcrassus
You israelis just dont get it do u, how many more have to die before u get it through your thick skulls, that they dont want their own state to live in peace, but they want their own state to be able to have a proper army and be closer to israel and attack it more effectively.

it seems that Israelies are rational and mature enough (at least the majority) that don't use the phrase "They just want to destroy Israel". using "They all want" or "The Arabs Want" makes your whole argument seem somewhat childish.
In that large group of milions of Arabs, all have the same opinion?
try again.

Originally posted by richcrassus
Anyway, u israelis dont want peace anyway, if u did how can u justify NOT assasinating hamas militants?? i mean are u people insane or something?

As I said also in my other posts, I am for killing/stopping Hamas Terrorists and leaders until the palestinians do it themselves.

Originally posted by richcrassus
or is it cos your scared the USA will not give u billions of $$ if you try and protect yourselves.

US Support is crucial for Israeli Existence and should not be taken lightly.

Originally posted by richcrassus
Only g-d knows whats in your minds, do what u want, but know this, your not just fighting for yourselves, but for all jews around the world. do u under stand the words im typing????

OK, I understand....

gev

06-19-2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by alexbmn
Gev, honestly you may think that you are making the settlers appear as uncompromising religious fanatics but you are not. Your proposed scenario where Arabs finally accept a Jewish state in the Middle East is very nice but its not going happen. The fact is the settlers understand the situation as it really is,that there are two peoples laying claim to the same piece of land.

There is a time for compromising, I say the palestinians would just have to compromise, they don't have any other choice. That is where the international community and espacially the US come in.
A main reason why the palestinian succeed in their violence, and struggle is World's support. When a palestinian state is established there wouldn't be any World's support for any struggle or claim by the palestinians, They wouldn't have a choice but to shut up and live their own life in their own state.

The settlers are making excuses for their religous beleif by presenting a false political picture, Even if the palestinians were the most peaceful people on earth, they still want to move them from their land and settle everywhere, so why the hipocracy?

Even the leftist secular Mapai with Ben Gurion in charge believed that all of "Palestine" belonged to the Jews.The only thing that prevented Israel from conquering the West Bank in 1948 was a threat of British intervention.

Ben-Gurion agreed for the division of Israel to avoid the bloodshed, thats is the opinion of most israelies. Let's look at another former Mapai Member - Sharon, now head of the Likud party thinks that settlements should be dismantle, and that "Occupation is bad".

However that didnt mean that Israel somehow didnt have a right to be in the West Bank. And here's the problem with your (and the current Oslo mentality) By saying that Israel has no right to the West Bank you are undermining the very concept of compromise.Compromise is needed when both sides believe that they have a valid case. But if Israelis themselves say that they dont have a valid case then there's no need to compromise. Thats exactly why Arafat rejected Barak's proposal. By accepting it he would really be selling himself short, after all why compromise for something that is being given to you anyway for free. That's why he demanded the right of return. Of course by doing that he revealed his true intentions.He should have demanded the Negev. Barak would have conceded it.

I agree that the basic of the solution is known to both sides already, for a long time. The majority of israelies have already given up most of the settlements, and the majority of palestinians are interested only on the prior 67 border (polls are done on the palestinian side, also).
The big compromise by Israel is the land - as we given up of it already. it is the acknowledgement of a palestinian state, the graduate evacuation of the Army, we demand things in return - eradication of Terror, stopping the encitements, leaving in peace beside Israel, acknowledging the end of the conflict and end of the palestinian claims etc. We demand the things that are important for the majority of Israelies, and for the prosperety of Israel.

MGB8

06-19-2003, 02:56 PM

How about opinion polls...they seem to indicate that teh GREAT MAJORITY of the Arab world wants to see Israel destroyed. Is that good enough for you?

The issue IS about security. Pieces of paper ("peace agreements") don't guanrantee piece. A DEFENSIBLE border does.

And that is the key.

Could a Pal State be created in such a way that it doesn't really affect the "defensible border" - sure - but it would fall far short of what the Pal Arabs think a "sovereign state" should be.

Forget "assumptions" and deal with REALITY.

Adversary2Arabs

06-19-2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by gev
Nice Security Analisys, But you didn't answered my question.
I ask you to assume that you don't have feelings for the terretories, you don't care for a minute whether Israel keep them or leave them. You don't care if Israel evacuate settelements or not, Based on that objectivity, does it really matter where the border of Israel goes - Between the Terretories and Israel, or between Jordan and Israel?
I think not, all of these suffisticated technology and other measures you mentioned(which large part of it being implemented right now!!) can be implemented in a border with Gaza (Which works perfectly now - [B]100% success ) and With the West Bank.

