The big question: Just too late for peace?

**NewsGuy** · 03-09-2002, 07:12 AM

In light of all of the attrocities committed by both Israelis and Palestinians againt each other (some justified, some certainly not), is peace possible at all?

In other words, is there just too much mistrust and hatred to move to a peaceful coexistence at this point, or will there continue to be terrorism and confrontation even after a "peace" agreement is reached?

Maybe there should be some framework other than peace to be considered?

McSceptic · 03-09-2002, 11:34 AM

International monitors to separate the two sides?

L@mplighterM · 03-09-2002, 11:59 AM

Maybe there should be some framework other than peace to be considered?

Peace will never be a reality in that region until every Arab and/or Jew is dead.
I was reading a Norwegian site this morning and they are steamed at the Jews in particularly because of the ambulance incident. A MP in the Canadian government was not happy with Sharon?s initiative. Do a bit of surfing to different news sites around the world you find similar feedback.

I get the distinct opinion from around the world that Jews should take the same avenue that they took in Germany in the 1930?s and 1040?s. Start building gas chambers and when they?re finished walk right in and take a shower.

Jews are hated by much of the world?s population or so it seems. Former US Presidents and renowned spiritual leaders.

**NewsGuy** · 03-09-2002, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Jews are hated by much of the world?s population or so it seems. Former US Presidents and renowned spiritual leaders.

That's a given. It has always been this way from the beginning of time.

But if that is the case and Israel is being condemned from all sides, the only thing to do is take full advantage of the situation and strike back as hard as Israel is capable of, at the Palestinians terrorist infrastructure, no matter what the slight collateral damage might turn out to be. Just like the US bombed a few hundred Afghani citizens mistakenly and then just brushed it off (and rightfully so), Israel should not be held to any other standard than the US.

The world will condemn Israel and continue to hate Jews, so at least Jews should do exactly what is in our best interest without regard to world opinion.

It is moral to defend oneself by all means necessary, no matter what some others might say. That's what's going on in Afghanistan and that's what's needed in Arafatistan.

As for Norway, I've noticed that the Arabs there have managed to pay off the Norwegian media to distort the Mideast conflict and to promote anti-Semitism. The thing about Norway is that they are zeroes outside their own igloo country. They have nothing to offer the world because you can't export ice cubes, and that's why they have no global influence. Worse yet, their tundra climate has evidently frozen their brains, so they can no longer think straight.

I wonder what the Norwegians would think if the Palestinians would do a little Jihad action there and bomb a few nightclubs or machine-gun a few hundred Norwegians sitting their igloos. I'll bet their arrogant meddling tone would change pretty darn quickly.

cerulean · 03-09-2002, 02:00 PM

I wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize, decided by a 5-member committee appointed by the Norwegian Storting (Parliament), should be put on hold indefinitely. I think it may have a distorting effect on world policy making. People think about winning the peace prize the next year, rather than whether the policy has any validity. Lots of years no-one should be selected in any event.

L@mplighterM · 03-09-2002, 03:58 PM

It is moral to defend oneself by all means necessary, no matter what some others might say. That's what's going on in Afghanistan and that's what's needed in Arafatistan.

Of course it's morally right to defend oneself and the people in Israel should do just that.

I wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize, decided by a 5-member committee appointed by the Norwegian Storting (Parliament), should be put on hold indefinitely. I think it may have a distorting effect on world policy making. People think about winning the peace prize the next year, rather than whether the policy has any validity. Lots of years no-one should be selected in any event.

If they did that Arafat and Perses wouldn't get another prize.

McSceptic · 03-11-2002, 03:36 AM

The difference between Afghanistan and Arafatistan is that the Americans don't have to go on living next door to it.

Peres and Arafat should give back their peace prize. I think they're in violation of the terms and conditions.

**NewsGuy** · 03-11-2002, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by McSceptic
Peres and Arafat should give back their peace prize. I think they're in violation of the terms and conditions.

Why Peres?

**NewsGuy** · 03-12-2002, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by McSceptic
The difference between Afghanistan and Arafatistan is that the Americans don't have to go on living next door to it.

That's a good point.

If the Afghanistan was next door to the US and was responsible for harboring and supporting the terrorists who did the 9-11 attacks on NYC and the Pentagon, then after a few weeks of B-52 action, Afghanistan would become a big parking lot for the US.

There would be no mercy shown as there tends to be when the country in question is so far away.

If we Americans in the US were facing daily machine gun, bomb and missile attacks from the Palestinians, I can assure you that we would be reading about 10's of thousands of Palestinian civilian "accidental" casualties and Arafat would be nothing but Kafia vapor.

I can assure you that the US would never consider handing over land to al Qaeda, nor negotiating, as is hypocritically being forced on Israel.