Israelis have big b*lls
Mitzna was soundly defeated. . . . .
While I'll readily concede that Sharon was elected with a good more electoral process integrity than Bush, it remains that voters can and do make poor, even disastrous, choices on occasion -- Germany in 1933 for an extreme example.
Swounger
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why was Sharon a bad choice? There would have been even more Israelis murdered if the left had remained in power. In case you've forgotten, it was the Likud who negotiated the first, and most difficult treaty, with Egypt. It takes two to effect a diplomatic peace--and there is no Palestinian leader who wants to do so.
Rather Be:
Most sensible people (including those who don’t dismiss all Arab claims) realise that Israel’s legitimate security must be guaranteed. Interesting that you should quite sensibly suggest “A well patrolled fence along the '67 boundaries” – rather than one located several miles inside Palestinian territory like the present illegal monstrosity.
Bubbette:
The King David Hotel was a terrorist attack, and it was far from isolated. The Irgun and the Stern Gang did much more and much worse.
I think you need to read a few books about what went on during the Mandate, dear.....
The fact that the first Jewish settlers “reclaimed the malarial, swamp infested land to make it the first world country it is today” is a a crude over-simplification, and is irrelevant anyway. You might be interested to know that “sewer systems, electricity, paved roads etc.” began to appear under the Ottoman empire, and were far from being a generous Jewish gift to their Arab neighbours, though there is no doubt that Jewish settlement accelerated the process of modernisation. If land is stolen or illegally purchased, however, it doesn’t matter what you do to it or how you improve it, it’s simply not right. And that goes double for land that’s illegally occupied post-conflict.
And when these ‘improvements’ also include the ethnic cleansing of 700,000 of the original occupants, the murder of thousands, the demolition of countless Arab villages, and widespread ‘water-theft’ by tapping into Artesian wells below Arab allocated land, then it’s clear that such improvements are (at best) a mixed blessing.
You’re happy to rant about “Edward Said, the prospective murdererer of Israelis?” and opine that “His recent death can only advance the cause of peace.” Would you say the same about Sharon, when he passes away? Many moderate people would do, and with greater justification. "Why was Sharon a bad choice?" because under his leadership, the tentative steps towards peace were destroyed, and it was always clear that he would destroy the peace process. Peace with Egypt was easy, the USA was pushing both sides to reach agreement, you were dealing with Sadat, Egypt was desparate for peace and disillusioned with war, and it gave you an Arab ally without having to make important concessions and without having to risk Israel's fundamental security. By comparison, peace with the Palestinians would require hard compromises and difficult concessions, and would require a huge leap of faith and of imagination.
“I absolutely am a Jew--what exactly are you implying? Do you have a problem with that?”
Not at all over here, love, and I’m sure that no-one on these boards has a problem with anyone because of their ethnic or religious background.
I expect that he ‘thinks you may be Jewish’ because you parrot Israeli propaganda with such facility and with quite such a lack of critical analysis or open-mindedness. Personally I was just worried that you were one of those right wing creationist fundamentalist christian nutters, because they don’t speak the same language as the rest of us. Now I wonder whether you’re Ariel Sharon’s grand-daughter..... (that’s a little joke, by the way).
If you’re a Zionist Jew who believes in Eretz Israel, then I think you’re wrong, and I don’t think you have any right to settle on the West Bank, but I don’t have a problem with you or your religion. (I don’t have a problem with Baathists because they’re Iraqis (or because some of them are Moslems) but because they followed an evil man and supported immoral, illegal, dangerous and obsecene policies).
If you’re a US citizen, then I am surprised that you should be quite so blind to the fundamental human rights of the oppressed Palestinians, and that you are quite so hostile to granting them their democratic rights. Perhaps you’re a throwback to the 19th Century, and see them in the same way that many Americans then saw Native Americans, or blacks?
Most sensible people (including those who don’t dismiss all Arab claims) realise that Israel’s legitimate security must be guaranteed. Interesting that you should quite sensibly suggest “A well patrolled fence along the '67 boundaries” – rather than one located several miles inside Palestinian territory like the present illegal monstrosity.
Bubbette:
The King David Hotel was a terrorist attack, and it was far from isolated. The Irgun and the Stern Gang did much more and much worse.
I think you need to read a few books about what went on during the Mandate, dear.....
The fact that the first Jewish settlers “reclaimed the malarial, swamp infested land to make it the first world country it is today” is a a crude over-simplification, and is irrelevant anyway. You might be interested to know that “sewer systems, electricity, paved roads etc.” began to appear under the Ottoman empire, and were far from being a generous Jewish gift to their Arab neighbours, though there is no doubt that Jewish settlement accelerated the process of modernisation. If land is stolen or illegally purchased, however, it doesn’t matter what you do to it or how you improve it, it’s simply not right. And that goes double for land that’s illegally occupied post-conflict.
And when these ‘improvements’ also include the ethnic cleansing of 700,000 of the original occupants, the murder of thousands, the demolition of countless Arab villages, and widespread ‘water-theft’ by tapping into Artesian wells below Arab allocated land, then it’s clear that such improvements are (at best) a mixed blessing.
You’re happy to rant about “Edward Said, the prospective murdererer of Israelis?” and opine that “His recent death can only advance the cause of peace.” Would you say the same about Sharon, when he passes away? Many moderate people would do, and with greater justification. "Why was Sharon a bad choice?" because under his leadership, the tentative steps towards peace were destroyed, and it was always clear that he would destroy the peace process. Peace with Egypt was easy, the USA was pushing both sides to reach agreement, you were dealing with Sadat, Egypt was desparate for peace and disillusioned with war, and it gave you an Arab ally without having to make important concessions and without having to risk Israel's fundamental security. By comparison, peace with the Palestinians would require hard compromises and difficult concessions, and would require a huge leap of faith and of imagination.
“I absolutely am a Jew--what exactly are you implying? Do you have a problem with that?”
Not at all over here, love, and I’m sure that no-one on these boards has a problem with anyone because of their ethnic or religious background.
I expect that he ‘thinks you may be Jewish’ because you parrot Israeli propaganda with such facility and with quite such a lack of critical analysis or open-mindedness. Personally I was just worried that you were one of those right wing creationist fundamentalist christian nutters, because they don’t speak the same language as the rest of us. Now I wonder whether you’re Ariel Sharon’s grand-daughter..... (that’s a little joke, by the way).
If you’re a Zionist Jew who believes in Eretz Israel, then I think you’re wrong, and I don’t think you have any right to settle on the West Bank, but I don’t have a problem with you or your religion. (I don’t have a problem with Baathists because they’re Iraqis (or because some of them are Moslems) but because they followed an evil man and supported immoral, illegal, dangerous and obsecene policies).
If you’re a US citizen, then I am surprised that you should be quite so blind to the fundamental human rights of the oppressed Palestinians, and that you are quite so hostile to granting them their democratic rights. Perhaps you’re a throwback to the 19th Century, and see them in the same way that many Americans then saw Native Americans, or blacks?
I was a fan of Sharon for his deeds during the Yom Kippur war, but it's been downhill from there, especially in the last few years since I've been reading Ha'aretz which makes plain what a disastrous choice Sharon has been for Israel's future.
Past his Shelf Life -- Ha'aretz article for today's example.
Who needs to care if there is a Palestinian negotiating partner -- put up a wall along the '67 lines and let them sort themselves out.
In fact, I look forward to Arafat's passing as his chief role has become providing a handy excuse for Sharon and Bush to allow the situation to fester. As Voltaire said: If there was not a God, man would have to invent Him!
Past his Shelf Life -- Ha'aretz article for today's example.
Who needs to care if there is a Palestinian negotiating partner -- put up a wall along the '67 lines and let them sort themselves out.