If I were to remove my love for the Land of Ancient Israel in which is deeply rooted in my religion and background, I would have to say there is a significant part of my care towards the future of the land gone. Although the security threat would be greater, the amount of concentrated forces within Israel would be greater, allowing easier and quicker access to borders. WITH THIS SAID - I cannot and WILL NOT ever condone, let alone accept Yesha being given - or stole - to - or by - the Arabs. If I were a secular anti-religious Jew-only-because-my-mother-was-not-because-I-remotely-believe-in-it, then I would not care as much like Shinui. BUT*****I still would care. Not only for the security threat increace meantioned earlier, but for the sole fact I was still Jewish and my ancestors were Jewish and I am linked to the Land. Now - If I were a person living in Israel, who is like a lot Russians in Israel who were lucky enough to be related to Jewish woman, but aren't Jewish in the least and in fact are anti-Semitic, then I wouldn't care in any way. In fact I would be a leftist. I would be a member of Shinui or Labor. In no other case would I be in any leftist party. It just wouldn't happen. It wouldn't happen because I know history - and history says appeasment doesn't work.

I take that back - it worked for the French because it seems they always appease people and get their ass raped and handed to them and then get their country back right after the US and Britain save their last grain of sand and manage to turn the tide of the war(s).

So unless your a Frenchie, then appeasment DOES NOT WORK. It's that simple, as hard to believe as it seems.

PS I would rather have a facist government in Israel than a leftist liek Shinui. The people for the government - not the government for the people. Better this than mass acceptance of suicide and anti-Semitism IE shinui.

alexbmn

06-19-2003, 05:03 PM

ok see Gev is a prime example of what i'm talking about an Israeli who refuses to see the facts and contradicts himself time after time. Ok let me spell it out in caps PALESINIANS DO NOT, DO NOT WANT A TWO STATE SOLUTION. They DO NOT see this as the solution to the conflict. They HAVE refused an offer which would have resulted in such an outcome, ONLY THREE YEARS AGO. HAMAS IS BY FAR the most popular group among them. A majority of them has always supported suicide bombings. And despite all of this they still enjoy world support. And always will. And thus the settlers are not fanatics but you are in fact blind.

My friend has suggested unilateral separation for STRATEGIC PURPOSES only,although in a perfect world transfer would be the optimal solution.

Adversary2Arabs

06-19-2003, 05:32 PM

I think we need to make Druze settlements. The only difference between the Druze and the Arabs is that the Druze are peace loving and co-exist well with Jews and Israel. The Arabs... need I even say?

gev

06-20-2003, 08:59 AM

Adversary2Arabs
If I were to remove my love for the Land of Ancient Israel in which is deeply rooted in my religion and background, I would have to say there is a significant part of my care towards the future of the land gone. Although the security threat would be greater, the amount of concentrated forces within Israel would be greater, allowing easier and quicker access to borders.

The security threats wouldn't be greater if a defensible border is built, with all security measures being implemented. The army would have greater ease to control the borders.
That is why a rational Israeli that don't see a peice of land as sacred, but see the whole of Israel as a State, and as a concept as sacred is willing to give up those peices of lands for a greater good, When there is a palestinian leadership that wants peace.
which we havn't seen yet...

gev

06-20-2003, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by alexbmn
Ok let me spell it out in caps PALESINIANS DO NOT, DO NOT WANT A TWO STATE SOLUTION. They DO NOT see this as the solution to the conflict. They HAVE refused an offer which would have resulted in such an outcome, ONLY THREE YEARS AGO.

It was refused by a palestinian leadership, which brought the palestinian only poverty, death and Israel conquering the whole terretories. When there will be a palestinian leadership that wants peace, it would agree to that offer, and still the settlers would oppose it.

HAMAS IS BY FAR the most popular group among them. A majority of them has always supported suicide bombings.

Today it is, when there is a palestinian leadership that wants peace, it will stop the incitement and Anti-Israeli propoganda and then the support will drasticlly drop. As it drasticlly gone up.

And despite all of this they still enjoy world support.

They get world support When they are under occupation, We know it is their own fault, but it is still a fact that they don't have equal rights as citizens.

And always will.

will the palestinian get world support to attacks made from a palestinian state, after a peace agreement has been reached? I don't think so.

And thus the settlers are not fanatics but you are in fact blind.

Let me ask you this: Do the settlers want the palestinian leadership to be peaceful? if a palestinian leadership would rise that truely wants peace and destroy Terror, would the settlers admit it is so? would they support a peace agreement?
The answer for all these questions is NO. they would rather have war another hundreds years than to have a peace agreement that means peace and prosperety to Israel, but also means the evacuation of settlements.

My friend has suggested unilateral separation for STRATEGIC PURPOSES only,although in a perfect world transfer would be the optimal solution.

Strategically, Unilateral seperation is suicide.
Although Remote settlements removal will help the army in doing it's JOB - protecting Israel - The Army should not evacuate, until there is a palestinian force or other, that keeps terrorists from organizing and carry out attacks. that should come with the building of a defensible border which we have around Gaza, and now built around the West-Bank (but very slowly).

MGB8

06-20-2003, 09:09 AM

gev, you are delusional.

Would a wall stop PLO terrorists from building up rockets, bombs, and WMD? Would a wall stop terrorist organizations from firing those weapons into Israel? Would a wall stop terrorist organizations from paying its Arab operatives in Israel proper from blowing others up?

