Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: LePaul on March 01, 2008, 09:38:12 PM
-
Frankly, I find the reporting on this pretty biased.
Israel has rockets lobbed at its citizens for months. They seem to bide their time then strike...get this...the MILITANTS WHO FIRE THEM. Meanwhile, the Hamas thugs run and hide behind non-combatants and decry the retaliation that always manages to nab an innocent.
Today it looks like the Israelis stepped it up a bit and started whacking these guys with the big hammer. But of course, the Palestianians decry how this will hurt the peace process.
And lobbing rockets at Israel 24/7 for weeks wont?
Frankly, this is a part of the world that could really benefit from a few tactical nukes. A nice, glass covered desert that wont be the central drama of all things middle east any more :) (That's humor...just kidding!)
-
I'm surprised Israel hasn't lobbed one or two in there already.
:confused:
-
~ and the vicious cycle continues...
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Frankly, this is a part of the world that could really benefit from a few tactical nukes. A nice, glass covered desert that wont be the central drama of all things middle east any more :) (That's humor...just kidding!)
I agree though.
What do you do with two kids fighting over a ball?
You take the ball away.
Wipe clean the "holy lands" and there is no more ball to fight over
-
Frankly, I find the reporting on this pretty biased.
It always is.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Today it looks like the Israelis stepped it up a bit and started whacking these guys with the big hammer. But of course, the Palestianians decry how this will hurt the peace process.
And lobbing rockets at Israel 24/7 for weeks wont?
Let me update you on this a bit. Israel's retaliation is what Hamas wanted. They were practically begging for it.
The situation is that Hamas leadership is getting desperate. They took over the Gaza strip from the Palestinian authority (PLO affiliated) by force and got stuck. The momentum did not carry to the west bank and so they became an isolated island of an extremist islamic regime. Nobody, not even the neighboring arab nations recognize them as a Palestinian leadership and most of the world refused to deal with them. On their side, they still refuse to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, giving Israel every excuse not to deal with them as well. They are holding a kidnapped Israeli soldier and asking for ridiculous deals for his release - which they actually believed they will get, but so far only received 'get bent' replies. Last week they tried to organize a large popular march toward the Israeli border. It failed miserably - too few people showed up and the foreign camera crews left without taking any 'palestinian suffering and Israeli cruelty' footage.
The 'peace talks' (as idle as they are) scares the crap out of them. They know that if Abas (Abu Mazen) reaches any deal with Israel this is the end of their islamic state and a critical blow to Hamas. What they do now is creating a humanitarian crisis on purpose. Once the number of their dead is high enough, the EU will start demanding 'talks' with Hamas, recognizing them as the true palestinian leaders instead of dealing with Abu Mazen and the PLO guys. In addition, they will appear as the heroes in the eyes of palestinian people, for shooting rockets into Israel and not being destroyed for it (they learned that from Hizballa). They are shooting rockets into Israel, but actually aim for Abas. If you listen closely to their rhetorics, they talk against Israel's brutality, but try to throw mud at Abas as Israel's puppet. They describe Abas as attempting to return to Gaza riding on Israeli tanks.
In addition, their leaders are now scared of being targeted, especially after Imad Mornia, Hizballa #2 man lost his head two weeks ago in Damascus, in "mysterious circumstances". One of their demands for cease fire is that Israel will stop all targeted killings and arrests in the west bank as well (and let them take over that region well).
The Hamas logic is 'the worse the situation is, the better off we are'. This is a classical palestinian tactic of banging their heads against the wall and then crying for help from the world when it hurts. They have "perfected" the use of this method is the past 60 years and still have not learned.
-
Good post.
I recall a few weeks back, the Palestinians were again "offended" that Israel cut off fuel and electricity to them. Again, a response to the rocket attacks.
Slowly, the rest of the world is starting to catch on over there....as to who is really the problem.
The Arab world used to decry their poor Palestinian brothers. Well, they have plenty of room, offer them safehaven in their countries.
Oh wait, then THEY would have to deal with these malcontents.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Frankly, I find the reporting on this pretty biased.
Israel has rockets lobbed at its citizens for months. They seem to bide their time then strike...get this...the MILITANTS WHO FIRE THEM. Meanwhile, the Hamas thugs run and hide behind non-combatants and decry the retaliation that always manages to nab an innocent.
Today it looks like the Israelis stepped it up a bit and started whacking these guys with the big hammer. But of course, the Palestianians decry how this will hurt the peace process.
And lobbing rockets at Israel 24/7 for weeks wont?
Frankly, this is a part of the world that could really benefit from a few tactical nukes. A nice, glass covered desert that wont be the central drama of all things middle east any more :) (That's humor...just kidding!)
You've been watching too much Comminust News Network (CNN) havent you? Or is it News to Benefit Comminusm (NBC)? But hell, that's what you can expect from them. (also known as CLINTON News Network or even News to Benefit CLINTON)
-
*i am bored* (blows something up*
-power gets cut-
*i am offended!*(blows something up)
Wipe clean the "holy lands" and there is no more ball to fight over
You wanna pop there ball?
Have you any idea the crying & whining humanity would have to hear for poping the ball of two children that have been at war for..i lost count of how many years now.
moving right along.
-
Originally posted by mg1942
~ and the vicious cycle continues...
And so it will for all time.
-
too bad bozon's post isn't repeated nightly on the news every time one of them pops their head up .. maybe then the rest of the civilized world would get a clue and treat the hamas scum accordingly.
-
More news from the world's largest outdoor lunatic asylum isn't exactly news. I agree with the sentiment that it will never end. There's just no fixing a problem that originated with one group's invisible friend telling them they can have something that another group's invisible friend said they can have, too.