In fact, I look forward to Arafat's passing as his chief role has become providing a handy excuse for Sharon and Bush to allow the situation to fester. As Voltaire said: If there was not a God, man would have to invent Him!
Last edited by RatherBeFlying; 10th Oct 2003 at 10:32.
Swounger
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JN the only land in the Mid East that was stolen was that stolen by the 22 Arab countries from their Jewish populations.
Sharon is a man of peace, willing to sacrifice everything for the cause; Said was a man of hate and he even attempted to murder a soldier.
Someone else mentioned whether or not I was Jewish, so I assume they have some problem with it, not you.
No right to settle on the West Bank? So Jews are second class citizens, with entire countries, even where Jews have lived for 1000s of years off limits? Sorry, I don't agree with your racist belief; I think all law abiding citizens shouldlive where they want.
Re the Palestinians, since they have democratically elected a leader to run their own government, it's ludicrous for you to blame Israel for their horrible plight. I don't feel sorry for the terrorist murderers; I do actually pity the people who are raised on such hate it seethes through their pores. If you get a chance to see the Arab Jenin documentary, you'll see what I mean. Or if you see the families celebrating the murder by a suicide bomber. That's sick to me. But their culture is different; they don't value life like western culture does.
A book just came out about the conversion efforts at Mohammed Atta's mosque in Germany. The imam there was discussing if there is a sinking boat, one doesn't put one's wife and family on it, one puts oneself on it. That's their culture, but it ain't the same as mine.
The PA is a democracy, isn't it?
Sharon is a man of peace, willing to sacrifice everything for the cause; Said was a man of hate and he even attempted to murder a soldier.
Someone else mentioned whether or not I was Jewish, so I assume they have some problem with it, not you.
No right to settle on the West Bank? So Jews are second class citizens, with entire countries, even where Jews have lived for 1000s of years off limits? Sorry, I don't agree with your racist belief; I think all law abiding citizens shouldlive where they want.
Re the Palestinians, since they have democratically elected a leader to run their own government, it's ludicrous for you to blame Israel for their horrible plight. I don't feel sorry for the terrorist murderers; I do actually pity the people who are raised on such hate it seethes through their pores. If you get a chance to see the Arab Jenin documentary, you'll see what I mean. Or if you see the families celebrating the murder by a suicide bomber. That's sick to me. But their culture is different; they don't value life like western culture does.
A book just came out about the conversion efforts at Mohammed Atta's mosque in Germany. The imam there was discussing if there is a sinking boat, one doesn't put one's wife and family on it, one puts oneself on it. That's their culture, but it ain't the same as mine.
The PA is a democracy, isn't it?
Bub,
Except Palestinians, or only Israelis? (the law abiding ones of course)
I don't blame you for being paranoid, but is it necessary to be so aggressive?
Disagreeing with you doesn't make anyone a racist, and it goes both ways.
Try more reasoned arguments. For example, would you concede that Jews have ever done anything wrong??
Continue. ;-)
I think all law abiding citizens should live where they want.
I absolutely am a Jew--what exactly are you implying? Do you have a problem with that?
Sorry, I don't agree with your racist belief
Try more reasoned arguments. For example, would you concede that Jews have ever done anything wrong??
Continue. ;-)
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to see you're an Attorney...
What do you call 100 attorneys dead on the sea floor? A good start.
I think its a legitimate question Bubbette to ask, what interest in Aviation do you have, since all your posts I have ever seen have been about Judaism and Arab-Israeli relations and not about the aviation industry as you would expect on an aviation bulletin board.
To answer all those advocates of a massive "Berlin Wall" between Israel and Palestine. First off Israel cannot continue to function without the hard work that is done by the Palestinians, the country would grind to a halt without their manual labour, doing the jobs the Jews feel is below them. I am not saying that in a racist way because in the Gulf States it is the same the country would cease to operate if it wasn't for the cheap labour bought in from Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka. The second reason they can't just close off the palestinian territories from the rest of Israel is the illegal settlements (sorry Bubbette only 14 of the 15 security council members agree that the settlements are illegal, and the Israeli govenment itself identified 25 of the settlements as being illegal and agreed to dismantle 14 of them) are scattered throughtout the territories.
Anyway this guy is obviously on a mission to patrol Bulletin boards to push the Anti-Arab propoganda down our throat so responding to his drivel is not going to ever change his point of view. So carry on Bubbette, but all you succeed in doing is reinforcing the stereotype most people have of the paranoid, unfriendly, ungenerous jewish person.
I think its a legitimate question Bubbette to ask, what interest in Aviation do you have, since all your posts I have ever seen have been about Judaism and Arab-Israeli relations and not about the aviation industry as you would expect on an aviation bulletin board.
To answer all those advocates of a massive "Berlin Wall" between Israel and Palestine. First off Israel cannot continue to function without the hard work that is done by the Palestinians, the country would grind to a halt without their manual labour, doing the jobs the Jews feel is below them. I am not saying that in a racist way because in the Gulf States it is the same the country would cease to operate if it wasn't for the cheap labour bought in from Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka. The second reason they can't just close off the palestinian territories from the rest of Israel is the illegal settlements (sorry Bubbette only 14 of the 15 security council members agree that the settlements are illegal, and the Israeli govenment itself identified 25 of the settlements as being illegal and agreed to dismantle 14 of them) are scattered throughtout the territories.
Anyway this guy is obviously on a mission to patrol Bulletin boards to push the Anti-Arab propoganda down our throat so responding to his drivel is not going to ever change his point of view. So carry on Bubbette, but all you succeed in doing is reinforcing the stereotype most people have of the paranoid, unfriendly, ungenerous jewish person.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Saudi Arabia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirNoServices.....
Well said! I think Fox3 followed a similar theme earlier but I noticed his post has dissapeared....
Might be time to shut this thread down before it gets ugly!
Well said! I think Fox3 followed a similar theme earlier but I noticed his post has dissapeared....
Might be time to shut this thread down before it gets ugly!
ANSO,
As far as I'm concerned Bubbette is welcome here. I think it's interesting to have such a distilled and extreme expression of one side's view (all we lack is someone who will trot out the PLO line with complete enthusiasm and lack of discrimination between fact and fiction). I presume he/she is a private pilot (Attorneys can afford more hours and more interesting types than I can). I believe she contributes on other, more GA related fora more than she does on Mil Aircrew.
I'd like to distance myself from your stereotype of the "paranoid, unfriendly, ungenerous jewish person."
Anyone who has actually dealt with many Jews will confirm that they tend to be the world's most effusive, gregarious and friendly people, and that they are generous to a fault. We're not talking about short-armed, long-pocketed Scots or Journos, here.
As to paranioa, there's a more realistic case, though I'd just point out that we might have appeared 'paranoid' about the Germans in about 1944, or about the French in 1812..... There comes a point where one's experience of hostility and aggression makes paranoia a perfectly sensible survival strategy. And perhaps the memory of the holocaust makes some Jews think that the rest of the civilised World is not entirely reliable.
Bubette,
Go look at the map I recommended. The book should be in your local library. If not you'll find another. Every bit of today's Israel which is not part of that 1947 partition plan is stolen. The Arab side has moved on and doesn't want or expect most of it back. All they want back is those areas which were captured (read stolen) in 1967.
No-one has an absolute right to settle wherever they want. I don't see the USA having an 'open door policy' to Mexican immigrants, nor even to Cubans fleeing Castro's regime. They certainly wouldn't tolerate Mexico seizing Arizona by force of arms, and then (after finally giving back some of it) retaining illegal settlements on the portion handed back to US control. The West Bank is not Israel's to settle. It belongs to someone else. The Egyptians could not build settlements around Tel Aviv. The land isn't theirs, (even if they were to seize it) and that part of the Holy Land has always been part of the area allocated to the Jews by the League of Nations and its successors.