Would a wall prevent tanks from, lets say a newly Islamic Revolution in Jordan, rolling across the country the WB to our 9-10 mile dividing point, and then splitting the country in two?

Would a wall allow OUR tanks to move quickly North to South in the event of a War with Syria and, again, a newly radicalized Egypt?

Egypts government is not popular, and suffers from major problems from Islamic radicals. Jordan's is more popular, but still is a minority government (Hashemite as opposed to more diverse arab groups), and has its own problems with Islamic radicals.

Think this through - if rockets are fired from the WB into Israel, how would the world react when Israel responed? Would this start a regional war?

Originally posted by gev

It was refused by a palestinian leadership, which brought the palestinian only poverty, death and Israel conquering the whole terretories. When there will be a palestinian leadership that wants peace, it would agree to that offer, and still the settlers would oppose it.

[/b]

Today it is, when there is a palestinian leadership that wants peace, it will stop the incitement and Anti-Israeli propoganda and then the support will drasticlly drop. As it drasticlly gone up.

[/b]
They get world support When they are under occupation, We know it is their own fault, but it is still a fact that they don't have equal rights as citizens.

[/b]

will the palestinian get world support to attacks made from a palestinian state, after a peace agreement has been reached? I don't think so.

[/b]

Let me ask you this: Do the settlers want the palestinian leadership to be peaceful? if a palestinian leadership would rise that truely wants peace and destroy Terror, would the settlers admit it is so? would they support a peace agreement?
The answer for all these questions is NO. they would rather have war another hundreds years than to have a peace agreement that means peace and prosperety to Israel, but also means the evacuation of settlements.

Strategically, Unilateral seperation is suicide.
Although Remote settlements removal will help the army in doing it's JOB - protecting Israel - The Army should not evacuate, until there is a palestinian force or other, that keeps terrorists from organizing and carry out attacks. that should come with the building of a defensible border which we have around Gaza, and now built around the West-Bank (but very slowly). [/B]

yoyo

06-20-2003, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by gev
will the palestinian get world support to attacks made from a palestinian state, after a peace agreement has been reached? I don't think so.

And I think you are mistaken. I can still remenber those so call friends around the world that said "withdraw in accordance with Resolution 425 and if Lebanon attacks you, we will support you". The reality of the matter is more "both side need to restraint", The UN helping Hezbollah to kidnap Israeli soldiers, when Israel respond to attack from Lebanon they are, according to Kofi Annan, "breaching Lebanese Airspace", and when they steal our water only to infest it with dump we have to negotiate.

So you carrying on beleiving in the "goodness" of the world and I'll carrying on thinking they are at best naive at worst hypocrite antisemites!

gev

06-20-2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by MGB8
Would a wall stop PLO terrorists from building up rockets, bombs, and WMD? Would a wall stop terrorist organizations from firing those weapons into Israel? Would a wall stop terrorist organizations from paying its Arab operatives in Israel proper from blowing others up?

Nope, It wouldn't, Thats why the Army should stay on BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER, (Which I said in my post) until a palestinian leadership is ready to take measures to stop Terror and eradicate Terror organisations (Which I also said in My post)

Would a wall prevent tanks from, lets say a newly Islamic Revolution in Jordan, rolling across the country the WB to our 9-10 mile dividing point, and then splitting the country in two?

Would a wall allow OUR tanks to move quickly North to South in the event of a War with Syria and, again, a newly radicalized Egypt?

No it wouldn't, Our Army will.
Not to get too much to military talk, I will only say that Tanks play a much smaller role in the modern BattleFeild as it did in the past. A very recent Example is the war in Iraq: The US brought less than two Armoured divisions into Iraq against 21 Armoured Iraqi Division!! As I said in another post, Israeli Military has the same Technology as American Has, And in some Areas Israel is even the most advanced in the world.

Egypts government is not popular, and suffers from major problems from Islamic radicals. Jordan's is more popular, but still is a minority government (Hashemite as opposed to more diverse arab groups), and has its own problems with Islamic radicals.

I hope it will strengthen the governments when peace is acheived. The world would have to guratee it. and it has an interest to do so, as it does already.

Think this through - if rockets are fired from the WB into Israel, how would the world react when Israel responed? Would this start a regional war?

If Rockets are fired from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or Egypt to Israel, how would the world react when Israel responded? would it start a regional war? It can, in which we will win, again...

Mediocrates

06-20-2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by gev

will the palestinian get world support to attacks made from a palestinian state, after a peace agreement has been reached? I don't think so.

They did already from 1993-2001. At any rate 'attack' is meaningless. What will happen is the continuance of terrorism. Palestine will not suddenly get a mobile armor division. Since Palestinian terrorism is quasi-legitimate to the 'world' it will only become more so.

A free Palestine with the PA at its head is the worlds first legitimate fully functioning terrorist country.

MGB8

06-20-2003, 10:19 AM

Rockets ARE fired from Lebanon and Israel is condemed if it retaliates. Rockets are also fired from Gaza, and the same thing happens.