-
Yes, I find the Gaza Strip to be very offensive...........
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
[B
You wanna pop there ball?
Have you any idea the crying & whining humanity would have to hear for poping the ball of two children that have been at war for..i lost count of how many years now.
moving right along. [/B]
LOL Yup.
You have no idea how much I'd like to pop that ball.
-
yeah....israel really has a lot of nerve in their worldwide plan to dominate arab land.....they practically have the arabs surrounded.....
(http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Islam-Bible/9IslamIsraelBible/Middle-east.jpg)
-
Asides posting moronic comments, why not endeavor to explain your view?
How is Israel trying to expand? Looks to me, the layman, they are simply trying to exist.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Asides posting moronic comments, why not endeavor to explain your view?
How is Israel trying to expand? Looks to me, the layman, they are simply trying to exist.
satire is not your thing, babe.
-
I aint your babe...time to wean thyself of Brokeback Mountain? :)
Seriously...just staying on topic...
-
Originally posted by ZetaNine
yeah....israel really has a lot of nerve in their worldwide plan to dominate arab land.....they practically have the arabs surrounded.....
(http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Islam-Bible/9IslamIsraelBible/Middle-east.jpg)
With the way arabs fight, Israel practically does have them surrounded.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I aint your babe...time to wean thyself of Brokeback Mountain? :)
Seriously...just staying on topic...
I WAS on topic. lemme try remedial BB 101 lingo....... I agree with you.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
How is Israel trying to expand? Looks to me, the layman, they are simply trying to exist.
google "settlement", then dig out some maps and compare the Green Line with the route of The Wall and draw your own conclusions...
-
I say we dust off an nook the site from space....."it's the only way to be sure"
-
How is Israel trying to expand? Looks to me, the layman, they are simply trying to exist.
Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan in 1967. Since then, they have designated over 40% of the West Bank as land reserved for Jewish settlement. They have moved about 400,000 Jewish settlers on to that land, and private land they have illegally seized from the Palestinian owners.
In 1993, when Israel signed the Oslo peace accords with the Palestinians, with the stated aim of ensuring Palestinian territorial integrity and eventually statehood, there were just over 110,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank.
In 2000, when the talks eventually failed, there were 192,000.
There are now about 260,000.
Over the last decade or so, population growth in Israel has averaged 1.8 - 2.8%. Over the same period growth amongst the settlers in the West Bank has varied between 2.9 and 10.5%. On average the settler population is growing at about 3 times the rate of the population in Israel itself.
-
yep, its the mean ole Israelis again .. they just can't leave those peace loving hamas types alone
-
The sad thing is that i find it harder and harder to really care.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan in 1967. Since then, they have designated over 40% of the West Bank as land reserved for Jewish settlement. They have moved about 400,000 Jewish settlers on to that land, and private land they have illegally seized from the Palestinian owners.
In 1993, when Israel signed the Oslo peace accords with the Palestinians, with the stated aim of ensuring Palestinian territorial integrity and eventually statehood, there were just over 110,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank.
In 2000, when the talks eventually failed, there were 192,000.
There are now about 260,000.
Over the last decade or so, population growth in Israel has averaged 1.8 - 2.8%. Over the same period growth amongst the settlers in the West Bank has varied between 2.9 and 10.5%. On average the settler population is growing at about 3 times the rate of the population in Israel itself.
They illegally seized from the palestinians? Wrong. It was owned by jordan. There were no palestinians there. After Israel was attacked by every single country surrounding it (illegally I might add), Israel kicked their asses.
They kept some of the land as punishment for the bull**** wrought upon them by the arabs.
After that Israel has tried every measure available to compromise with the palestinians. Time and time again Israel went out of their way to try to give the palestines what they wanted. But the Palestines don't want anything but the blood of every jew. So they can just go **** themselves for as far as I care. In fact, if I was president, I'd tell Israel to do whatever they wanted.
The palestinians were actually rejects from everybody. All the arab countries around them hate them, but only slightly less than they hate the jews.
But of course, it will always be hard to convince an anti-semitist like you that the jews don't eat the hearts out of innocent palestinian infants.
-
They illegally seized from the palestinians? Wrong. It was owned by jordan.
No, I mean private land owned by individuals. Like you own your own house. Approx a third of the settlements have been built on private land illegally seized from the owners.
There were no palestinians there.
There were quite a few, actually. Even the Israelis have dropped Golda's silly "there are no Palestinians" line.
After Israel was attacked by every single country surrounding it (illegally I might add), Israel kicked their asses.
Well, actually Israel launched the attack against Egypt. But that's a bit beside the point. The vast majority of the Palestinians in the West Bank were not even born when Israel began the military occupation.
After that Israel has tried every measure available to compromise with the palestinians. Time and time again Israel went out of their way to try to give the palestines what they wanted.
Don't be silly. Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza and saw an opportunity to exploit the population for the good of Israel. Here's part of an editorial by Yossi Sarid, who was an Israeli Knesset (parliament) member for most of the 70s and 80s:
Many years ago, before the first intifada, Palestinian acquaintances from Ramallah asked me for help. They wanted permission to put up a cucumber pickling factory in their town. They asked the authorities and received no reply. I promised to help. Why not? They would invest and employ a few dozen people and make a profit. I turned to the Civil Administration and I was also turned away.
"Are you crazy?" they asked me in the administration, "If they put up their factory, our entire pickling industry will go bankrupt." The occupation isn't even ready to give up pickling.
I understood then; how could one not understand the entire colonialist doctrine as it stood on one foot before me. That is colonialism in all its calculated and malicious parasitism
I don't think you'll find many Israelis who will claim with a straight face that Israel tried everything to compromise with the Palestinians.
But the Palestines don't want anything but the blood of every jew.
Every Palestinian wants the blood of every Jew? Don't be silly.
In fact, if I was president, I'd tell Israel to do whatever they wanted.
That's pretty much what Bush has done. The problem for Israel is there is little more they can do. They have pushed the Palestinians to the edge of mass starvation, they have blockaded them, wrecked their economy, killed hundreds in retaliation. It hasn't worked.
It won't work, either. The world community, and the Israelis themselves, are not prepared to see a holocaust in Gaza or the West Bank. Life cannot get much worse for the Palestinians. If the stick fails, then the carrot is all that's left.
But of course, it will always be hard to convince an anti-semitist like you that the jews don't eat the hearts out of innocent palestinian infants.
Doesn't deserve comment.
-
No, it doesn't deserve comment. You've just proved it for me.
-
Abraham (formerly known as Abram) was lead to the area now known as Israel several thousand years ago from the southern portion of what is Iraq.
The Palestinians were there long before the Jews. SO in many ways it is the Jews that have moved into the area after being propped up by the Brits right after WW2.
Now couple that with a long standing hatred of deep water by the people in those areas and you get a small understanding why they all want Israel. It is a fairly well irrigated piece of the world in an area of lots of sand. Israel has been a major thoroughfare for several different empires trying to conquer each other.
-
I don't even know where to BEGIN with this......but lemme start at the beginning....when THE UN formed what is now known as Israel, from land nobody wanted or lived on....there were no such thing as "Palestinians" back then...the term was not invented yet. They lived in Jordan...and did not even want the land until jews moved there and turned the desert into a thriving successful paradise. kinda like vegas...but with less new yorkers.
also...glossing over your Jordan/1967 thing....I see you omitted that the land was "captured" from Jordan....AFTER JORDAN AND SEVERAL OTHER NATIONS ATTACKED ISRAEL...AND LOST.. spoils of war and all that.
the reason it hasn't been all given back just yet is this silly little issue that Palestinians have with sending over children to blow themselves up on Israeli public busses...whodda thunk?
Originally posted by Nashwan
Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan in 1967. Since then, they have designated over 40% of the West Bank as land reserved for Jewish settlement. They have moved about 400,000 Jewish settlers on to that land, and private land they have illegally seized from the Palestinian owners.
In 1993, when Israel signed the Oslo peace accords with the Palestinians, with the stated aim of ensuring Palestinian territorial integrity and eventually statehood, there were just over 110,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank.
In 2000, when the talks eventually failed, there were 192,000.
There are now about 260,000.
Over the last decade or so, population growth in Israel has averaged 1.8 - 2.8%. Over the same period growth amongst the settlers in the West Bank has varied between 2.9 and 10.5%. On average the settler population is growing at about 3 times the rate of the population in Israel itself.
-
an article by larry miller..........spot-on true...and funny as hell.
A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all Americans who still don't get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you really need. Don't thank me. I'm a giver.
Here we go: the Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians.
It's a made up word.
Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention. Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, and there were no "Palestinians" then, and the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the "Palestinians," weeping for their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation." So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are: "Other Arabs From The Same General Area Who Are In Deep Denial About Never Being Able To Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."
I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters."
Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing. No, they don't. They could've had their own country any time in the last thirty years, especially two years ago at Camp David. But if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living. That's no fun.
No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course-that's where the real fun is-but mostly they want Israel.
Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel-or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it-for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on God's Earth, and if you've ever been around God's Earth, you know that's really saying something. It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about the great history and culture of the Muslim MidEast.
Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one. Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it.
And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals. Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea?
Oh, that? We were just kidding.
My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshalling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab state into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents?
Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.
Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations coming up against Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a roomful of supermodels who've just had their drugs taken away. However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of losing moral weight. We've already lost some. After September 11 our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them. Beautiful.
Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint. If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything south of the Mediterranean and east of the Jordan. (Hey, wait a minute, that's actually not such a bad idea... uh, that is, what a horrible thought, yeah, horrible.)
-
well you just proved this Larry Miller guy isnt too smart. which part of that exactly is funny?
-
but lemme start at the beginning....when THE UN formed what is now known as Israel, from land nobody wanted or lived on.
When the UN created their partition plan in 1947, the population of Palestine was about 1.8 million. 1.2 million of those were Arabs, 600,000 Jews.
there were no such thing as "Palestinians" back then...the term was not invented yet.
Britain received a mandate from the League of Nations at the end of WW1 to run Palestine, and create a Jewish homeland. Their first report to the LoN was in 1921. It said, amongst other things:
But as the preliminary work is completed, and as Palestinians possessing the necessary qualities can be chosen and trained to administrative work, it is intended to reduce the number of British and to increase the number of Palestinian officials.
Law classes have been established in Jerusalem, which will enable young Palestinians to qualify as advocates in the local courts.
British and Palestinian, at headquarters and in the districts, in the administrative departments, in the judiciary, in the technical services, in the police--the officials of the Government have displayed a high degree of loyalty and zeal.
And so on. The term "Palestinian" was being used by the British administration at least as early as 1921, more than 45 years before the date you claim it hadn't been invented.
They lived in Jordan...and did not even want the land until jews moved there and turned the desert into a thriving successful paradise. kinda like vegas...but with less new yorkers.
The British did the first modern census of Palestine in 1922. The population then was:
Moslems - 589,177
Jews - 83,790
Christians - 71,464
Others - 7,617
also...glossing over your Jordan/1967 thing....I see you omitted that the land was "captured" from Jordan....AFTER JORDAN AND SEVERAL OTHER NATIONS ATTACKED ISRAEL...AND LOST..
The initial attack was of course by Israel on Egypt.
spoils of war and all that.
No. The world rejected seizing land by force before WW2. We hanged a few Germans for doing that.
What Israel, and most of the rest of the world, including the US, has signed up to is self determination. We don't recognise that people should be born, live and die as subjects of another country.
the reason it hasn't been all given back just yet is this silly little issue that Palestinians have with sending over children to blow themselves up on Israeli public busses...whodda thunk?
Only the land was taken in 1967. The first suicide bombing in Israel was in 1993.
The problem with using terrorism to justify more violence is both sides have a long history of terrorism. In fact, there is no one still alive who was around when the tit for tat killings began.
an article by larry miller..........spot-on true...and funny as hell.
What do you call someone who takes history lessons from a comedian?
-
Palestine is a geographical location, not a race of people. Anyone living in that area are Palestinians, and have been referred to as such from the dawn of history.
It has only been recently that the word was corrupted to make you think that Palestinians were a certain set of people, and that since Palestine is referred to many times throughout history, that the land has always been theirs.
Keep up the jew bashing, you're making it fun for us.
-
Well, actually Israel launched the attack against Egypt. But that's a bit beside the point. The vast majority of the Palestinians in the West Bank were not even born when Israel began the military occupation.
Yes, Israel did attack first. It was however, a preemptive strike. Egypt had already massed 1000 tanks and 100,000 men along the border with Israel. Israel believed they were going to be attacked and attacked first. The best defense is a good offense.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Yes, Israel did attack first. It was however, a preemptive strike. Egypt had already massed 1000 tanks and 100,000 men along the border with Israel. Israel believed they were going to be attacked and attacked first. The best defense is a good offense.
Yep! That's the way I inderstood it also.
Thanx Elfie :aok
Mac
-
Zeta - Why don't you check up on your history while you are at it. Having been a history major while in college with a specialty in Middle Eastern/Roman history you are incorrect. For a quick glance look at the following link.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Palestine
The word Palestine was actually derived from a combination of Greek, Hebrew, and Egyptian words for some of the different people that lived in the area now referred to as Israel.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Yep! That's the way I inderstood it also.
Thanx Elfie :aok
Mac
So many forget, or just plain ignore the fact that it was a preemptive strike and not just unwarranted aggression on the part of Israel. Some ignore it even after it gets pointed out to them in every thread where this comes up.
At the end of May 1967, Jordanian forces were given to the command of an Egyptian General Abdul Munim Riad. On the same day, Nasser proclaimed: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations.
-
My simplest explanation to any who disbelieves israel's right to exsist is that look at the facts the religion of islam was only established in 70 ad it is quite literally impossible therefor for the jews to have no cliam to this land, nor was it "stolen". Jews have been living in the land of israel for thousands of years before the establishment of islam. (random fact)Did you know that the palestinians took there name from the phillistine empire? A nation with no connection to these people.
Nashwan Israel did sieze these terrotories yes, but to manipulate the citizens....why? i wouldnt see purpose or means here, give me evidence. Do you know that palestines where diffused among the arab world in 48 after the Arabs attacked FIRST after DENYING the partition plane set up by the UN? King abdullah of jordan even went so far as to attack these poeple with jets and killed somewhere in the tens of thousands of them. These people are unwanted by all nations even there own supposed "arab brothers". Yet when provided territory they screw themselves over by declaring jihad, spitting rockets on sederot and ashquelon and blowing up cafes and busses. The palestinain deserve to be portrayed in a different light not the poor nation being raped and pilaged by the evil israeli motherland, and although is israel has made numerous mistakes in dealing with them IMO there is no perfect way to deal with a self harming population.
.02
Freez
-
Originally posted by bozon
Let me update you on this a bit. Israel's retaliation is what Hamas wanted. They were practically begging for it.
The situation is that Hamas leadership is getting desperate. They took over the Gaza strip from the Palestinian authority (PLO affiliated) by force and got stuck. The momentum did not carry to the west bank and so they became an isolated island of an extremist islamic regime. Nobody, not even the neighboring arab nations recognize them as a Palestinian leadership and most of the world refused to deal with them. On their side, they still refuse to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, giving Israel every excuse not to deal with them as well. They are holding a kidnapped Israeli soldier and asking for ridiculous deals for his release - which they actually believed they will get, but so far only received 'get bent' replies. Last week they tried to organize a large popular march toward the Israeli border. It failed miserably - too few people showed up and the foreign camera crews left without taking any 'palestinian suffering and Israeli cruelty' footage.
The 'peace talks' (as idle as they are) scares the crap out of them. They know that if Abas (Abu Mazen) reaches any deal with Israel this is the end of their islamic state and a critical blow to Hamas. What they do now is creating a humanitarian crisis on purpose. Once the number of their dead is high enough, the EU will start demanding 'talks' with Hamas, recognizing them as the true palestinian leaders instead of dealing with Abu Mazen and the PLO guys. In addition, they will appear as the heroes in the eyes of palestinian people, for shooting rockets into Israel and not being destroyed for it (they learned that from Hizballa). They are shooting rockets into Israel, but actually aim for Abas. If you listen closely to their rhetorics, they talk against Israel's brutality, but try to throw mud at Abas as Israel's puppet. They describe Abas as attempting to return to Gaza riding on Israeli tanks.
In addition, their leaders are now scared of being targeted, especially after Imad Mornia, Hizballa #2 man lost his head two weeks ago in Damascus, in "mysterious circumstances". One of their demands for cease fire is that Israel will stop all targeted killings and arrests in the west bank as well (and let them take over that region well).
The Hamas logic is 'the worse the situation is, the better off we are'. This is a classical palestinian tactic of banging their heads against the wall and then crying for help from the world when it hurts. They have "perfected" the use of this method is the past 60 years and still have not learned.
Dont forget that hamas denies fuel and food to the palestinian poeple to make thier "plight" seem more harsh. Like a few weeks ago when hamas siezed humanitarian shipments of bread and "failed to distribute them".
-
Originally posted by ZetaNine
I don't even know where to BEGIN with this......but lemme start at the beginning....when THE UN formed what is now known as Israel, from land nobody wanted or lived on....there were no such thing as "Palestinians" back then...the term was not invented yet.
That is blatently untrue.
If that is the case then why was my mother and all 4 of my uncles taught in the early to mid 1940s in geography about Palastine?
-
I'd say the Romans were around just slightly before the UN was formed.
by a couple of years anyway. LOL
"Palestine is a historic region in southwestern Asia. It is situated at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea and forms part of the larger region known as the Middle East. Strategically located at a crossroads between East and West and near where Africa and Asia meet, Palestine has been the site of countless invasions and movements of peoples. It is, moreover, the land of the Bible and is considered holy by three major religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Few regions of such relatively small size have been so bitterly fought over through the centuries.
The word "Palestine" comes from "Philistine," the name for one of its early peoples. The Roman province in this region was known as Syria Palestina . Palestine's boundaries have varied widely over its long history. Although it once extended over a wider area, it is generally thought of today as the geographical region extending from the Sinai Peninsula on the south to Lebanon and Syria on the north and from the Mediterranean Sea on the west to the Jordan River and the Dead Sea on the east."
http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=5904
">In A.D. 135 : The Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem. They named the area Palaestina , at about this time. Palestine was governed by the Roman Empire until the fourth century A.D. (300's) and then by the Byzantine Empire."
http://www.cirs-tm.org/Pays/CadreENG.php?pays=Israel
-
Originally posted by evenhaim
(random fact)Did you know that the palestinians took there name from the phillistine empire? A nation with no connection to these people.
lol dred
-
Originally posted by evenhaim
My simplest explanation to any who disbelieves israel's right to exsist is that look at the facts the religion of islam was only established in 70 ad it is quite literally impossible therefor for the jews to have no cliam to this land, nor was it "stolen". Jews have been living in the land of israel for thousands of years before the establishment of islam. (random fact)Did you know that the palestinians took there name from the phillistine empire? A nation with no connection to these people.
Nashwan Israel did sieze these terrotories yes, but to manipulate the citizens....why? i wouldnt see purpose or means here, give me evidence. Do you know that palestines where diffused among the arab world in 48 after the Arabs attacked FIRST after DENYING the partition plane set up by the UN? King abdullah of jordan even went so far as to attack these poeple with jets and killed somewhere in the tens of thousands of them. These people are unwanted by all nations even there own supposed "arab brothers". Yet when provided territory they screw themselves over by declaring jihad, spitting rockets on sederot and ashquelon and blowing up cafes and busses. The palestinain deserve to be portrayed in a different light not the poor nation being raped and pilaged by the evil israeli motherland, and although is israel has made numerous mistakes in dealing with them IMO there is no perfect way to deal with a self harming population.
.02
Freez
">Palestine has been settled continuously for tens of thousands of years. Fossil remains have been found of Homo Erectus, Neanderthal and transitional types between Neanderthal and modern man.
>About 2000 B.C. : Amorites, Canaanites, and other Semitic peoples related to the Phoenicians of Tyre entered the area, which became known as the Land of Canaan.
>King David conquered Jerusalem about 1000 B.C. and established an Israelite kingdom over much of Canaan including parts of Transjordan. The kingdom was divided into Judea in the south and Israel in the north following the death of David's son, Solomon.
>722 B.C. : The Assyrians conquered Israel.
>Around 586 B.C. : The Babylonians conquered Judah, destroyed Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, and exiled a large number of Jews.
>About 61 B.C. : The land came under Roman control. The Romans called the area Judea.
>In A.D. 135 : The Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem. They named the area Palaestina, at about this time. Palestine was governed by the Roman Empire until the fourth century A.D. (300's) and then by the Byzantine Empire.
>During the seventh century (A.D. 600's), Muslim Arab armies moved north from Arabia to conquer most of the Middle East, including Palestine. Jerusalem was conquered about 638 by the Caliph Umar (Omar) who gave his protection to its inhabitants. Muslim powers controlled the region until the early 1900's. Most of the local population gradually accepted Islam and the Arab-Islamic culture of their rulers. '
They conquered it. then were conquered themselves and lost it for over 1000 years before it was given to them.
Maybe we should give the american indians New York back too.
Hmm actually I kinda like that idea:p
-
Originally posted by Elfie
So many forget, or just plain ignore the fact that it was a preemptive strike and not just unwarranted aggression on the part of Israel. Some ignore it even after it gets pointed out to them in every thread where this comes up.
I fail to see the difference between an attack and a preemptive attack.
I mean is that really different when you have a bomb coming your way ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
I fail to see the difference between an attack and a preemptive attack.
I mean is that really different when you have a bomb coming your way ?
i believe its obvious... in a preemtive attack you strike first in order to defend yourslef whereas an attack is an attack.
If your being premtivly attacked and a bomb is heading your way its your fualt most of the time.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I fail to see the difference between an attack and a preemptive attack.
I mean is that really different when you have a bomb coming your way ?
A preemptive strike or attack is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending war.
In the case of the 6 Day War, war was coming and the Israeli's could have either sat back and waited for it, or struck first. History tells us which they chose. In the case of the 6 Day War, it makes no difference who struck the first blow in regards to whether or not there was going to be a war. War was inevitable in this case.
No, it really makes no difference to the soldiers on the ground when the bullets are flying. It's more of a political thing.
In the case of the 6 Day War I do believe it has been documented that the Arabs were in fact planning to attack Israel. In that case, the preemptive strike is justified.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I fail to see the difference between an attack and a preemptive attack.
If a man is walking up to your door with a can of gas and a lit match, do you...
A. Stop him before he gets to your door.
B. Try and put out the fire after your house is ablaze?
-
Yes, Israel did attack first. It was however, a preemptive strike. Egypt had already massed 1000 tanks and 100,000 men along the border with Israel. Israel believed they were going to be attacked and attacked first. The best defense is a good offense.
That's not quite the position. Both Israel and Egypt were rattling their sabres. But as Menachem Begin said afterwards:
"In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.
This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.
We did not do this for lack of an alternative. We could have gone on waiting. We could have sent the army home. Who knows if there would have been an attack against us? There is no proof of it. There are several arguments to the contrary.
Or Ezer Weizman, then head of the IAF, who said the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was justified so that Israel could :
exist according to the scale, spirit and quality she now embodies
So many forget, or just plain ignore the fact that it was a preemptive strike and not just unwarranted aggression on the part of Israel.
The truth is it was a bit of both. Israel and Egypt were both squaring up for a fight. Portraying one side as the aggressor and the other the victim is wrong.
My simplest explanation to any who disbelieves israel's right to exsist is that look at the facts the religion of islam was only established in 70 ad it is quite literally impossible therefor for the jews to have no cliam to this land, nor was it "stolen". Jews have been living in the land of israel for thousands of years before the establishment of islam. (random fact)Did you know that the palestinians took there name from the phillistine empire? A nation with no connection to these people.
I don't think anyone is denying Israel's right to exist. Merely disputing whether it's policy towards the Palestinians is either just or even beneficial for Israelis.
Nashwan Israel did sieze these terrotories yes, but to manipulate the citizens....why?
I don't think they seized them to manipulate the Palestinians. Let's face it, to the Israelis the Palestinians are an inconvenience. They would much rather they didn't exist.
I think Israel seized the West Bank because it is part of historic Israel, because it gave them land to expand in to, and because it gave them access to more water supplies.
The point about the Palestinians was in answer to the claim the Israelis have always tried to give the Palestinians what they want. Palestinians have come pretty far down Israel's list of priorities.
Do you know that palestines where diffused among the arab world in 48 after the Arabs attacked FIRST after DENYING the partition plane set up by the UN?
Can you tell me what the "first" attack was? Because whatever you pick as the "start", I will show you an Israeli attack before that, and a Palestinian attack before that, and an Israeli attack, and a Palestinian attack, and so on back to where the records peter out.
The simple fact is the UN gave away land to Israel that already had a Palestinian population. You wouldn't accept the UN giving away your town, would you? I know I wouldn't, and I'm pretty sure the "cold, dead hands" Americans in this topic wouldn't agree to the UN giving a bunch of immigrants part of America to set up their state.
The sad part is the Jews deserved a state, but the Palestinians didn't deserve to have their land taken away. What you ended up with is white Europeans (which includes Americans) first persecuting the Jews, then taking land off the Arabs to recompense the Jews.
It's not hard to see why that annoyed the Arabs.
King abdullah of jordan even went so far as to attack these poeple with jets and killed somewhere in the tens of thousands of them. These people are unwanted by all nations even there own supposed "arab brothers".
Which just goes to prove how much they need their own territory.
Yet when provided territory they screw themselves over by declaring jihad, spitting rockets on sederot and ashquelon and blowing up cafes and busses.
When were they provided territory? Israel might have redeployed troops out of Gaza, but they kept up control of all movement in and out, and proceeded to impose a blockade that further wrecked the Gaza economy.
Look at what happened to the Greenhouses bought to provide an income for Gaza. They lasted until May 2006, finally driven out of business because they could never get their goods through the Karni crossing.
Israel redeployed troops and settlers, but it has not relinquished control over Gaza.
The palestinain deserve to be portrayed in a different light not the poor nation being raped and pilaged by the evil israeli motherland, and although is israel has made numerous mistakes in dealing with them IMO there is no perfect way to deal with a self harming population.
The truth is the Palestinians are both. Yes they engage in terrorism, but yes they are pillaged by Israel. And it's been going on, with so many wrongs on both sides, that you cannot with any justification point to one side and say "they started it".
Israel is not going to run the West Bank and Gaza for the sake of the Palestinians. The Palestinians are not prepared to continue under Israeli rule. The only way out of this situation is negotiation of final status and separation.
Sadly both sides seem to think there is a military solution, and that a few more rockets/bombs/shells will solve the situation in their favour.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
If a man is walking up to your door with a can of gas and a lit match, do you...
A. Stop him before he gets to your door.
B. Try and put out the fire after your house is ablaze?
That's a good analogy Bronk. :)
Some infos on events leading up to the 6 Day War, pretty general in scope, but still accurate.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/intel67.html
-
Originally posted by Reschke
The Palestinians were there long before the Jews.
In the 5th century BC, the Greek historian and geographer Herodotus wrote in Greek of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinę, from which Latin: Palaestina and Palestine are derived.
Prior to this time the people known as Philistines lived there. (these are the people whom Sampson slew with the jawbone of an prettythang)
The ethnic origin of the Philistines is in some doubt, some say they were Greek speakers.
So no Palestinian existed before 5th century BC, well after the Jews established ancient Israel having arrived in Canaan about 1300 BC.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
Zeta - Why don't you check up on your history while you are at it. Having been a history major while in college with a specialty in Middle Eastern/Roman history you are incorrect. For a quick glance look at the following link.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Palestine
The word Palestine was actually derived from a combination of Greek, Hebrew, and Egyptian words for some of the different people that lived in the area now referred to as Israel.
only if you promise to check up on your reading comprehension skills...
I was not debating the origin of the word....nor the area....I was making fun of the fact that the bulk of them did not call themselves that until Israel was created.......and successful....and suddenly we had millions of homeless Palestinians ...
they had their opportunity...and their leader said "no thanks". Israel aint' going nowhere..... look at a map.... as miller said... a matchbook on a football field...and all they want it to be left alone and continue to prosper.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I fail to see the difference between an attack and a preemptive attack.
I mean is that really different when you have a bomb coming your way ?
The difference is that Israel was not sure it will prevail. 1967 was not that long ago. There are lots of people who remember the "waiting period" before the war and I have many relatives who fought it.
Israel was just 19 years old. It survived the independence war mostly because the arabs were un-organized armies and gangs, except for the Jordanian legion who were excellent soldiers (and this is why part of Jerusalem was not taken by Israel in 1948). In the Suez crisis (1956) Israel fought just Egypt with the support of Britain and France (two colonial empires who have the smallest moral right for any criticism). But in 1967 Israel was facing an arab coalition of regular armies on 3 fronts (4 if you count Lebanon that had a very small part) and no land bridge to any friendly territory.
Israeli moral was low. Very low. Prime minister Levi Eshkol gave a famous horrible speech in which he stammered and lowered moral even more. A common bitter joke at the time was to remind each other "that the last one should remember to turn off the lights". This was a key factor in the decision to not wait any longer and strike first, before the war is lost without even beginning. This is far removed from any "expansion ambitions".
By the way, the decision to take the Golan Heights (a few days into the war) was made due to the Syrians shelling Israeli Kibuts and towns below with artillery on daily basis for years before that. Israel was keeping restraint all this time in order not to start a full scale war.
Sounds familiar?
-
In any case, history is irrelevant. It cannot be changed and there is no such thing as historical justice.
If there was or there wasn't a Palestinian "nation" is irrelevant. There is a group of people who call themselves such TODAY. They do deserve some kind of a solution and not live as so called "refugees", but as citizens. There is a large majority in Israel in support of a Palestinian state. Its borders are pretty much clear for everyone except for the small area in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Not that Israel is acting very smartly, but the Palestinians acting like idiots does not help their cause. I despise those that yell for help but would not help themselves.
-
They do deserve some kind of a solution and not live as so called "refugees", but as citizens.
They were offered a solution in 1947 by the UN and rejected it. They have rejected all offers of a solution. They want what they can't have.
-
You misread me I think.
Originally posted by Bronk
If a man is walking up to your door with a can of gas and a lit match, do you...
A. Stop him before he gets to your door.
B. Try and put out the fire after your house is ablaze?
A better analogy (IMO of course) would be :
your neighbour is playing with matches and a can of gas do you :
A: stop him before he leave his property.
B: stop him when he get to you door
what will a judge think of it ?
-
Very true. The last thing the Israelis wanted in '67 was a 2 front, or even 3 front, war. Another fallacy is that the Syrians gave up easily. The reality is that many Syrian units fought to the death and the Jews won the Golan out of sheer bravery and audacity.
In the end they had a 3 front war but offensive action against the Jordanian forces, and the Syrians, didn't start until the Egyptian front was stabilized. It also didn't hurt that the Syrian air force was destroyed on the ground almost as severely as Egypts was.
Its a stretch to say the shelling is what prompted the attack on the Golan. First off much of Israels leadership was opposed to the attack because they feared it would be to costly. Lastly the main motivation was to grab the heights before the war ended. It was/is that big a strategic prize.
And not just of military value but possession of the Golan gives Israel control of much of the regions water. Which btw is the most important resource IN the region.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
I don't think anyone is denying Israel's right to exist. Merely disputing whether it's policy towards the Palestinians is either just or even beneficial for Israelis.
qft
-
Originally posted by straffo
You misread me I think.
A better analogy (IMO of course) would be :
your neighbour is playing with matches and a can of gas do you :
A: stop him before he leave his property.
B: stop him when he get to you door
what will a judge think of it ?
even better:
replace the can of gas with a few thousand lit Molotov cocktails ..
do you wait until he throws them at you?
-
Originally posted by straffo
You misread me I think.
A better analogy (IMO of course) would be :
your neighbour is playing with matches and a can of gas do you :
A: stop him before he leave his property.
B: stop him when he get to you door
what will a judge think of it ?
Straffo They moved troops to the border. They didn't play war games in the middle of their country did they?
-
Bronk , I was just pointing the obvious , pre-emptive or not Israel was the aggressor
Note , that I've not posted my opinion about that :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Bronk , I was just pointing the obvious , pre-emptive or not Israel was the aggressor
Note , that I've not posted my opinion about that :)
:aok
-
I think Nashwan and Bozon are covering any point I could make :)
I sympathize with the Palestinians in that the creation of the state of Israel came at their expense with more than a little help from the West. As a non religious person I can't buy the divine right argument. An interesting though is what if the European Zionists at the end of the 19th century had decided to work to found the new state of Israel in Argentina as had been proposed.
But, it's a bit hypocritical to be too outraged given our history and that of most of the Western world and Eastern world, for that matter. The reality on the ground today is that both Israel and the Palestinians exist and are here to stay regardless of "what ifs" and "fairness" and "wouldn't it be nice" and "should have beens."
Imagine the upside to both if they could find a practical, and emotionally acceptable way to make a new, perhaps even cooperative future together. But, you wonder if the hate, propaganda, religious fever, greed, envy, internal politics and outside influences can be worked through. A lot of challenges, but I suppose all that needs to happen for now is a basically acceptable and somewhat fair framework to build upon for decades to come.
Bozon, what is the political and public will in Israel today post Sharon relative to a Palestinian state and the West bank settlement issues? I must admit I haven't been paying too much attention to that lately.
Charon
-
Originally posted by straffo
I fail to see the difference between an attack and a preemptive attack.
I mean is that really different when you have a bomb coming your way ?
Sorry, but that makes about as much sense as a legally armed citizen saying "I'll wait until this armed robber pointing a gun at me shoots before I defend myself".
-
Originally posted by straffo
Bronk , I was just pointing the obvious , pre-emptive or not Israel was the aggressor
Note , that I've not posted my opinion about that :)
Launching a preemptive strike does not necessarily make the attacker the aggressor imo. We have to look at all the facts surrounding the case to determine who was the aggressor in each case.
In the case of the 6 Day War, I think it's clear that the Arabs, led by Egypt were going to attack Israel. Also, the Syrians had been shelling Israeli towns from the Golan Heights for some time prior to full scale hostilities breaking out. Egypt had blockaded the Straits of Tiran, a vital supply line for Israel, stopping all Israeli flagged vessels from entering.
Just how long do you have to accept artillery shelling your towns, enemy armies massing tanks and troops on your borders and blockades of your vital supply lines before you can claim self defense?
-
How long do you have to accept some other country is occupying land belonging to you, forcing you to move out from the land you, and your forefathers, have been living for hundreds of years?
When is it justified to arm yourself and start a war against aggressor?
-
Originally posted by Brownshirt
How long do you have to accept some other country is occupying land belonging to you, forcing you to move out from the land you, and your forefathers, have been living for hundreds of years?
When is it justified to arm yourself and start a war against aggressor?
:huh
-
Originally posted by Brownshirt
How long do you have to accept some other country is occupying land belonging to you, forcing you to move out from the land you, and your forefathers, have been living for hundreds of years?
When is it justified to arm yourself and start a war against aggressor?
Uh.....what are you talking about?
-
You'll have to forgive brownshirt... he's our trollbot V2.03
Sometimes his posts are a little out there, we're working on it. :)
-
Originally posted by Charon
Bozon, what is the political and public will in Israel today post Sharon relative to a Palestinian state and the West bank settlement issues? I must admit I haven't been paying too much attention to that lately.
Since the 90s, there is a majority who is in favor of a Palestinian state "based" on 1948 lines - these were not borders mind you as not a single arab state recognized them, but cease fire lines, just as 1967 lines were cease fire lines. Nothing is holy about them and some minor corrections (scale of hundred of meters) may be required. How big the majority is depends on the specific details of the Palestinian state.
The only real issue regarding territory which is highly debated among Israeli public is the area of Jerusalem. This is a sensitive and loaded issue, but essentially a technical one that can be solved in negotiations. The religious sensitive issue is the old city of Jerusalem, but we are talking of a well defined and confined area of 1 square kilometer that carry significance to 3rd parties as well (add the Cristian world into the equation). There are many reasonable suggestions of how to handle this 1 square km (have you every heard of a vertical border? :) ).
Unless Palestinians demand more than 1948 borders this is not what will stop them from getting a state. Actually, one Kneset member when he wants to annoy the Israeli arab public suggests to be even more generous and give the palestinian state even more territory that include large concentrations of Israeli arabs. This always embarrasses them since they have to explain why they consider themselves as Palestinians, support a Palestinian state, yet passionately claim that they should belong to Israel and not Palestine.
Israel has already proved twice that when it decides to move settlers out of a region, it is capable of doing so (evacuation of Sini peninsula and the Gaza strip). There is some hypocrisy in the Palestinian demand that all Israeli settlers be evacuated from the west bank. What they demand is that the Palestinian state will be completely cleared of Jews, which is about as racist demand as you can make. Imagine a Europian country demanding that all people of certain ethnicity leave because they have a state somewhere else in the world - and just to be clear again, this is not illegal settlement on occupied territory (unless on private land) because Israel had not borders before that and there is no other state that can legally claim this land. What they claim in practice is that between Jordan river and the Mediterranean there should be two states: 1.5 for Palestinians and 0.5 for Jews. However, for all practical reasons, Israel is willing and has the proved ability to evacuate settlers.
The much bigger problem and the central issue as far as Israel is concerned is what KIND of state this Palestine will be - not its borders. Palestinians will have to convince Israeli public that they can ensure quiet borders and that they are not about to become an Islamic extremist country that will be used as a base for attacking Israel. So far they only managed to convince the exact opposite and THIS is why they are in the piss poor state that they are in. Israeli public, even those that support the palestinian state idea simply do not trust them. Very few people believe that if they get a state today this will not explode in our faces. The withdrawal from the Gaza strip and the 4500+ rockets fired at Israeli from there since then, Hamas taking over with support of Iran and Hizballa and the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier annihilated almost all practical support of Israeli public of a Palestinian state in the present. This is how Palestinians keep shooting their own foot and why although supported by Israeli public majority, they get zero sympathy from it.
-
Thanks Bozon,
I always appreciate your perspective on the issue as reasoned and level headed.
(have you every heard of a vertical border? Smiley ).
No, but I might assume that given the archaeological nature of the holy sites you could, say, have a Mosque on the surface under Palestinian control and a temple underneath under Israeli control.
Charon
-
another suicide attack just occured in jerusalem 8 killed and 57 injured gunmen run into an area near a religous school and open fire, great another example of intelligent hamas reasoning.