Giving Israel SOME of the blame for Palestine's plight is entirely fair. Israel has been witholding funds, destabilising political institutions, mounting military attacks, demolishing and destroying infrastructure, assassinating political leaders, murdering innocent civilians, refusing a 'right to return' and refusing to disgorge sufficient territory to form a viable Palestinian state.
You throw around insinuations of racism with some abandon, but your own complete refusal to acknowledge the rights of Palestinian Arabs to live in the lands which are rightfully theirs (as decided by the UN and the world at large) suggests that if anyone here is racist, then you might come closest to that description.
Until we're part of their culture, and until we've been oppressed by the IDF for decades, I suspect both of us will feel nothing but revulsion at some of the displays of jubilation which you mention. Hell, from the comfort of my desk, I even find the sight of Allied troops whooping and high fiving after killing the enemy just a tiny bit uncomfortable. It might be necessary, entirely justifiable and even desirable, but I'm wet enough to think that the taking of human life should always be taken very seriously, and treated with some degree of (wrong word) 'reverence'. I'm not comparing or equating the two at all. Military forces are there to kill, and (generally) do so legitimately, whereas terrorist murder (even of serving soldiers) is, in my view, always morally and legally wrong.
As far as I'm concerned Bubbette is welcome here. I think it's interesting to have such a distilled and extreme expression of one side's view (all we lack is someone who will trot out the PLO line with complete enthusiasm and lack of discrimination between fact and fiction). I presume he/she is a private pilot (Attorneys can afford more hours and more interesting types than I can). I believe she contributes on other, more GA related fora more than she does on Mil Aircrew.
I'd like to distance myself from your stereotype of the "paranoid, unfriendly, ungenerous jewish person."
Anyone who has actually dealt with many Jews will confirm that they tend to be the world's most effusive, gregarious and friendly people, and that they are generous to a fault. We're not talking about short-armed, long-pocketed Scots or Journos, here.
As to paranioa, there's a more realistic case, though I'd just point out that we might have appeared 'paranoid' about the Germans in about 1944, or about the French in 1812..... There comes a point where one's experience of hostility and aggression makes paranoia a perfectly sensible survival strategy. And perhaps the memory of the holocaust makes some Jews think that the rest of the civilised World is not entirely reliable.
Bubette,
Go look at the map I recommended. The book should be in your local library. If not you'll find another. Every bit of today's Israel which is not part of that 1947 partition plan is stolen. The Arab side has moved on and doesn't want or expect most of it back. All they want back is those areas which were captured (read stolen) in 1967.
No-one has an absolute right to settle wherever they want. I don't see the USA having an 'open door policy' to Mexican immigrants, nor even to Cubans fleeing Castro's regime. They certainly wouldn't tolerate Mexico seizing Arizona by force of arms, and then (after finally giving back some of it) retaining illegal settlements on the portion handed back to US control. The West Bank is not Israel's to settle. It belongs to someone else. The Egyptians could not build settlements around Tel Aviv. The land isn't theirs, (even if they were to seize it) and that part of the Holy Land has always been part of the area allocated to the Jews by the League of Nations and its successors.
Giving Israel SOME of the blame for Palestine's plight is entirely fair. Israel has been witholding funds, destabilising political institutions, mounting military attacks, demolishing and destroying infrastructure, assassinating political leaders, murdering innocent civilians, refusing a 'right to return' and refusing to disgorge sufficient territory to form a viable Palestinian state.
You throw around insinuations of racism with some abandon, but your own complete refusal to acknowledge the rights of Palestinian Arabs to live in the lands which are rightfully theirs (as decided by the UN and the world at large) suggests that if anyone here is racist, then you might come closest to that description.
Until we're part of their culture, and until we've been oppressed by the IDF for decades, I suspect both of us will feel nothing but revulsion at some of the displays of jubilation which you mention. Hell, from the comfort of my desk, I even find the sight of Allied troops whooping and high fiving after killing the enemy just a tiny bit uncomfortable. It might be necessary, entirely justifiable and even desirable, but I'm wet enough to think that the taking of human life should always be taken very seriously, and treated with some degree of (wrong word) 'reverence'. I'm not comparing or equating the two at all. Military forces are there to kill, and (generally) do so legitimately, whereas terrorist murder (even of serving soldiers) is, in my view, always morally and legally wrong.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: World
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bubbette
[QUOTE][QUOTE]That's their culture, but it ain't the same as mine.Lot shagged his daughters. Abraham shagged his half sister. David set up Uriah the Hittite so he could shag his wife. David's son incestuously raped David's daughter. Jacob had several wives/concubines (his sons had 4 separate mothers). Moses had the Midianites slaughtered because one Midianite had consensual sex with one Jew.
Your culture.......
The Tombs of the Patriarchs at Hebron are sacred to Jew and Arab alike since the Arabs claim descent from Abraham through his son Ishmael. You are a cousin of the Arabs you hate.
The burial place of Moses is next to a mosque just off the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. He is a prophet of both Islam and Judaism.
Despite the rantings of the Jerusalem post you are all Semitic together and there are as many Arab anti-Semites as there are Jewish ones.
Your alphabets might be different, but your languages are very close. Try these examples of Hebrew/Arabic:
Shalom/salaam - peace (sh and s are interchangeable in many ME dialects - shibboleth and sibboleth are the same in both languages).
Ahad/wahed - one (see un/one/een/ein in Europe)
Sabaat/sabaa - seven
Beit/beet - house (pronounced the same - beit lachem/ beet lahem - house of bread, house of meat)
Lo/la'a - no
You share hundreds of words and the same tenses and constructions.
[QUOTE][QUOTE]Sharon is a man of peace, willing to sacrifice everything for the causeYep, including the lives of the Egyptian prisoners he abandoned in the desert without food or water in 1973. Most died. Geneva Convention.....doesn't apply to Israeli generals.
Sharon almost certainly had a hand in Sabra and Chattila - a lot of Israeli papers have discussed this.
Sharon has a poor record on the settlements. Recently some 'illegal' settlements were removed. They were unoccupied and had only been set up shortly before. He seriously expected all Palestinian 'terror' groups to disarm in return for the removal of 4 empty caravans. Meanwhile the extension of existing settlements and the annexation of villages surrounding Jerusalem continues apace - I've seen the settlements being built up on a daily basis. They are substantial and permanent and are built of brick and concrete. I repeat that the Fourth Protocol to the Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a signatory, bans the settling of an occupiers people on occupied land.
[QUOTE][QUOTE]I think all law abiding citizens should live where they want. No you don't. You don't think the Palestinian Arabs should be able to return to the homes abandoned in 1948 regardless of whether they want to be law abiding or not.
Did you know that the overwhelming majority of Palestians world wide are law abiding and don't kill anyone. If all Palestinians were to kill only 2 Jews each on a global basis the Jewish people would not exist. The fact that they don't and that the total Israeli deaths from the Intifada runs into hundreds, not thousands is a clue to the rest of us.
You think that the blonde haire, blue eyed Jewish descendants of the brown skinned, black haired Jews scattered centuries ago have some sort of claim on the land that is superior to the descendants of those Jews who were assimilated and converted to Islam in the 7th century. You're wrong.
Law abiding includes obeying UN resolutions and international treaties to which your government has signed up. The settlers break all the laws in the book, including in Hebron the murder of Arabs. Under your own terms have no right to live where they are.
Incidentally, what is your connection to aviation? I've got a couple of thousand miltary flying hours under my belt and a general service medal for my part in the war on terrorism in Northern Ireland. What did you do?
Finally, point about reputation of Jews being miserable; sadly this message gets over, when in fact most Jews have a generous disposition and a great sense of humour same as everyone else. I think the reputaion has been spread around by El Al cabin staff who are the most miserable in the industry.