Iraq was a GROUND WAR. It was an easy war because the Iraqi army didn't have the will to fight, not because we destroyed so many or killed so many - indeed, in Iraq we were trying to kill as few as possible.

Tanks still matter, A LOT. Ground forces are still an essential part of a war. You didn't answer the North to South question - which is HUGELY IMPORTANT. A Wall and PA security controlled land wouldc reate huge impediments to the N-to-S movements of forces.

Your confidence in the military is good, but I believe false. Because, any true confidence would recognize that Israel was almost destroyed in both 48 and 73, and only "miracles" prevented that destruction. We could have lost both wars, very easily. Now the Saudi's and the Egyptians have US technology. Jordan, too.

You can't just say "the army will stop it." Because you don't know that it will. You want to put the Army in the BEST POSITION to stop it. And if we don't keep SIGNIFICANT parts of the WB, we won't be doing that at all.

Originally posted by gev
Nope, It wouldn't, Thats why the Army should stay on BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER, (Which I said in my post) until a palestinian leadership is ready to take measures to stop Terror and eradicate Terror organisations (Which I also said in My post)

No it wouldn't, Our Army will.
Not to get too much to military talk, I will only say that Tanks play a much smaller role in the modern BattleFeild as it did in the past. A very recent Example is the war in Iraq: The US brought less than two Armoured divisions into Iraq against 21 Armoured Iraqi Division!! As I said in another post, Israeli Military has the same Technology as American Has, And in some Areas Israel is even the most advanced in the world.

[/b]

I hope it will strengthen the governments when peace is acheived. The world would have to guratee it. and it has an interest to do so, as it does already.

If Rockets are fired from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or Egypt to Israel, how would the world react when Israel responded? would it start a regional war? It can, in which we will win, again... [/B]

Adversary2Arabs

06-20-2003, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by gev
The security threats wouldn't be greater if a defensible border is built, with all security measures being implemented. The army would have greater ease to control the borders.
That is why a rational Israeli that don't see a peice of land as sacred, but see the whole of Israel as a State, and as a concept as sacred is willing to give up those peices of lands for a greater good, When there is a palestinian leadership that wants peace.
which we havn't seen yet...

Whatever I'm tired of arguing with you. Even if I could bring you into the future in which your lefitst ideals were put into place and every Jew in Israel was murdered, you still wouldn't believe me. it's a lose - lose situation.

gev

06-20-2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by MGB8
Rockets ARE fired from Lebanon and Israel is condemed if it retaliates.

The lebanon border is relatavely quiet, and rockets can be launched from every country - transfer doesnt solve that problem, so it is irrelevant.

Iraq was a GROUND WAR. It was an easy war because the Iraqi army didn't have the will to fight, not because we destroyed so many or killed so many - indeed, in Iraq we were trying to kill as few as possible.

I doubt anything is left from those 21 armoured divisions, they didn't surender, they were destroyed - from the air.
Iraq was a ground war? for the iraqis maybe. but the US main attack came from the air.

You didn't answer the North to South question - which is HUGELY IMPORTANT. A Wall and PA security controlled land wouldc reate huge impediments to the N-to-S movements of forces.

First of all, I wasn't talking about a wall, i was talking about a border.

Demilitralized palestinian state and prediction of a war by the Israeli intelligence - using satelights and other measurements will help deal with this kind of threats.

besides, are you a more military expert than the IDF senior officers? do you think Sharon ignores or don't know the threats you mention? I trust the Israeli Defense community to consider all threats and say where are the red lines.

While I cannot find any senior IDF, Shabak or other security service saying we should stay in the terretories forever for security reasons, I hear only extreme-Right winged
saying it. So who is dillusonal?

Because, any true confidence would recognize that Israel was almost destroyed in both 48 and 73, and only "miracles" prevented that destruction. We could have lost both wars, very easily.

48? what 48 got to do with it?

In 73 we didn't have the same land we have now?

Lessons have been learnt from 73, and the military have developed in many areas, it's development and power now allows Israeli leaders to make consessions for peace.

Now the Saudi's and the Egyptians have US technology. Jordan, too.

Not in the same extent.

You can't just say "the army will stop it." Because you don't know that it will. You want to put the Army in the BEST POSITION to stop it. And if we don't keep SIGNIFICANT parts of the WB, we won't be doing that at all.

As I said, I leave the security issue for the security experts, and they disagree with you, because they are objective, they don't have a hidden interest - keeping the Settlements.

gev

06-20-2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
They did already from 1993-2001. At any rate 'attack' is meaningless. What will happen is the continuance of terrorism. Palestine will not suddenly get a mobile armor division. Since Palestinian terrorism is quasi-legitimate to the 'world' it will only become more so.

A free Palestine with the PA at its head is the worlds first legitimate fully functioning terrorist country.

