I highly doubt Israel promotes hate-inspired lies.
Home | I highly doubt Israel promotes hate-inspired lies.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cunard
[B]That's warped. 10 years to become better organized and better equipped, thus his comment about a "phased liberation." There needs to be a permanent peace agreement. To suggest a full withdrawal without a permanent peace agreement that is binding on both parties is ridiculous. It's not even a real suggestion, unless you are insane.Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
I don't have time now to comment on all of the falacies you posted but the above one just goes to show your overall level of ignorance as to what's going on in real life.
I suggest you do your homework. Note the dates - before Yassin's demise:
1. Rasha el-Rantissi, wife of Abed el-Aziz el-Rantissi, told the Arab media that she is educating her children to resistance and jihad. She added, "I hope that my husband, my children and I will receive the shahada so that we may prove that we are the first to sacrifice our children for Allah;" "Allah is generous with us, because our children die as fighters, and we wait with them for death for Allah's sake any minute" (el-Bian, 16 June 2003).
2. Hamas Offers Ten-Year Truce in Exchange For Israeli
Withdrawal to 1967 Borders
[Official PA website]
GAZA, January 26, 2004 (IPC + Agencies) - - The Islamic Resistance Movement
(Hamas) said that it could declare a 10-year truce (ceasefire) with Israel
in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip and
the establishment of a Palestinian state on the lands Israel occupied in
1967.
Hamas spokesman and co-founder Abd al-Aziz al-Rantissi told journalists on
Sunday that the movement had come to the conclusion it was "difficult to
liberate all our land at this stage, so we accept a phased liberation."
"We accept a state in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and the Gaza
Strip. We propose a 10-year truce in return for [Israel's] withdrawal and
the establishment of a state," Reuters news agency quoted al-Rantissi as
saying.
He added that the proposal did not mean that Hams has to recognize Israel or
spell the belief in the end of the conflict to be true.
Tel Aviv dismisses any talk of Hamas moderation as a smokescreen for
military preparations by a group at the forefront of attacks on Israel,
particularly after the bombing that killed four Israeli soldiers at a border
crossing north of Gaza on January 14.
The spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, recently said the
resistance could accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
but had not previously given any indication how long a truce might last.
al-Rantissi added he did not expect Israel to respond favorably to the new
suggestion "when it has rejected the Palestinian Authority's offer for less
land than what we are proposing."
Earlier, Hamas asserted Sunday that it had demanded for international and
regional immediate move to rein in the Israeli threats to assassinate Sheikh
Yassin.
Israeli officials indeed say it would be impossible to return to pre-1967
borders, emphasizing that Palestinians could not expect control over East
Jerusalem and major settlements deemed vital for security.
Ok so you yourself have proved that my point was correct!! the most recent statement made by Rantisi and and his clan were ready to let Israel be as long as there was a palestinian state, even though they said they would not officaly except israel, 10 years of peace and quite would have been a long time for them to think that over as lived in in peace and quite and there economy and the lives of the palestinian people improved.
Again if we will keep delaying negotations with todays PAL leadership in 5-10 years we will have to negotiate with HAMAS and Jihad leaders, and accept those ridicilous offers because we'll have no choise...Originally posted by Mira
That's warped. 10 years to become better organized and better equipped, thus his comment about a "phased liberation." There needs to be a permanent peace agreement. To suggest a full withdrawal without a permanent peace agreement that is binding on both parties is ridiculous. It's not even a real suggestion, unless you are insane.
But you are playing with my words thoughOriginally posted by Mil
Posted by cunrad:
What I ment by UN troops deplyments is why arent there troops posted to seperate both sides so that UN troops can take place of the IDF,
You mean UN troops guarding Israeli territory? There isn't a place in the world where such is the case and Israel is no exception.
I did not say guarding Israeli territtory, i said act as a buffer between both sides!
also there are no UN troops there epecially between Gaza rafah and Egypt Rafah,
There are no UN troops between Kashmir and Pakistan and India.
True there are no troops as i have stated to before, but there are UN observers and the LOC (line of control which defines the border now in kashmir ) was drawn up by the UN. The reason there are no UN troops is because India refuses while Pakistan wants them there.
there are UN observers in the Sinai as they are there as observers in the Golan and other place there. There only a few dozen troops who act as observers, not as a buffer.
No. These are not a few dozen troops these are a few THOUSAND troops. Look it up at www.UN.org
There are 336 Indian, Canadian, and Honduran troops there who are acting as observers.
And like i said before the only reason that China, USSR and the rest who are in the security council are cause they were the victors of the war.