[QUOTE][QUOTE]That's their culture, but it ain't the same as mine.Lot shagged his daughters. Abraham shagged his half sister. David set up Uriah the Hittite so he could shag his wife. David's son incestuously raped David's daughter. Jacob had several wives/concubines (his sons had 4 separate mothers). Moses had the Midianites slaughtered because one Midianite had consensual sex with one Jew.
Your culture.......
The Tombs of the Patriarchs at Hebron are sacred to Jew and Arab alike since the Arabs claim descent from Abraham through his son Ishmael. You are a cousin of the Arabs you hate.
The burial place of Moses is next to a mosque just off the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. He is a prophet of both Islam and Judaism.
Despite the rantings of the Jerusalem post you are all Semitic together and there are as many Arab anti-Semites as there are Jewish ones.
Your alphabets might be different, but your languages are very close. Try these examples of Hebrew/Arabic:
Shalom/salaam - peace (sh and s are interchangeable in many ME dialects - shibboleth and sibboleth are the same in both languages).
Ahad/wahed - one (see un/one/een/ein in Europe)
Sabaat/sabaa - seven
Beit/beet - house (pronounced the same - beit lachem/ beet lahem - house of bread, house of meat)
Lo/la'a - no
You share hundreds of words and the same tenses and constructions.
[QUOTE][QUOTE]Sharon is a man of peace, willing to sacrifice everything for the causeYep, including the lives of the Egyptian prisoners he abandoned in the desert without food or water in 1973. Most died. Geneva Convention.....doesn't apply to Israeli generals.
Sharon almost certainly had a hand in Sabra and Chattila - a lot of Israeli papers have discussed this.
Sharon has a poor record on the settlements. Recently some 'illegal' settlements were removed. They were unoccupied and had only been set up shortly before. He seriously expected all Palestinian 'terror' groups to disarm in return for the removal of 4 empty caravans. Meanwhile the extension of existing settlements and the annexation of villages surrounding Jerusalem continues apace - I've seen the settlements being built up on a daily basis. They are substantial and permanent and are built of brick and concrete. I repeat that the Fourth Protocol to the Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a signatory, bans the settling of an occupiers people on occupied land.
[QUOTE][QUOTE]I think all law abiding citizens should live where they want. No you don't. You don't think the Palestinian Arabs should be able to return to the homes abandoned in 1948 regardless of whether they want to be law abiding or not.
Did you know that the overwhelming majority of Palestians world wide are law abiding and don't kill anyone. If all Palestinians were to kill only 2 Jews each on a global basis the Jewish people would not exist. The fact that they don't and that the total Israeli deaths from the Intifada runs into hundreds, not thousands is a clue to the rest of us.
You think that the blonde haire, blue eyed Jewish descendants of the brown skinned, black haired Jews scattered centuries ago have some sort of claim on the land that is superior to the descendants of those Jews who were assimilated and converted to Islam in the 7th century. You're wrong.
Law abiding includes obeying UN resolutions and international treaties to which your government has signed up. The settlers break all the laws in the book, including in Hebron the murder of Arabs. Under your own terms have no right to live where they are.
Incidentally, what is your connection to aviation? I've got a couple of thousand miltary flying hours under my belt and a general service medal for my part in the war on terrorism in Northern Ireland. What did you do?
Finally, point about reputation of Jews being miserable; sadly this message gets over, when in fact most Jews have a generous disposition and a great sense of humour same as everyone else. I think the reputaion has been spread around by El Al cabin staff who are the most miserable in the industry.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did say Said was a prat. I totally agree that his death is most probably a positive event for the cause of peace. Perhaps you misunderstood my drift - it was he that perpetrated a much more sympathetic view of the Palestinians.
You may not believe, Bubette, those terrorist acts that were carried out, but don't blind yourself to history or you are no better that others who distort history from 1939-1945.
Take a look at Roald Dahl's 'Going Solo'. His experience in Palestine confirms that there were zealots who were prepared to go to any lengths to claim what they believed was their land. How is that any better than what Palestinians do today.
Although Israel has a right to exist, people cannot claim te whole area exclusive and deny, even defeated peoples in the occupied territories, a right to basic rights. Punishing a whole people for deeds committed by a few is ignorant in the extreme, and no better than Said's views.
You may not believe, Bubette, those terrorist acts that were carried out, but don't blind yourself to history or you are no better that others who distort history from 1939-1945.
Take a look at Roald Dahl's 'Going Solo'. His experience in Palestine confirms that there were zealots who were prepared to go to any lengths to claim what they believed was their land. How is that any better than what Palestinians do today.
Although Israel has a right to exist, people cannot claim te whole area exclusive and deny, even defeated peoples in the occupied territories, a right to basic rights. Punishing a whole people for deeds committed by a few is ignorant in the extreme, and no better than Said's views.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko, there you go again with your distorted facts, suppositions and plain old lies. "If land is stolen or illegally purchased, however, it doesn’t matter what you do to it or how you improve it, it’s simply not right." The land was not stolen or illegally purchased but of course it suits your propaganda to refer to it as such which is what infuriates me. With regard to the settlements in the West Bank, that's a different issue but of course it suits you and the palestinian propaganda machine to blur any distinction between the two separate points and therefore imply that most of the land that constitutes Israel today was usurped from the previous inhabitants.
The rest of that paragraph you wrote about the murder of thousands and ethnic cleansing is just a lie and typical of the misinformation that is put about by the apologists for the suicide murderers and their claims that the murder of innocent civilians is only a backlash because of that. You know very well that the majority of the Arab population were ordered out by the Egyptians, Iraqis and Jordanians with the promise that they would be allowed back and even more, allowed to take over the land that would be freed after they had beaten the Jews into the sea. Well, history took a different turn and like an idiot who doesn't learn that banging your head against a wall doesn't get you anywhere the Arabs have continued to try and push the Jews into the sea. It was Sadat who was the visionary and look who killed him.
Also, your next paragraph includes this piece of horse manure "Egypt was desperate for peace and disillusioned with war, and it gave you an Arab ally without having to make important concessions and without having to risk Israel's fundamental security. By comparison, peace with the Palestinians would require hard compromises and difficult concessions, and would require a huge leap of faith and of imagination." which only goes to show you up as being of limited intelligence and even less logic. Are you therefore saying that the Palestinians are NOT desperate for peace? Well, we all know that their leader certainly isn't but as you and many others repeatedly state, and I have no doubt about this, most ordinary Palestinians pretty much want peace too. Your rubbish about "no risk" to Israels fundamental security also proves to me that you are a propagandist for the murdering b@stards who use suicide bombing as an excuse for being oppressed. The Sinai was a massive security buffer for Israel. I regularly fly into Taba in Egypt, right on the southernmost border with Israel and you only have to look right as you take off out of there and climb out to the northwest to see how small Israel really is. Long before reaching intermediate cruise you can see every major city in Israel. Considering that Egypt had always threatened to destroy Israel until Sadat realised that there was an alternative, I think the Israelis had some tough decisions to make regarding their security. I was actually there at the time Sadat arrived in Israel and i can tell you that it was an uplifting day and declared a national holiday with huge amounts of rejoicing in the streets just because of the thought that peace might actually be a possibility. Your attempt at distorting as though Egypt was desperate and Israel wasn't is just more proof that you have an agenda to distort facts.
The Palestinians want peace but their leadership is just not up to the job. Their double dealing and corruption together with the their incessant indoctrination of hate and martyrdom to their population from birth means that they have made it much more difficult to deal with by the Israelis. I agree that they have got the ****ty end of the stick and something needs to be done for the ordinary Palestinians. Unfortunately, much of their predicament is their own or their supporters doing. Until 1967 they were 'occupied' by Jordan in the West Bank and Egypt in Gaza but I don't hear much complaint about that. With Egypt blockading Israel in the Straits of Tiran, ordering the UN buffer force out of Sinai and Nasser claiming that he was going to destroy Israel once and for all, Israel pre-empted that and gave themselves a buffer zone to the south. They also warned the Jordanians to stay out of the conflict but were attacked anyway so they gained a buffer zone to the east. The Palestinians just went from being stateless with Jordanian or Egyptian ID papers to being stateless under the occupation of Israel. The biggest problems for them began after Arafat was allowed back to the country and he decided that after scuppering the peace negotiations he would go back to his preferred method of dealing with Israel, terrorism. That is what has brought the problems that the ordinary Palestinians suffer today.
With regard to the 'wall' or 'fence' as some like to refer to it, there was a fence there up until 1967. The new fence follows mainly the original border except in a few places where it is strategically necessary to change for security reasons. The total amount of former Jordanian land ending up on the Israeli side is less than 1% of the area of the West Bank. Also, the fence is the same as the border fence along Israels northern borders. It is a useful security apparatus and is designed to keep intruders out. Of course it suits the propagandists to turn it into a 'Berlin Wall' but even after a peace agreement there would be a need for a security fence, just as there is along the border with all Israels neighbours, even Egypt after their peace agreement.
Jacko, if you would only stop your double standards, we could continue to debate sensibly. Your continuous need to retort to Bubbette only contributes even more to thread drift. Try ignoring her. I do. Unfortunately, by distorting facts you only serve to continue the cycle of anger. Your post above is another classic example. "The Arab side has moved on and doesn't want or expect most of it back. All they want back is those areas which were captured (read stolen) in 1967." They were not 'stolen'. They were occupied during an armed conflict with the Jordanians and the Egyptians. Israel has always stated that it would be willing to return that land in exchange for peace and the UN resolution bandied about so much, 242, also states that Israel is not obliged to return that land unless a negotiated settlement can be agreed on.
I agree that giving Israel some of the blame for the Palestinians plight is fair but your analysis is again a gross distortion. If Arafat had not instigated the intifada and called for suicide martyrs then the Israelis wouldn't be in all their towns and blockading him. Until the intifada, the Palestinians had more rights and freedom than ever before in their history and that was even before the negotiations had reached their conclusions. It was Arafat who allowed the terrorists freedom of movement to attack Israel from within his PA areas. Until then there was massive trade and movement of labour between the two peoples. I will assume that Abu Ala's threat to resign just one day after being sworn in as PM due to Arafats meddling and underhand attempts to destroy any semblance of a peace process will be conveniently ignored or more likely turned around into some Israeli secret conspiracy?
The rest of that paragraph you wrote about the murder of thousands and ethnic cleansing is just a lie and typical of the misinformation that is put about by the apologists for the suicide murderers and their claims that the murder of innocent civilians is only a backlash because of that. You know very well that the majority of the Arab population were ordered out by the Egyptians, Iraqis and Jordanians with the promise that they would be allowed back and even more, allowed to take over the land that would be freed after they had beaten the Jews into the sea. Well, history took a different turn and like an idiot who doesn't learn that banging your head against a wall doesn't get you anywhere the Arabs have continued to try and push the Jews into the sea. It was Sadat who was the visionary and look who killed him.
Also, your next paragraph includes this piece of horse manure "Egypt was desperate for peace and disillusioned with war, and it gave you an Arab ally without having to make important concessions and without having to risk Israel's fundamental security. By comparison, peace with the Palestinians would require hard compromises and difficult concessions, and would require a huge leap of faith and of imagination." which only goes to show you up as being of limited intelligence and even less logic. Are you therefore saying that the Palestinians are NOT desperate for peace? Well, we all know that their leader certainly isn't but as you and many others repeatedly state, and I have no doubt about this, most ordinary Palestinians pretty much want peace too. Your rubbish about "no risk" to Israels fundamental security also proves to me that you are a propagandist for the murdering b@stards who use suicide bombing as an excuse for being oppressed. The Sinai was a massive security buffer for Israel. I regularly fly into Taba in Egypt, right on the southernmost border with Israel and you only have to look right as you take off out of there and climb out to the northwest to see how small Israel really is. Long before reaching intermediate cruise you can see every major city in Israel. Considering that Egypt had always threatened to destroy Israel until Sadat realised that there was an alternative, I think the Israelis had some tough decisions to make regarding their security. I was actually there at the time Sadat arrived in Israel and i can tell you that it was an uplifting day and declared a national holiday with huge amounts of rejoicing in the streets just because of the thought that peace might actually be a possibility. Your attempt at distorting as though Egypt was desperate and Israel wasn't is just more proof that you have an agenda to distort facts.
The Palestinians want peace but their leadership is just not up to the job. Their double dealing and corruption together with the their incessant indoctrination of hate and martyrdom to their population from birth means that they have made it much more difficult to deal with by the Israelis. I agree that they have got the ****ty end of the stick and something needs to be done for the ordinary Palestinians. Unfortunately, much of their predicament is their own or their supporters doing. Until 1967 they were 'occupied' by Jordan in the West Bank and Egypt in Gaza but I don't hear much complaint about that. With Egypt blockading Israel in the Straits of Tiran, ordering the UN buffer force out of Sinai and Nasser claiming that he was going to destroy Israel once and for all, Israel pre-empted that and gave themselves a buffer zone to the south. They also warned the Jordanians to stay out of the conflict but were attacked anyway so they gained a buffer zone to the east. The Palestinians just went from being stateless with Jordanian or Egyptian ID papers to being stateless under the occupation of Israel. The biggest problems for them began after Arafat was allowed back to the country and he decided that after scuppering the peace negotiations he would go back to his preferred method of dealing with Israel, terrorism. That is what has brought the problems that the ordinary Palestinians suffer today.
With regard to the 'wall' or 'fence' as some like to refer to it, there was a fence there up until 1967. The new fence follows mainly the original border except in a few places where it is strategically necessary to change for security reasons. The total amount of former Jordanian land ending up on the Israeli side is less than 1% of the area of the West Bank. Also, the fence is the same as the border fence along Israels northern borders. It is a useful security apparatus and is designed to keep intruders out. Of course it suits the propagandists to turn it into a 'Berlin Wall' but even after a peace agreement there would be a need for a security fence, just as there is along the border with all Israels neighbours, even Egypt after their peace agreement.
Jacko, if you would only stop your double standards, we could continue to debate sensibly. Your continuous need to retort to Bubbette only contributes even more to thread drift. Try ignoring her. I do. Unfortunately, by distorting facts you only serve to continue the cycle of anger. Your post above is another classic example. "The Arab side has moved on and doesn't want or expect most of it back. All they want back is those areas which were captured (read stolen) in 1967." They were not 'stolen'. They were occupied during an armed conflict with the Jordanians and the Egyptians. Israel has always stated that it would be willing to return that land in exchange for peace and the UN resolution bandied about so much, 242, also states that Israel is not obliged to return that land unless a negotiated settlement can be agreed on.
I agree that giving Israel some of the blame for the Palestinians plight is fair but your analysis is again a gross distortion. If Arafat had not instigated the intifada and called for suicide martyrs then the Israelis wouldn't be in all their towns and blockading him. Until the intifada, the Palestinians had more rights and freedom than ever before in their history and that was even before the negotiations had reached their conclusions. It was Arafat who allowed the terrorists freedom of movement to attack Israel from within his PA areas. Until then there was massive trade and movement of labour between the two peoples. I will assume that Abu Ala's threat to resign just one day after being sworn in as PM due to Arafats meddling and underhand attempts to destroy any semblance of a peace process will be conveniently ignored or more likely turned around into some Israeli secret conspiracy?
Swounger
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airno, let's say I have nothing to do with aviation. Does that make my views more or less valid? Your aviation connection certainly doesn't make your point any more or less valid.
Chronic Does stating that I'm a Jew means I'm aggressive? Does stating one is Christian make one aggressive? Or Muslim? Or are only Jews aggressive? No wonder you can't see the truth regarding Israel---it's still run by aggressive Jews! Are you the type that likes Jews only if they passively stand by while they are murdered by their neighbors?
Nils, I am learning how to speak standard Egyptian Arabic, not exactly what you wrote, and your Hebrew is off; PM if you want a lesson. I'm also not quite sure why the linguistic similarities between Arabic and Hebrew mean there are cultural similarities--just look at Israeli cultural and social values vs Arab cultural and social values, say honor killings, to prove your point wrong. As I said, most Christians and Jews would certainly send their children and wives first on the lifeboat, but that's not the Muslim way.
Judaism doesn't necessarily mandate life the way it was in the Bible 2000+ years ago; we have an additional set of laws which govern our daily lives--that's why "an eye for an eye" doesn't mean that in Jewish law. As most people are aware, Judaism does not permit incest; I don't think most Christian denominations do either. Interesting that you didn't know that; perhaps you should pick up a book on the three major religions before you go spouting off on cultures of which you are painfully ignorant.
Who said I hate Arabs? I love the food, the language is fun, so far, and I enjoy visiting their countries. Do I think all Arab terrorists should be disposed of? Yes.
Chronic Does stating that I'm a Jew means I'm aggressive? Does stating one is Christian make one aggressive? Or Muslim? Or are only Jews aggressive? No wonder you can't see the truth regarding Israel---it's still run by aggressive Jews! Are you the type that likes Jews only if they passively stand by while they are murdered by their neighbors?
Nils, I am learning how to speak standard Egyptian Arabic, not exactly what you wrote, and your Hebrew is off; PM if you want a lesson. I'm also not quite sure why the linguistic similarities between Arabic and Hebrew mean there are cultural similarities--just look at Israeli cultural and social values vs Arab cultural and social values, say honor killings, to prove your point wrong. As I said, most Christians and Jews would certainly send their children and wives first on the lifeboat, but that's not the Muslim way.
Judaism doesn't necessarily mandate life the way it was in the Bible 2000+ years ago; we have an additional set of laws which govern our daily lives--that's why "an eye for an eye" doesn't mean that in Jewish law. As most people are aware, Judaism does not permit incest; I don't think most Christian denominations do either. Interesting that you didn't know that; perhaps you should pick up a book on the three major religions before you go spouting off on cultures of which you are painfully ignorant.
Who said I hate Arabs? I love the food, the language is fun, so far, and I enjoy visiting their countries. Do I think all Arab terrorists should be disposed of? Yes.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: World
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bubbette
The Arabic I have been studying is from a book on Jerusalem dialect. I was helped by people from Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Hebron and Jericho. There are a lot of differences, although I found my Arabic worked okay in Jordan when they stopped laughing at my pronunciation. Hebrew is, like Arabic, difficult to phonetically translate because of the lack of written vowels and the fact that letters don't exactly equate. The few Hebrew words I picked up were in a bar in Eilat and my teacher was a Russian emigre. Most Jews I met seemed to speak English with an American or east European accent (although there is an excellent bar in West Jerusalem run by a rugby supporting South African Jewish guy who will point out that it was another Jewish guy who scored the winning points in the Rugby World Cup - guess what's on his TV screen this week).
I know my way around the Bible and I do know about the proscriptions on sexual behaviour, I was trying to have a joke (did you not see the smilie?). I am familiar to varying degrees with all 3 major religions in the ME both as practised in situ and also as practised in the UK.
The cultural similarities exist because many Sephardim live a lifestyle similar to Arabs - as you say the food is excellent and as between the Sephardim and Arabs it is almost identical. Yemeni Jews run the best falafel stalls in Israel having fortuitously brought the recipe with them. North European Jewish food is different because of the materials available (chick peas and tahini were never easy to get in Lithuania).
I'm pleased you don't hate Arabs. Terrorism will cease when the terrorists are isolated and they don't have an excuse to stir up the general populace. This requires that the refugee camps run by UNWRAA are dismantled and their occupants are properly rehoused and settled (onus on the Arab countries). Many of the older people should be allowed to visit their former homes. The settlements should be dismantled, or as an act of generosity, given that 40% of the properties aren't even occupied, given or sold to the Palestinians. Any new Palestinian state should be prepared to accept Jewish residents as equal citizens if they choose to remain in settlements or live elsewhere in Gaza, Samaria and Judaea (ironically the PFLP would accept this as they are secular socialists). UN troops would probably have to help with policing until PA police could be trusted to treat Jewish residents as equals.
If terrorists do commit outrages then only they as individuals should be targeted. Collective punishment of an entire people will give succour to the terrorists. Most terrorist acts are not designed to just to kill Israelis, but to provoke a response. Hamas know that every time an Israeli tank enters Gaza they win because more young people are shot or rounded up. Whilst gunmen are indeed killed so are many innocent people. This keeps the spiral of violence going as more people seek revenge for lost relatives or for humiliations sufferred at the hands of the occupiers.
As I have said before, based on recent experience, there is little hope of peace because what I have suggested is never going to happen.
Exam question:
Useless facts - the average Palestinian woman in a Lebanese refugee camp has 2.4 children; the average Palestinian woman in a Gaza refugee camp has 8+ children. Gaza has no remaining natural water supplies and relies on desalination plants. Over 80% of the poulation of Gaza is unemployed and relies entirely on foreign aid. The majority of Gazans have no passports and cannot leave without Israeli approval. The settlement of Netzarim has only 500 residents; all adults were born in the USA. They have a one mile section of beach allocated to them - the other 1.5 million Gazans have about 12 miles of beach. Netzarim is on land that was not given by G-d or anyone else to the Jews and requires a permanent presence of a battalion of IDF troops. Discuss, with particular emphasis on the affect these facts have on world peace and the Israeli economy.
The Arabic I have been studying is from a book on Jerusalem dialect. I was helped by people from Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Hebron and Jericho. There are a lot of differences, although I found my Arabic worked okay in Jordan when they stopped laughing at my pronunciation. Hebrew is, like Arabic, difficult to phonetically translate because of the lack of written vowels and the fact that letters don't exactly equate. The few Hebrew words I picked up were in a bar in Eilat and my teacher was a Russian emigre. Most Jews I met seemed to speak English with an American or east European accent (although there is an excellent bar in West Jerusalem run by a rugby supporting South African Jewish guy who will point out that it was another Jewish guy who scored the winning points in the Rugby World Cup - guess what's on his TV screen this week).
I know my way around the Bible and I do know about the proscriptions on sexual behaviour, I was trying to have a joke (did you not see the smilie?). I am familiar to varying degrees with all 3 major religions in the ME both as practised in situ and also as practised in the UK.
The cultural similarities exist because many Sephardim live a lifestyle similar to Arabs - as you say the food is excellent and as between the Sephardim and Arabs it is almost identical. Yemeni Jews run the best falafel stalls in Israel having fortuitously brought the recipe with them. North European Jewish food is different because of the materials available (chick peas and tahini were never easy to get in Lithuania).
I'm pleased you don't hate Arabs. Terrorism will cease when the terrorists are isolated and they don't have an excuse to stir up the general populace. This requires that the refugee camps run by UNWRAA are dismantled and their occupants are properly rehoused and settled (onus on the Arab countries). Many of the older people should be allowed to visit their former homes. The settlements should be dismantled, or as an act of generosity, given that 40% of the properties aren't even occupied, given or sold to the Palestinians. Any new Palestinian state should be prepared to accept Jewish residents as equal citizens if they choose to remain in settlements or live elsewhere in Gaza, Samaria and Judaea (ironically the PFLP would accept this as they are secular socialists). UN troops would probably have to help with policing until PA police could be trusted to treat Jewish residents as equals.
If terrorists do commit outrages then only they as individuals should be targeted. Collective punishment of an entire people will give succour to the terrorists. Most terrorist acts are not designed to just to kill Israelis, but to provoke a response. Hamas know that every time an Israeli tank enters Gaza they win because more young people are shot or rounded up. Whilst gunmen are indeed killed so are many innocent people. This keeps the spiral of violence going as more people seek revenge for lost relatives or for humiliations sufferred at the hands of the occupiers.
As I have said before, based on recent experience, there is little hope of peace because what I have suggested is never going to happen.
Exam question:
Useless facts - the average Palestinian woman in a Lebanese refugee camp has 2.4 children; the average Palestinian woman in a Gaza refugee camp has 8+ children. Gaza has no remaining natural water supplies and relies on desalination plants. Over 80% of the poulation of Gaza is unemployed and relies entirely on foreign aid. The majority of Gazans have no passports and cannot leave without Israeli approval. The settlement of Netzarim has only 500 residents; all adults were born in the USA. They have a one mile section of beach allocated to them - the other 1.5 million Gazans have about 12 miles of beach. Netzarim is on land that was not given by G-d or anyone else to the Jews and requires a permanent presence of a battalion of IDF troops. Discuss, with particular emphasis on the affect these facts have on world peace and the Israeli economy.
The most despicable and downright dishonest thing about your post, Danny, is that you ignore much of what I have said in your efforts to portray me as a fanatical PLO supporter, and worse, as an apologist for terrorism. You know that I am neither of those things, and you know that I resent being called either. You have conveniently ignored my expressions of sincere admiration for Jews and Israel, my explicit recognition of Israel’s fundamental right to security, and the fact that I believe that extra territory, concessions, understanding and leeway should be given to Israel in recognition of what has been suffered. (“Again and again I've stated my belief that Israel deserves extra consideration, and that we shouldn't get narrowly legalistic, because of the hostility and aggression it has faced. Otherwise we'd all be saying Israel should withdraw to the 1947 partition plan borders, and not to the 1967 borders. The history of the region since 1945 leads everyone to understand and agree that Israel's security must be ensured, even if that makes any settlement 'unbalanced' in Israel's favour.”)
On the first page of this thread I said:
“I just long for the day when Israel and the Palestinians can reach a just and lasting compromise. The Arabs refused any such compromise for decades, I know, with their refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist, but I genuinely hope and believe that the pre-1967 borders could now form the basis of a lasting and just solution - with a viable Palestinian State and a secure Israel co-existing side by side.
It won't be easy. Hamas and IJ still need to be crushed, while Israel needs to grasp the nettle and abandon its illegal settlements and withdraw to the '67 borders, and to reign back the hawks who espouse war and murder.
Perhaps the patriotism and idealism of these brave blokes will give people pause for thought, though I doubt it. In the wake of the New Year, I pray for a just peace and lasting prosperity for Arab and Jew alike.”
Do you genuinely see any of that as being extremist, anti-semitic, pro-PLO, pro-terrorist rhetoric, Danny?
I have explicitely condemned terror and terrorism again and again (on this thread and others), and have explicitely stated my belief that “There are Palestinian factions who do not want peace with Israel. There are still Palestinians who want to continue the armed struggle to achieve much more ambitious aims. They must be defeated” and that “Military forces are there to kill, and (generally) do so legitimately, whereas terrorist murder (even of serving soldiers) is, in my view, always morally and legally wrong.”
We can surely disagree vehemently with one another without resorting to such deliberately offensive and almost criminally inaccurate smear tactics?
Seventeen distinguished IDF/AF pilots (including highly decorated war heroes), all of whom have given their working lives to defending and strengthening the state of Israel and all of whom “were raised to love the state of Israel and contribute to the Zionist enterprise” have concluded that recent actions were “illegal and immoral, and are a direct result of the ongoing occupation which is corrupting all of Israeli society.”
They have expressed the belief that “Perpetuation of the occupation is fatally harming the security of the state of Israel and its moral strength.” This should alert you to the fact that it is not just the ‘liberals’ who you despise who think that Israel has lost its way, or are you going to smear them as ‘liberals’, mouthpieces for Arafat, and apologists for terrorism, too.
You also accuse me of using “Distorted facts, suppositions and plain old lies”
1) You say that: “The land was not stolen or illegally purchased but of course it suits your propaganda to refer to it as such which is what infuriates me. With regard to the settlements in the West Bank, that's a different issue but of course it suits you and the palestinian propaganda machine to blur any distinction between the two separate points and therefore imply that most of the land that constitutes Israel today was usurped from the previous inhabitants.”
I do not infer that most of the land that constitutes Israel was usurped, only those portions of land which were allocated to the Arabs under the UN partition plan, and those areas in the Jewish areas from which their owners were driven out. Who holds the title to that land now? What compensation was given to the owners? How else can one characterise the change of ownership? In any case, it’s of historical interest only, since the Palestinians have agreed to recognise the pre 1967 borders and have thus made a de facto settlement with regard to the land taken from them in 1948-49. What’s at issue is the land taken by force of arms in 1967.
2) The opinion that "Egypt was desperate for peace and disillusioned with war” is, according to you, a piece of horse manure. Quite aside from the unncecessarily crude, rude and aggressive nature of your response, what else motivated Sadat (who we both admire), and what else allowed him to carry his country with him?
3) The fact that the return of the Sinai was not a “risk to Israel's fundamental security” is self evident. Once peace with Egypt was ensured, and with International oversight, the risk was effectively negated.
4) You say that my “rubbish about "no risk" to Israel’s fundamental security also proves to me that I am a “propagandist for the murdering b@stards who use suicide bombing as an excuse for being oppressed.” How does anything to do with the settlement with Egypt have anything to do with suicide bombers? Where have I ever excused any act of terror?
5) You characterise me as having inferred that while “Egypt was desperate” for peace Israel wasn't. I inferred nothing of the sort, and indeed pointed out the advantages to Israel which flowed from peace with its former enemy. It’s a given that it takes two to make peace.
6) The US Government seems uncomfortable with the routeing of today’s security fence, which is cutting off many Palestinians from their own land and from other parts of their community. If such a fence is necessary, then it must follow the border absolutely, or if required by Israel, then it should be within Israeli territory.
7) The land taken in 1967 has effectively been stolen. Another description could have applied until Israel allowed illegal settlement there, in direct contravention of international agreements. In any case, while you go off on one about the semantics of the phrase, the point was that the Arab side don’t want a return to what was agreed by the UN in 1947 (which would be unreasonable) but just want a viable state following the 1967 borders. I have said, again and again, that this is reasonable and fair ONLY if Israel’s legitimate security can be guaranteed. (I am some apologist for the PLO, aren’t I?)
If this is the treatment you mete out to critical admirers of Israel, god help its enemies, and god help Israel.
My position’s easy to summarise. I just long for the day when the terrorists have been defeated, the Hawks have been discredited and when a viable Palestinian State and a secure Israel can co-exist side by side in friendship and understanding. If that makes me half of the things you accuse me of, then maybe that’s better than being an intransigent, intolerant, narrow-minded, uncompromising and selfish jingoistic war-monger who will not bend an inch in his determination to keep the Arabs in sujugation and misery, and who will not admit to his country making a single error or mistake. Just prove me wrong, Danny.
On the first page of this thread I said:
“I just long for the day when Israel and the Palestinians can reach a just and lasting compromise. The Arabs refused any such compromise for decades, I know, with their refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist, but I genuinely hope and believe that the pre-1967 borders could now form the basis of a lasting and just solution - with a viable Palestinian State and a secure Israel co-existing side by side.
It won't be easy. Hamas and IJ still need to be crushed, while Israel needs to grasp the nettle and abandon its illegal settlements and withdraw to the '67 borders, and to reign back the hawks who espouse war and murder.
Perhaps the patriotism and idealism of these brave blokes will give people pause for thought, though I doubt it. In the wake of the New Year, I pray for a just peace and lasting prosperity for Arab and Jew alike.”
Do you genuinely see any of that as being extremist, anti-semitic, pro-PLO, pro-terrorist rhetoric, Danny?
I have explicitely condemned terror and terrorism again and again (on this thread and others), and have explicitely stated my belief that “There are Palestinian factions who do not want peace with Israel. There are still Palestinians who want to continue the armed struggle to achieve much more ambitious aims. They must be defeated” and that “Military forces are there to kill, and (generally) do so legitimately, whereas terrorist murder (even of serving soldiers) is, in my view, always morally and legally wrong.”
We can surely disagree vehemently with one another without resorting to such deliberately offensive and almost criminally inaccurate smear tactics?
Seventeen distinguished IDF/AF pilots (including highly decorated war heroes), all of whom have given their working lives to defending and strengthening the state of Israel and all of whom “were raised to love the state of Israel and contribute to the Zionist enterprise” have concluded that recent actions were “illegal and immoral, and are a direct result of the ongoing occupation which is corrupting all of Israeli society.”
They have expressed the belief that “Perpetuation of the occupation is fatally harming the security of the state of Israel and its moral strength.” This should alert you to the fact that it is not just the ‘liberals’ who you despise who think that Israel has lost its way, or are you going to smear them as ‘liberals’, mouthpieces for Arafat, and apologists for terrorism, too.
You also accuse me of using “Distorted facts, suppositions and plain old lies”
1) You say that: “The land was not stolen or illegally purchased but of course it suits your propaganda to refer to it as such which is what infuriates me. With regard to the settlements in the West Bank, that's a different issue but of course it suits you and the palestinian propaganda machine to blur any distinction between the two separate points and therefore imply that most of the land that constitutes Israel today was usurped from the previous inhabitants.”
I do not infer that most of the land that constitutes Israel was usurped, only those portions of land which were allocated to the Arabs under the UN partition plan, and those areas in the Jewish areas from which their owners were driven out. Who holds the title to that land now? What compensation was given to the owners? How else can one characterise the change of ownership? In any case, it’s of historical interest only, since the Palestinians have agreed to recognise the pre 1967 borders and have thus made a de facto settlement with regard to the land taken from them in 1948-49. What’s at issue is the land taken by force of arms in 1967.
2) The opinion that "Egypt was desperate for peace and disillusioned with war” is, according to you, a piece of horse manure. Quite aside from the unncecessarily crude, rude and aggressive nature of your response, what else motivated Sadat (who we both admire), and what else allowed him to carry his country with him?
3) The fact that the return of the Sinai was not a “risk to Israel's fundamental security” is self evident. Once peace with Egypt was ensured, and with International oversight, the risk was effectively negated.
4) You say that my “rubbish about "no risk" to Israel’s fundamental security also proves to me that I am a “propagandist for the murdering b@stards who use suicide bombing as an excuse for being oppressed.” How does anything to do with the settlement with Egypt have anything to do with suicide bombers? Where have I ever excused any act of terror?
5) You characterise me as having inferred that while “Egypt was desperate” for peace Israel wasn't. I inferred nothing of the sort, and indeed pointed out the advantages to Israel which flowed from peace with its former enemy. It’s a given that it takes two to make peace.
6) The US Government seems uncomfortable with the routeing of today’s security fence, which is cutting off many Palestinians from their own land and from other parts of their community. If such a fence is necessary, then it must follow the border absolutely, or if required by Israel, then it should be within Israeli territory.
7) The land taken in 1967 has effectively been stolen. Another description could have applied until Israel allowed illegal settlement there, in direct contravention of international agreements. In any case, while you go off on one about the semantics of the phrase, the point was that the Arab side don’t want a return to what was agreed by the UN in 1947 (which would be unreasonable) but just want a viable state following the 1967 borders. I have said, again and again, that this is reasonable and fair ONLY if Israel’s legitimate security can be guaranteed. (I am some apologist for the PLO, aren’t I?)
If this is the treatment you mete out to critical admirers of Israel, god help its enemies, and god help Israel.
My position’s easy to summarise. I just long for the day when the terrorists have been defeated, the Hawks have been discredited and when a viable Palestinian State and a secure Israel can co-exist side by side in friendship and understanding. If that makes me half of the things you accuse me of, then maybe that’s better than being an intransigent, intolerant, narrow-minded, uncompromising and selfish jingoistic war-monger who will not bend an inch in his determination to keep the Arabs in sujugation and misery, and who will not admit to his country making a single error or mistake. Just prove me wrong, Danny.
Swounger
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JN
Big deal--they don't represent either the IAF or the country!
No, that land is not at issue since it was won from Jordan, and Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel. Since very few Arabs were actually driven out (most left voluntarily because their leaders told them to, despite being begged by the jews not to leave), this has nothing to do with the facts of PA terrorism.
You miss the point--the PA doesn't want two states--they want the destruction of Israel. Why is this not clear to you? The PA governs a good portion of what would be its state---yet they continue to kill and mame. Future neighbors don't act like that. And the settlements are in no way illegal, any more than London, Paris, Moscow or Berlin are illegal--their land was all won in wars.
"Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are "illegal." International law scholar Stephen Schwebel notes that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Schwebel also observes that a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory.
According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution. Rostow noted, "allows Israel to administer the territories" it won in 1967 "until 'a just and lasting peace in the Middle East' is achieved," Rostow wrote."
venteen distinguished IDF/AF pilots (including highly decorated war heroes), all of whom have given their working lives to defending and strengthening the state of Israel and all of whom “were raised to love the state of Israel and contribute to the Zionist enterprise” have concluded that recent actions were “illegal and immoral, and are a direct result of the ongoing occupation which is corrupting all of Israeli society.”
I do not infer that most of the land that constitutes Israel was usurped, only those portions of land which were allocated to the Arabs under the UN partition plan, and those areas in the Jewish areas from which their owners were driven out. Who holds the title to that land now? What compensation was given to the owners? How else can one characterise the change of ownership? In any case, it’s of historical interest only, since the Palestinians have agreed to recognise the pre 1967 borders and have thus made a de facto settlement with regard to the land taken from them in 1948-49. What’s at issue is the land taken by force of arms in 1967.
The land taken in 1967 has effectively been stolen. Another description could have applied until Israel allowed illegal settlement there, in direct contravention of international agreements. In any case, while you go off on one about the semantics of the phrase, the point was that the Arab side don’t want a return to what was agreed by the UN in 1947 (which would be unreasonable) but just want a viable state following the 1967 borders. I have said, again and again, that this is reasonable and fair ONLY if Israel’s legitimate security can be guaranteed. (I am some apologist for the PLO, aren’t I?)
"Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are "illegal." International law scholar Stephen Schwebel notes that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Schwebel also observes that a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory.
According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution. Rostow noted, "allows Israel to administer the territories" it won in 1967 "until 'a just and lasting peace in the Middle East' is achieved," Rostow wrote."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As with any thread that involves Israel and the Palestinians, this has turned into a "you are wrong and I am right" thread. It is impossible to tell which one is right because everyone chooses to believe one set of propoganda or news reports (same thing?).
I have to say that the abusive tone used by Bubette (on the verge of racist perhaps) does the Israeli cause no favours. The restrained language of Nils and Jacko lends more credence to the Palestinian cause. But, as to which one is right, God or Allah knows!
Maybe it's time to close this thread and wait for the next round of Israel Vs Palestine to rise from an unrelated topic!
I have to say that the abusive tone used by Bubette (on the verge of racist perhaps) does the Israeli cause no favours. The restrained language of Nils and Jacko lends more credence to the Palestinian cause. But, as to which one is right, God or Allah knows!
Maybe it's time to close this thread and wait for the next round of Israel Vs Palestine to rise from an unrelated topic!