Terror must be eradicated, BEFORE There is a peace agreement. and today Terror is quai-legitimate because the palestinians have no state, when they do have their own state, I beleive it will become illegitimate by every rational country, why wouldn't it?

eyl

06-20-2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by gev
I doubt anything is left from those 21 armoured divisions, they didn't surender, they were destroyed - from the air.
Iraq was a ground war? for the iraqis maybe. but the US main attack came from the air.

IIRC, many of them were simply abandoned, not destroyed. Also, Israel couldn't replicate that feat; consider how many bombs were needed, and how much production and money was needed to create them.

MGB8

06-20-2003, 02:57 PM

Frankly, I don't give a darn about the settlements - besides some historical religious attachment and the people who live in them.

What I do care about is the security of the nation. And while SOME experts may say that Israel doesn't need a buffer zone, others disagree, and I think that erring on the side of caution is the benefit of the day.

Frankly, there are other issues as well. For example, illegal immigration of ARabs from Jordan to Israel since 1967 - did you know that they have started over 1.5 times the "settlements" that Israel has begun since that date, accodting to Bibi's census people, anyway.

Why should the area be "Juden Raus" - and if so, will they accept a transfer of all Arab Israelis into this new Arab country? And closed borders, too? Of course not. Would Jews be allow to remain and have voting rights in this new Palestine? Of course not.

I'm a fan of ARik Sharon's, and trust him, because I believe that he is looking for a quasi-state that is far far short of what the Pal's want - something where Israel controls the borders (to prevent weapons smuggling) and where many of the largest settlements are retained.

I also believe in a wall in certain areas. But unilaterral separation- that's just giving the Pal Arabs phase 2 of their plan of phases.

yoyo

06-20-2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by gev
The lebanon border is relatavely quiet, and rockets can be launched from every country - transfer doesnt solve that problem, so it is irrelevant.

Demilitralized palestinian state and prediction of a war by the Israeli intelligence - using satelights and other measurements will help deal with this kind of threats.

It is all about defensible borders (UNSCR 242), all of a sudden this is not relevant? So here you dismantle the settlements then you come to the end: no peace and the "refugees". Then what? The Golan was taken for which reason? So all the problems will be over if you have a little piece of paper signed by the Arafat and his gang, right? Egypt has broken many times their peace treaty by inciting violence - thus making a generation that will bring Israel to the brink of war in the next decade or two. Yeah, arabs are worthy of their signatures.

And it is important to stop dreaming, the day Palestine will be SOVEREIGN, no-one will prevent them to have an army and get the worst weapons, it is mathematical. And should there be trouble, the international community will go down hard on Israel to "stop making trouble".

ayesha

06-20-2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by MGB8
Why should the area be "Juden Raus" - and if so, will they accept a transfer of all Arab Israelis into this new Arab country? And closed borders, too? Of course not. Would Jews be allow to remain and have voting rights in this new Palestine? Of course not.

I'm a fan of ARik Sharon's, and trust him, because I believe that he is looking for a quasi-state that is far far short of what the Pal's want - something where Israel controls the borders (to prevent weapons smuggling) and where many of the largest settlements are retained.

I also believe in a wall in certain areas. But unilaterral separation- that's just giving the Pal Arabs phase 2 of their plan of phases.

In a way, I agree with you. It's amazing that ALL of the Palestinians I have spoken to in Lebanon, say that they would rather live in Israel than in a newly created Arab country -and they tell me that this is the desire of many of the Arabs living outside Israel proper. Meaning, they do not want to live in yet another corrupt Arab state.

It seems that, although Israel's sincerity is not in question, the sensibility of this proposal is.

MGB8

06-20-2003, 03:27 PM

Frankly, like most jews and israelis, I'm in many ways tired and frustrated. I just want them to leave us alone. That's why unilaterall separation is such a popular idea in Israel - with the hope that "maybe they'll just leave us alone."

What I would like to see, personally, is a new Arab state comprising Gaza and 2/3 of the Sinai. Then, in addition, have some sovereign areas in the WB where non-Israeli Arabs can live as sort of "foreign citizens" of Israel with a sort of "green card" status in Israel, and with local autonomy and taxes collected for the Pal-Arab state, but with the pal-Arab state reimbursing for maintenance, electricity, water, etc.

Terrorists will simply be arrested and either jailed (if they murdered, or stole or helped murder, etc.) or be expelled to the new Palestinian state and not allowed back into Israel (for lesser offenses - stone throwing, incitment, etc).

They can have their state, they can have local authority over themselves, just not at the expense of Israeli security,

merkava4

06-20-2003, 03:30 PM

To the rest of the world, Israel is the scapegoat for everything. And to Israel (left-wingers), Judea and Samaria is the scapegoat for everything. Just like in the Ghetto. Just hand over 5,000 more Jews and they won't bother us. Let's just watch our plays and sing peace songs. The ghetto got destroyed anyways. Let's learn from past mistakes, the Nazis made the Jews go against eachother, let's not let the same thing happen with the Arabs.

Am Judea Samaria Chai!

Gilgamesh

06-20-2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by gev
Terror must be eradicated, BEFORE There is a peace agreement. and today Terror is quai-legitimate because the palestinians have no state, when they do have their own state, I beleive it will become illegitimate by every rational country, why wouldn't it?

Because the world does not work according to the rules you set!

Even today, after israel has fleed Lebanon under European fincanced public pressur groups, the border dispute between Israel and Hizzballa was not solved. The UN confirmed many times over, that Israel had fully redraweled. But who really cares about facts? The border dispute with the Hizzballa remains just the same. Only the situation got worsen.

Was the Hizzballa ever become "less ligitimate" ??? Was the Hizzballa considered as a terror organization, by Europeans?
NO!!!

on the contrary, The hizzballa earned much more respect, both in Israel, and the Arab world and Europe. The men are better trained and better armed then they ever been, partly through European "Islamist charities" and other funds. The very kind of institutions Bush had ordered thier shutting down. (Will the next american president would reverse that decistion, either by law or neglect? ).

It is said, the Hizzballa has 10,000 rockets pointed at Israel civilian consentreations. It also has several hundred missile with greater range, sold to them by Syria. No to mention thousands of morters and light artilery pieces. The hizzballa hold the entire north region of Israel, hostage, literally.

The Hizzballa hadn't stoped terrorism. It directs propagada, aid the Hammas and other Arab terror groups, It shells the border towns and villigies of Israel with "anti air craft (AAA)" artilery, setting agricultural fields on fire.

Since the emberassing fleeing of the IDF from lebanon, Israel has lost 13 soldiers and civilians were murdered by the Hizzballa. There were several morter attacks on our possions, getting to some places on the border is possible only while traveling in armored convoys. One civilian was already kidnapped, and the Hizzballa refuses to colaborate with the red cross, (or more acuratly, the red cross refuses to colaborate with us, so ensure the kidnapped citizen rights under the geneva convention), or negociate his release.

The story of the Hizzballa is a demonstration of things to come!
1. No peace, only more demands.
2. No end for terrorism.
3. No world de-legitimation of Arab terrorism, vice versa, more legitimation to mass killers of Jews.
4. Greater leverage for Arabs, greater terroristic capability, greater danger for Israel.

Arab demands will never end as long as there will be one living Jew in Israel.

Any attempt to postpond the only possible solution to Arab terrorism, will only enforce harder the very same solution only with greater Jewish price of bloods.

We have no reason to believe Arabs will ever drop their demands to genocide all Israeli Jews, on the long run, and we have no one single evidance so to believe arab keep their words, on a longer term.

Egypt and Jorden, for example, pulled the ambassadors and colsed down the embassies three years ago. Egyption goverment media is one of the worlds most anti semetic medias, incitement and recalling of the ambassadors is not allowed according to the peace treaties we have signed. Egyptions keep investing money in their Army, using American tax payers dollars. (couple of billions a year). You won't read it anywere, but egypt does sends its army to demilitirizaed sinai desert "for military training and manuvares". Totally forbined by the peace treaty they signed.
Fighting which country does egypt need such a big army?
Only Israel. Peace treaty? Never worthed the paper it is written on. Few years from now, Mubarak will be either too frail or too dead to prevent future? war. What will be then?

This is the story with Egypt, which today, is one of the most western ward countries. What will be the worth of the words of Less westrenised countries?

Gev, bro, PLEASE wake up!!! don't be the sucker of anther Arab froud. I believe you really wish peace and quite and abit less reserve duties. Belive me I wish it too, yet one mustn't loose tuch with the reallity, the real world out side, who seldom obey your real and deep heart wishes. Sorry...

BTW, Santa isn't real either.

ayesha

06-20-2003, 03:41 PM

MGB8:

Respectively, regardless of how appealing a proposal that sounds, I simply do not think that it is possible. I have stated before, from experience, that you must educate these people first. I cannot stress how important that is. Otherwise whatever state they are given will be dedicated to gathering strength for the destruction of Israel. It is possible to change their minds. While I understand your frustration, there will not be anyone of the rebels willing to 'leave you alone' until u insist on educating them in the same way I was educated here. They believe that Israel is out to exterminate them as much as u think the contrary.

humus_sapiens

06-20-2003, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by ayesha
I have stated before, from experience, that you must educate these people first. I cannot stress how important that is. Otherwise whatever state they are given will be dedicated to gathering strength for the destruction of Israel.

I agree too. Let's try to analyze. Where the current "jihaducation", incitement from the infant age, etc. comes from? The Palestinians did not invent anything new. The Nazi Arab League, Wahhabists and Saddam's Iraq. Add anti-semitic EU, the US that won't say a word against the Sauds and the UN that keeps the descendents of descendents of refugees - in misery for decades, paying for that "education". I hope this catch 22 starts to break with Saddam gone. But even with some kind of movement, it takes generations to change the mentality.

It is possible to change their minds. While I understand your frustration, there will not be anyone of the rebels willing to 'leave you alone' until u insist on educating them in the same way I was educated here. They believe that Israel is out to exterminate them as much as u think the contrary. [/B]

You have to agree, if this demand (absolutely reasonable and better for the Arabs in the first place) comes from the Jews, it won't be credible for the Arabs. :(

ayesha

06-21-2003, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
I agree too. Let's try to analyze. Where the current "jihaducation", incitement from the infant age, etc. comes from? The Palestinians did not invent anything new. The Nazi Arab League, Wahhabists and Saddam's Iraq. Add anti-semitic EU, the US that won't say a word against the Sauds and the UN that keeps the descendents of descendents of refugees - in misery for decades, paying for that "education". I hope this catch 22 starts to break with Saddam gone. But even with some kind of movement, it takes generations to change the mentality.

You have to agree, if this demand (absolutely reasonable and better for the Arabs in the first place) comes from the Jews, it won't be credible for the Arabs. :(

Perhaps not even generations. It took just under a year for me of intensive reading of history and fruitful discussions with gentlemen such as Rabbi Sacks. Later, when I felt competent enough to relay what I had learnt to others, I was dragged into verrry heated debates with my family and friends. Nevertheless, I have been able to change a few minds through discussion and by relating them to IsraelForum as well as other sources. The majority came back to me saying how angry they were to be fooled all these years and how WE must continue to relay this to our fellow people. Realisitically, it can be done much sooner than decades.

Yes, I utterly agree with your second point. It must be done by us, this is the only way. But you must understand that to do it in any kind of organised fashion is extremely dangerous for those who engage in it. They risk their lives. That is why most tend to rather an informal and 'harmless' political debate in contrast to the founding of any group/organisation. I think for the first few stages it must be done on a covert level, otherwise we can kiss the hope of enlightening fellow Arabs with the truth and future peace goodbye.
It must be initially and primarily done by us, absolutley - however, considering circumstances - and our regimes - it is not possible to do it alone.

elke

06-21-2003, 07:07 AM

But Ayesha, the process really started with your open mind, with your willingness to learn and understand. That's the elusive ingredient: the willingness to understand. That's what takes the time: breeding this willingness in adults, and saving it in children...
:)

gev

06-21-2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by MGB8
I'm a fan of ARik Sharon's, and trust him, because I believe that he is looking for a quasi-state that is far far short of what the Pal's want - something where Israel controls the borders (to prevent weapons smuggling) and where many of the largest settlements are retained.

Security should and I beleive will be in the first priority of Israel, and should not be compromised, There for I trust That an agreement will keep Israel secured, with most of the settlements will be dismantled, evetually.

I also believe in a wall in certain areas.

A good border will make the a common Terrorist Attack become a suffisticated military operation. That will make Terror Attacks to be much harder and rare.

But unilaterral separation- that's just giving the Pal Arabs phase 2 of their plan of phases.

I think that unileteral seperation is suicide, just like the withdraw from lebanon. I do think that dismantling some remote Settlements, and keeping the army for better Spread and better Defence, is something we had to do a long time ago.

gev

06-21-2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by yoyo
It is all about defensible borders (UNSCR 242), all of a sudden this is not relevant? So here you dismantle the settlements then you come to the end: no peace and the "refugees". Then what? The Golan was taken for which reason? So all the problems will be over if you have a little piece of paper signed by the Arafat and his gang, right? Egypt has broken many times their peace treaty by inciting violence - thus making a generation that will bring Israel to the brink of war in the next decade or two. Yeah, arabs are worthy of their signatures.

And it is important to stop dreaming, the day Palestine will be SOVEREIGN, no-one will prevent them to have an army and get the worst weapons, it is mathematical. And should there be trouble, the international community will go down hard on Israel to "stop making trouble".

I am saying that solving the palestinian problem in one way or the other does not make those other threats go away, so it is irrelevant for the discussion. The palestinian will have a state some where.
Defensible Borders are not irrelevant, it is the main issue.

gev

06-21-2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Because the world does not work according to the rules you set!

Even today, after israel has fleed Lebanon under European fincanced public pressur groups, the border dispute between Israel and Hizzballa was not solved. The UN confirmed many times over, that Israel had fully redraweled. But who really cares about facts? The border dispute with the Hizzballa remains just the same. Only the situation got worsen.

Was the Hizzballa ever become "less ligitimate" ??? Was the Hizzballa considered as a terror organization, by Europeans?
NO!!!

on the contrary, The hizzballa earned much more respect, both in Israel, and the Arab world and Europe. The men are better trained and better armed then they ever been, partly through European "Islamist charities" and other funds. The very kind of institutions Bush had ordered thier shutting down. (Will the next american president would reverse that decistion, either by law or neglect? ).

It is said, the Hizzballa has 10,000 rockets pointed at Israel civilian consentreations. It also has several hundred missile with greater range, sold to them by Syria. No to mention thousands of morters and light artilery pieces. The hizzballa hold the entire north region of Israel, hostage, literally.

The Hizzballa hadn't stoped terrorism. It directs propagada, aid the Hammas and other Arab terror groups, It shells the border towns and villigies of Israel with "anti air craft (AAA)" artilery, setting agricultural fields on fire.

Since the emberassing fleeing of the IDF from lebanon, Israel has lost 13 soldiers and civilians were murdered by the Hizzballa. There were several morter attacks on our possions, getting to some places on the border is possible only while traveling in armored convoys. One civilian was already kidnapped, and the Hizzballa refuses to colaborate with the red cross, (or more acuratly, the red cross refuses to colaborate with us, so ensure the kidnapped citizen rights under the geneva convention), or negociate his release.

The story of the Hizzballa is a demonstration of things to come!
1. No peace, only more demands.
2. No end for terrorism.
3. No world de-legitimation of Arab terrorism, vice versa, more legitimation to mass killers of Jews.
4. Greater leverage for Arabs, greater terroristic capability, greater danger for Israel.

The simple fact is this: The Hizzbullah is now relatively restrained, why do you think it is?

You must see the difference between what we are doing in Gaza and WB and what we did in Lebanon, A few Examples:

1. The Hizzballah was never dismantled, Israel demand all Terror Organizations be eradicated BEFORE a peace agreement and total evacuation is implemented.
2. The Hizzballah never once said that it ends the fighting when Israel withdraws from Lebanon, It is actually announced that it's main purpose is the destruction of Israel - The palestinian leadership should announce that the conflict has ended and there are no other claims from Israel (Something Arafat has disagree to do, so it is taken seriousely by the palestinian side)
3. There is no force in South Lebanon that control, and claim responsibility of the Area, Lebanon has refused to do so. Israel insists the Palestinian will use force to prevent attacks and do "100% effort".

All that said, The fact that Hizzballah has medium-range rocket launch capability is a failure of Israel, and should be delt with.

Arab demands will never end as long as there will be one living Jew in Israel.

Any attempt to postpond the only possible solution to Arab terrorism, will only enforce harder the very same solution only with greater Jewish price of bloods.
We have no reason to believe Arabs will ever drop their demands to genocide all Israeli Jews, on the long run, and we have no one single evidance so to believe arab keep their words, on a longer term.

What that implies from this is that the only solution is complete elimination of Arabs. Does Transfer help with the problem you suggest? Transfer only overthrow Jordan's Monarchy to become the most Extreme Islamists Arab nation in the region right next to Israel.

Gev, bro, PLEASE wake up!!! don't be the sucker of anther Arab froud. I believe you really wish peace and quite and abit less reserve duties. Belive me I wish it too, yet one mustn't loose tuch with the reallity, the real world out side, who seldom obey your real and deep heart wishes. Sorry...

The world is not black and white, Good Jews against Bad Arabs, or bad Europeans.
You should wake up, as what you suggest is hundreds of years of war - don't try anything that remotely suggests peace, as it is a sign of weakness. It is irresposible, Peace can be acheived without risking Israel Security, and That is what we should all wish for. When the other side is willing to compromise, We should be there in open arms. Just like it says in the Israel's Scroll of Independence.

Revkha

06-21-2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Christians the world over owned slaves. God fearing Jesus loving Christians.

If you want to change the behavior, change the man. 'Amazing Grace' was written by a man who at an earlied time in his life owned a slave ship.

BTW Jews in the Torah owned slaves after the Exodus. That's not the point; national destruction and redemption is.

Hey guys, lighten up. It was nothing more than just an interesting analogy. Not meant as premise for the moral discussion of the slave owning populous at large.

Mediocrates

06-21-2003, 08:01 PM

humus_sapiens

06-21-2003, 11:42 PM

Ayesha, it is because of people like you I believe the peace is possible.

Originally posted by ayesha
[B]Perhaps not even generations. It took just under a year for me of intensive reading of history and fruitful discussions with gentlemen such as Rabbi Sacks. Later, when I felt competent enough to relay what I had learnt to others, I was dragged into verrry heated debates with my family and friends. Nevertheless, I have been able to change a few minds through discussion and by relating them to IsraelForum as well as other sources. The majority came back to me saying how angry they were to be fooled all these years and how WE must continue to relay this to our fellow people. Realisitically, it can be done much sooner than decades.

I hope you are right. But as Elke noted, the open mind makes all the difference in the world. The main function of education system under any totalitarian regime is brainwashing its citizens to shut down their openmindedness. Take the Communist regimes, the Nazis, or today's totalitarian regimes, religious or secular - the inner mechanics are the same. They _NEED_ an enemy, internal or external or better yet, both. It doesn't matter if the enemy is imaginary.

Yes, I utterly agree with your second point. It must be done by us, this is the only way. But you must understand that to do it in any kind of organised fashion is extremely dangerous for those who engage in it. They risk their lives. That is why most tend to rather an informal and 'harmless' political debate in contrast to the founding of any group/organisation. I think for the first few stages it must be done on a covert level, otherwise we can kiss the hope of enlightening fellow Arabs with the truth and future peace goodbye.
It must be initially and primarily done by us, absolutley - however, considering circumstances - and our regimes - it is not possible to do it alone.

Ironically, you sound more sober than some Jews. You've got my support and admiration.