No. These countries were selected for the security council because they were recognized and still are recognized as SUPERPOWERS. I recommend you read up on the history of LON and the UN.
The Superpowers were the Victors!!!!!!!!!
Tougest in the region is the same thing. the loser wouldnt be the victor or the toughest in the region,
No. France clearly lost WWII - for example - but still was included on the Security Council. In 1945 France, Britain, USSR and the United States were clearly recognized superpowers - there weren't any others. Later China was added in. I personally believe that one more country should become the permanent member ..... India. India is a large political, economic and military regional superpower.
How did france loose WW2???? They were part of the occupying force in Germany after the war, did germany hold french territory at the end of the war??? No!! it was the other way around!!!!!
France got its but kicked for the first 85% of the war, but they won in the end with the help of the allies!!!
Mil, your just playing word games now.
Nope - world is not run by emotions.
Originally posted by Mira
That's warped. 10 years to become better organized and better equipped. There needs to be a permanent peace agreement. To suggest a full withdrawal without a permanent peace agreement that is binding on both parties is ridiculous. It's not even a real suggestion, unless you are insane.
It was an importent step taken by a radical Islamic group who had come to realize there way was not working. i am sure that the agreement would have been finalized properly with borders defined (even if temporary). Whatever both sides are doing now hasnt worked for decades and makes the lives of people on boths sides miserable.
What I think is INSANE is that we have two people who have both been discarded by the rest of the world for years and years at each others throats. This to me is very INSANE and very sad.
Guess what? It's working.Originally posted by cunard
i am sure that the agreement would have been finalized properly with borders defined (even if temporary). Whatever both sides are doing now hasnt worked for decades and makes the lives of people on boths sides miserable.
Sort of. You what what didn't work all these years? Rabin and Peres trying to properly finalize agreements, with borders defined (even if temporary).
Completely wrong.Originally posted by KSO
Again if we will keep delaying negotations with todays PAL leadership in 5-10 years we will have to negotiate with HAMAS and Jihad leaders, and accept those ridicilous offers because we'll have no choise...
When they drop their weapons (every last one of them), pull out the white flags, hand over their leaders for trial, then we can start talking with them about the future.
Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Completely wrong.
When they drop their weapons (every last one of them), pull out the white flags, hand over their leaders for trial, then we can start talking with them about the future.
The chance of that happening is pertty much just as likely as having the Israeli flag flying over Iran's Parliament bulidings hahaha.
Also if the PLA leaders go on trial, im sure Mr. Sharon and his Defense Minister would join Mr. Arafat and his goons in an 8 X 8 cell.
And yet that's the dirction it's heading in, as the thread I linked to points out. But you just keep on ignoring the facts. The only thing preventing it is Israel continuing indecisiveness, which I predict is soon going to get worse.Originally posted by cunard
The chance of that happening is pertty much just as likely as having the Israeli flag flying over Iran's Parliament bulidings hahaha.
Why? What did Sharon do? Go on and tell us. That's why we're here.Also if the PLA leaders go on trial, im sure Mr. Sharon and his Defense Minister would join Mr. Arafat and his goons in an 8 X 8 cell.
From The Case for Israel, by Alan Dershowitz:
The fence case is now in the Israeli Supreme Court as well as the International Court of Justice. The Israeli Supreme Court will resolve it fairly. The International Court of Justice won't. Why? Because the International Court of Justice is just like the Mississippi Supreme Court in the 1930's.
There was a Mississippi Supreme Court that could do justice only for cases of a White against a White. It was an all White court. It could in a paternalistic way solve a case of a Black against another Black, but it couldn't do justice in a case involving a Black and White. It would always find in favor of a White in such a case.
The same goes for the United Nations General Assembly and the International Court of Justice, which is a United Nations court. It can do justice in some disputes, but when Israel is involved it is incapable of doing justice. Like the Mississippi Supreme Court, it used its credibility that existed in some cases to pretend it was doing justice, but no perspicacious students of the International Court of Justice will be fooled. But many people are not perspicacious. They'll see judges with robes declaring the use of a fence to prevent terrorism not only a violation of international law, but a grievous one!
Among cases now pending before the International Court, there are no cases pending involving genocide or slavery, or oppression of women. There are no cases of oppression of people because of their religion. There are no cases involving events in Algeria or the Sudan or Rwanda. But Israel builds a moveable fence, a fence that three times already has been moved by order of the Israeli Supreme Court and by the Israeli government in response to changes on the ground, and that seems to be the greatest violation of international law.
Amen to that!
I highlighted that last paragraph because it matches the attributes of so many of the Israel-bash-away posters that grace this forum. Our very own little virual reality experience.Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Among cases now pending before the International Court, there are no cases pending involving genocide or slavery, or oppression of women. There are no cases of oppression of people because of their religion. There are no cases involving events in Algeria or the Sudan or Rwanda. But Israel builds a moveable fence, a fence that three times already has been moved by order of the Israeli Supreme Court and by the Israeli government in response to changes on the ground, and that seems to be the greatest violation of international law.
I gess that Cunard wanted to speak about all this stuff:Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
And yet that's the dirction it's heading in, as the thread I linked to points out. But you just keep on ignoring the facts. The only thing preventing it is Israel continuing indecisiveness, which I predict is soon going to get worse.
Why? What did Sharon do? Go on and tell us. That's why we're here.
Assacinations, massacres since 50', deportation, provocations, terror bombing, etc...
The usual stuff.
You mean eliminating terrorist militant targets, responsible for waging war and masacring another country's people.Originally posted by TDidier
I gess that Cunard wanted to speak about all this stuff:
Assacinations,
Don't stop. List them.massacres since 50'
Deporting terrorists is indeed criminal. They should have been shot or trialed and jailed when captured. Letting them go is a crime against humanity.deportation
How exciting. Maybe you should be on trial for provocations.provocations
Once again, list such an event.terror bombing
So on and so forth.etc...
KSO, I don't know why you try so hard to prove your hatered or self hatered for anything to do with Israel, but your attempts here to point fingers pale compared to the catastrophic and monumental proof of the horrific ARABNAZI plan for the GENOCIDE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.
REGARDING THE LINKS YOU OFFER:
The first link http:// http://theunjustmedia.com/Israel%20h...20children.htm is from 1974 and it's really THE ONLY ARTICLE I have seen and not very convincing, picking straws etc!
The second link http://amenusa.org/isr34.htm is written by an ANTI ISRAEL PROPAGANDA EXPERT Maureen Meehan
Maureen Meehan is (2001) a free-lance journalist based in the West Bank. She is married to Jiries Atrash, a Palestinian Authority official in Jericho.
COMPARE THIS PETTY PICKIN' YOU OFFER WITH THIS:
the entire web site is replete with proof of the hatered of Arabs ARABNAZI PLAN FOR GENOCIDE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND ISRAEL for Israel and Jews.
Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
You mean eliminating terrorist militant targets, responsible for waging war and masacring another country's people.
When he was a young lieutnant he ordonned to kill 2 womens who crossed Israelian border to carry water... At 100m from their houses. I don't remember the date (50') exactly but I've posted something about that some month later...
during 50' and 60' he conduced operations outside of Israelian borders, so bloody operations that BenGourion himself asked explanations about those "too good" attacks...
He was in charge of sommary assassinations after 1967 in Gaza... And that was a job for him...
etc...
Don't stop. List them.
the two most famous:
-Qibya, 1953- He forced civilians to stay in their houses in this cisjordanian village and... Bombed their house, people inside, Mens, Womens, Childrens.
The escapers were shot in the street...
-Sabra & Shatila , 1982-He was defence minister and commanded Israelian troop in Lebanon invasion, but he gove orders to pro-israelian milicias too.
He gove the top of milician entry in the camps, tsahal troops were waiting outside of the camp during the massacre.
During the day, they shooted the escapers.
During the night they fired lighting mortar shell to permit to the massacre to continue as it was the day...
Deporting terrorists is indeed criminal. They should have been shot or trialed and jailed when captured. Letting them go is a crime against humanity .
During early 70', in Gaza, he was responsable of ten of thousands of deportations, destroying houses and closing water points...
For the lone 1971 August, he erased 2000 houses and deported 12000 Gaza inhabitants...
How exciting. Maybe you should be on trial for provocations.
On AlAqsa, in 2000, that was the beginning of the 2nd Intifada.
He perfectly knew that palestinians would react to his come, Sharon is known as the butcher for them...And he bet on the bloody repression from israelian police.
He bet and he won.
Once again, list such an event.
In 1968, an israelian commando attacked Beyrouth airport, bombing all the civilians aircrafts they found... This operation was leaded by Sharon.
So on and so forth.
War criminal, as I writed most part of his operations during 50'60' were so (unnecessary) bloody that the top governemental administration asked for "explanations"... But there is most clear evidence.
According to the retired general Arye Biro, during Sinaï campaign, 1956, in a prartrooper unit under Sharon's command, he witnessed (and participated) in a massacre of 273 unarmed egyptian soldiers and some sudanese workers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks