Israeli Dies As Retribution For Israel's Terrorism

[MORON]

This whole who is the aggressor crap means NOTHING in something so complex (that it can fuel debates forever....)

Its like two little children fighting for a piece of toy, and when the fight is broken up by adults, the typical "he did it first" excuse.

Indeed, I think I'm seeing people being so stuck in the whoever is aggressor and fail to see reality in the whole light. All information only adds to their own biased view point as their perception automaticly distorts what they see.

Its funny when one can cover thousands of people and dozens of motivations with one statement.

Any intelligent person can see that, which is why I keep saying that Israel does not want peace.

If Israel doesn't want peace, why don't they just drive the Pals into Jorden or something. They can do it.

Everyone wants peace in the end, just on their terms. In that sense, it is the Pals that doesn't wants peace with the current state.

The fact that they never attack their hosts in other countries, like Lebanon and Syria, despite the discrimination they face there, suggests to me that their terrorism isn't born of desperation.

Its not their homeland and the main target of struggle....

We can see similar movements all over the Arab world.

Life there is hardly utopian. Oppression, corruption, proverty and other good stuff happen there.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Dino: ?

Chris explained for me.

[CyberGnu]

The fact that they never attack their hosts in other countries, like Lebanon and Syria, despite the discrimination they face there, suggests to me that their terrorism isn't born of desperation.

Well, last time I checked, neither Lebanon or Syria is occupying their land.

We can see similar movements all over the Arab world. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the FIS in Algeria, the Mojahadeen Khalq in Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan. These nations have no refugee camps. They just have a problem with Islamic and nationalist extremists.

Except that they are not 'similar movements'. The french resistance was not a 'similar movement' to the RAF. The first was dedicated to defeat an occupier of their land, the second to advance their own political goals at the expense of their countrymen.

That's absurd, and by that logic, America does not want peace.

The extensive explanation that the attack on the WTC and the Palestinian fight for freedom aren't comparable just passed you by, didn't it? Would the term 'memory like a goldfish' mean anything?

Nevertheless, I have repeatedly argued that bombing afganistan won't make the U.S. a safer place. It might give a false sense of security to a lot of americans, which might be a good thing, until the next thing happens. Here, as well, we need to treat the cause of the disease, not the symptoms.

What you are advocating is called "giving in to terrorism" and is generally considered a bad strategy.

No, it is considered 'doing what is right, as well as expedient'.

Examples of terrorist movements put down by force abound. The Muslim Brotherhood accross the Arab world, various nationalist militias in the USSR, the Communists in Malaya, the Boers in South Africa, and countless others.

The MB and the Malayan Communists are covered by the previous answer. The majority of the nationalist militias in the USSR got exactly what they wanted - freedom. And behold: It actually stopped the violence. There are no Estonian militant groups operating in Russia. There is no need. The terrorism that Russia is facing coems from islamic extremists in former soviet states, and I never quite understood why they are fighting Russia. But despite a lenghty war, the violence hasn;t abated... Only inflamed neighbouring muslim countries to support the fighting parties. Finally, the Boers... I don't know where you got that from... The boers attacked the british, and after initial victories were driven back. At that time they went over to guerilla warfare. They eventually capitulated, and resistance was over.

You've done nothing to address my point that you reject the "the people wanted independence" argument when it comes to Israel, 1947.

Because I haven;t rejected any people wanting independence. I have, however, rejected an unfair partitioning of the available land, not to mention the use of zoning practises to thwart the democratic process.

Since you apparently doesn't know what zoning is, let me try to explain.

Let's say you have 1000 people living in an area. 700 of the people are 'A', 300 are 'B'. If we divide the land they live on in a random grid of 100 areas with 10 people in each area, we would end up with 4.6% of the areas having a majority of 'B' people, 10.3% of the areas having 5 each and the remaining areas having a majority of 'A' people.

This in itself is not exactly fair, as 30% of the population will only get ~10% of the votes. This is how the american system works.

However, in an attempt to fix this problem the U.S. introduced 'zoning'. If you redraw the areas so that 30% of the areas have a majority of 'B' people, you actually get a representative vote. This is a good idea in theory. (although, one can argue if you can have a good idea to fix a system that is fundamentally flawed in the first place... Or whether the only truly good idea would be to abolish it... But I digress).

You could, however, redraw the areas so that in each area there are six 'B' people and four 'A' people, or ten 'A' people. 300/6=50. All of a sudden, 50 of the areas have a majority of 'A' people and 50 of the areas have a majority of 'B' people, even though the 'B' people only make up 30% of the population. This is as bad as the first scenario. Nevertheless, this is widely used in the U.S., by both parties. Look through last weeks news about changes in the Utah zoning, for example....

And this is what happened in Palestine when they partitioned it. (Even the figures fit almost exactly. 30% of the population was jewish, and they ended up with 50% of the land.) Note that in the areas allocated to Israel, there is a 55/45 split in jewish/arab ethnicity. In the areas allocated to the arabs, there is a 5/95 split.

The partitioning of palestine should be a textbook case for how a 'first past the poll' system can be used to fake a democratic decision by a minority... Right next to the 2000 presidental election.

So, while I think a democratic decision is the absolutely best solution, this is far from what actually happened. A true democratic decision would have resulted in the jews getting AT MOST 30% of the area, and more likely 10-15% (since the distribution of A vs. B isn't random in the real case, we'd expect more clustering of groups).

Or Gush Etzion, 2001

?

But even those born in kuwait were not given any rights. Citizenship was (and remains) hereditary.

Yes, that is up to the citizens to decide, and for the 'guestworkers' to judge whether they feel it is worth it.

It's a simple economic vs. quality of life question.

If I go, I'll make more money, but I'll be a permanent gues in the country. If I don't go, I won't make any money, but I'll be a citizen.

I have made the first choice, and it doesn't bother me.

And because of this, the Jews couldn't have a state of their own? I mean, the population of Iraq and Kuwait combined was even more slanted towards the Iraqis favor . . .

I think this is covered by the zoning explanation.

So if genocide is motivated by political rage, it's okay?

?

Doesn't really make a difference. The Israeli treatment of palestinian falls under three out of five criteria of genocide. As I've said so many times, it is a question of degree, not in kind...


What?

genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group, (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Israel is guilty of a - c.

Palestinian violence aimed at killing as many Jews as possible and ending Israeli presence in region. See: Fatah constitution, Palestinian public opinion polls (bir zeit university) Hamas charter, etc.

Again, you refuse to accept how reality works.

No country has gone to war under the slogan 'let's punish them a little bit'. However, that is usually what eventually happens. See Iraq, for example.

Of course Fatah calls for the destruction of Israel. You are occupying their land. What do you expect them to do?

But if you leave their land, the palestinian people are prepared to live in peace. The very fact that the first intifada ended with promises of negotiation should tell you that much.

I guess this is symptomatic of your entire view of the conflict... You just haven't developed the ability to separate propaganda from reality. Hopefully it will come when you get older, but not too late in your life for you to change your mind...

If peace means Fatah oppression. The fatah constitution gives the movement's supporters the right to Palestinian land.

?

So what? The South fought to be free in the Civil War, I guess they must be okay too.

The jury is still out on that one. On one hand, yes, the civil war was about independce from the federal goverment. If that was the whole story, the war would have been unjust.

There were, however, about 3 million blacks who weren't given a voice in the decision. If you count their votes to the white southerners who opposed cessation, I think you'd get more than 50%... But I'm not an expert on american 19'th century history.

The French resistance wasn't great because it fought to establish the independence of one geographical area from a foriegn state - in that regard, it is no different from the Irgun, the IRA, and a million other organizations. It was great because it fought against the evil Nazis.

That is actually one of the dumbest things I've ever heard... the french were well treated by the Nazis, better treated than the palestinians are by Israel, in fact. They never knew about the concentration camps (well, never might not be true, but at least not until the end of the war, when the resistance had already been active for years), and so it was impossible for them to be 'noble people fighting against the evil nazis'. They were simply people who fought for their own independance.

But somehow this never works with A r a b l e a g u e a t t a c k e d I s r a e l

Yes, because t h e e s t a b l i s i n g o f i s r a e l w a s a n a g g r e s s i v e a c t a g a i n s t t h e p a l e s t i n i a n p e o p l e i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e .

Just not with peace talks with Israel, right?

?

The palestinians want peace talks, it is Sharon who won't talk.

But his family has already repudiated his actions and tried to convince him to give up.

what has that got to do with things? Do you really know what we are arguing here?

I claim that cutting off oil to the U.S. would be an appropriate response for U.S. politics in the Middle East. For some unknown reason you countered with 'Iraq and Palestine doesn't sell oil to the U.S.'. I pointed out that the hijackers and Bin Ladin are mainly saudi, and so they could very well have worked from within their own country to stop the oil export.

Instead they decided to turn to violence, and should be removed from society. What the best way to do this is a comepletely different matter.

I know you like to think that this gives Israel a licence to kill, maim and rape every arab i the entire world, but the situations still aren;t comparable. The U.S. support Israel, but it doesn't actually occupy land. the U.S. has interfered with arab goverments when they weren't to the US's liking, but it hasn't actually conducted genocide.

So, the taliban respsonse to US politics is like shooting someone for double parking. The appropriate punishment is a fine, and someone who goes about shooting people for it must be removed from society.

The palestinian fight for freedom, however, is a selfdefense against an intruder who is bent on killing you and stealing your house. Shooting the intruder is a sane, moral option.

By this logic, since many PLO terrorists are Lebanese (well, born in Lebanese refugee camps) or Israeli (born in Israeli refugee camps) they should work within their systems to try to create change.

Being born in a lebanese refugee camp doesn;t make you lebanse... I guess one could choose to consider himself lebanese, but that is an individual choice.

That settled, we are once again back to being part of an occupied people. As such, there is no 'changing from within'. The french had no chance of changing german actions from within, so instead they resisted the occupation. The palestinians do likewise.

And some of the Israeli arabs ARE trying to change from within... But since they are faced with apartheid, some of them are despairing as well.

The fac that he lies about who he has imprisoned and tries to protect terrorist leaders isn't really encouraging Israel to share its evidence with him . . .

According to Israeli propaganda. This has never been substantiated by a real news media.

and besides, he is obligated to either turn over or arrest anyone Israel asks him to by the Oslo accords.

Yep, and he did so as long as Israel adhered to the Oslo accord themselves. When the second round of hostilities started he released many of them because of public pressure.

Part of the Oslo accord is also that he is NOT bound to turn over someone he has in arrest. Since a deal isn;t worth the paper it is written on to the Israeli goverment, they tried to kill some of the arrested people by rocketing the prison they were kept in, the person this thread was started about being one of them.

So, since the palestinian people knows that arresting someone at Israels bequest is only a way for Israel to get a physical location for their death squads, how can you critizise them for not allowing Arafat to arrest people? Start by asking for the arrest of the one who gave the order to rocket a prison...

No, I'm saying Arafat wasn't being contructive because he made no effort to compromise on any issue or present a proposal of his own. For example, he would not accept anything short of full Palestinian or "Islamic" soveriegnty on the temple mount, even though Israel offered at least three neutral solutions. Similarly, he did nothing to try to solve the problem of the refugees.

you are still not getting it. Read my previous post again. The key part being the 45 vs 100 doesn't end in 75, if a just settlement is 50.

Please, the sermons are getting tiresome.

Sermons? Just hope that you will become a decent human being...

Chris or Dino:

Iraq Claimed that the Kuwaitis were slant drilling (Drilling on an angle, from their territory into Iraq's, and this seems to have been the case!

Do you have a source for this? (I mean a source for them actually drilling slanted, not the claim).

From what I've read, the war was caused by two things: one being the ownership of two small island close to Iran, the ownership of which was settled in a 1964 treaty. The second being the huge dept owed by Iraq to Quwait from the Iran-Iraq war, which Saddam expected to be forgiven... while the Quwaitis had no such ideas.

So, we're back to the earlier quote: 'War is just robbery writ large'

MORON:

This whole who is the aggressor crap means NOTHING in something so complex (that it can fuel debates forever....)

Its like two little children fighting for a piece of toy, and when the fight is broken up by adults, the typical "he did it first" excuse.

Except that we KNOW who owned the land, and who took it from who.

If Israel doesn't want peace, why don't they just drive the Pals into Jorden or something. They can do it.

Because then the rest of the world, possibly even the US, would actually do something about Israel. The status quo works in Israels favor. As long as they don't have to settle anything, they can continue to kill palestinians, steal some more land, bulldoze a few more palestinian homes... But they need the occasional terrorist attack to maintain their international image as a 'victim', and so they continually fuel the flames to keep the anger simmering.

[CyberGnu]

Caveat: I guess the brits might have invented zoning... Americans haven't got a monopoly on bad ideas, and the brits have had a lot more practice with this crap system, after all...

[Natan]

Well, last time I checked, neither Lebanon or Syria is occupying their land.

Lebanon is oppressing them economically and politically while Syria is trying to manipulate them and makes claims on their territory and persons. (AKA, sponsoring PLO factions which say "there is no such thing as a Palestinian, we are all Syrians) What the Lebanese are doing to the Palestinians in the refugee camps is a matter of immediate concern.

Except that they are not 'similar movements'. The french resistance was not a 'similar movement' to the RAF. The first was dedicated to defeat an occupier of their land, the second to advance their own political goals at the expense of their countrymen.

Hamas, the FIS, and the Muslim Brotherhood all share the goals of overthrowing secular or mildly religious states and replacing them with totally Islamic ones through violence against civillians of all stripes, especially non-Muslims and foriegners. The only distinction is that you happen to hate Hamas's current primary targets, but not those of the others. In fact, Hamas is a branch of the international Muslim Brotherhood and recieves its funding from similar sources.

The extensive explanation that the attack on the WTC and the Palestinian fight for freedom aren't comparable just passed you by, didn't it?

No, it was simply never resolved.

Would the term 'memory like a goldfish' mean anything?

There are two separate points you're making and two separate refutations I'm giving. Point 1 is that the Palestinians are justified in murdering Israelis because Israel stole their land, and that is what caused be to bring the 9/11 analogy. Point 2 was that Israel's military policy shows it doesn't want peace, and that is why I brought Afghanistan into this. Distinct points, distinct refutations.

Nevertheless, I have repeatedly argued that bombing afganistan won't make the U.S. a safer place. It might give a false sense of security to a lot of americans, which might be a good thing, until the next thing happens. Here, as well, we need to treat the cause of the disease, not the symptoms.

Quite frankly, that's madness.

The MB and the Malayan Communists are covered by the previous answer.

What? They were thouroughly suppressed before Britain left the region.

The majority of the nationalist militias in the USSR got exactly what they wanted - freedom. And behold: It actually stopped the violence. There are no Estonian militant groups operating in Russia.

Of course, since there are no Estonians living in Russia nor are there any pre-existing Estonian claims on Russian territory. But the far more interesting fact, and the one I was reffering to, is that for three or four decades there was quite simply no Estonian (or Latvian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, etc.) terrorist/guerilla activity against the USSR, even though these people were being brutally repressed and had often fought against the USSR in the civil war and WWII.

There is no need. The terrorism that Russia is facing coems from islamic extremists in former soviet states, and I never quite understood why they are fighting Russia.

For the same reasons Hamas fights Israel and Al-Qaida fights America. Their Islamist philosophical beliefs.

But despite a lenghty war, the violence hasn;t abated... Only inflamed neighbouring muslim countries to support the fighting parties. Finally, the Boers... I don't know where you got that from... The boers attacked the british, and after initial victories were driven back. At that time they went over to guerilla warfare. They eventually capitulated, and resistance was over.

The British annexed the boer areas to South Africa and defeated the guerilla movement, proving that guerillas can be defeated.

Because I haven;t rejected any people wanting independence. I have, however, rejected an unfair partitioning of the available land, not to mention the use of zoning practises to thwart the democratic process.

Since you apparently doesn't know what zoning is, let me try to explain.

Let's say you have 1000 people living in an area. 700 of the people are 'A', 300 are 'B'. If we divide the land they live on in a random grid of 100 areas with 10 people in each area, we would end up with 4.6% of the areas having a majority of 'B' people, 10.3% of the areas having 5 each and the remaining areas having a majority of 'A' people.

This in itself is not exactly fair, as 30% of the population will only get ~10% of the votes. This is how the american system works.

However, in an attempt to fix this problem the U.S. introduced 'zoning'. If you redraw the areas so that 30% of the areas have a majority of 'B' people, you actually get a representative vote. This is a good idea in theory. (although, one can argue if you can have a good idea to fix a system that is fundamentally flawed in the first place... Or whether the only truly good idea would be to abolish it... But I digress).

You could, however, redraw the areas so that in each area there are six 'B' people and four 'A' people, or ten 'A' people. 300/6=50. All of a sudden, 50 of the areas have a majority of 'A' people and 50 of the areas have a majority of 'B' people, even though the 'B' people only make up 30% of the population. This is as bad as the first scenario. Nevertheless, this is widely used in the U.S., by both parties. Look through last weeks news about changes in the Utah zoning, for example....

And this is what happened in Palestine when they partitioned it. (Even the figures fit almost exactly. 30% of the population was jewish, and they ended up with 50% of the land.) Note that in the areas allocated to Israel, there is a 55/45 split in jewish/arab ethnicity. In the areas allocated to the arabs, there is a 5/95 split.

Right, but most of the former soviet republics have sizable Russian minorities with almost none of their predominant ethnic group within the borders of Russia. For example, Ukraine is 22% Russian while almost no Ukrainians live in Russia. Estonia is just 65% Estonian. In Kazakhstan, the partitioning is even more unfair, since the population is about 40% Russian and another 10% Ukrainian and German.

The partitioning of palestine should be a textbook case for how a 'first past the poll' system can be used to fake a democratic decision by a minority... Right next to the 2000 presidental election.

So, while I think a democratic decision is the absolutely best solution, this is far from what actually happened. A true democratic decision would have resulted in the jews getting AT MOST 30% of the area, and more likely 10-15% (since the distribution of A vs. B isn't random in the real case, we'd expect more clustering of groups).

But basically the Jews got all the land which was owned by Jews and then the Negev desert, which was allocated to them to accomodate the expected flow of refugees. I don't think that we can argue that the entire war was fought to liberate the Negev from Israel; the area was sparsely populated and the Arab population was mostly nomadic. Besides, the Arab states were not fighting to get another 20 or 45% of the land, nor even really for 100% of it, but to exterminate the Jewish population. They said as much, quite openly and explicitly. So I don't see how their side could have been justified.

Yes, that is up to the citizens to decide, and for the 'guestworkers' to judge whether they feel it is worth it.

It's a simple economic vs. quality of life question.

If I go, I'll make more money, but I'll be a permanent gues in the country. If I don't go, I won't make any money, but I'll be a citizen.

I have made the first choice, and it doesn't bother me.

Are you intentionally ignoring my point? You can agree to move somewhere without getting citizenship, but you can't sign away your childrens' rights. I think the only place outside the Arab world where a person could be born in a country but not be a citizen was apartheid South Africa.

I think this is covered by the zoning explanation.

Not really. Kuwait was essentially just one city. If it could seceed from Iraq, then Chechneya should be independent too, along with Kurdistan and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and any Jewish town in the west bank.

genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group, (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

These are meaningless. Categories a and b are met any time a person is executed, since the intent is to call a part of his group. C suffers them same handicap.

and though they don't apply here, I thought I'd point out the problems with the others too:
d is iffy because some countries, like China, impose limits on everyone's reproductive rights.
e seems to say that babies can only be adopted by parents of the same ethnic, racial, national and religious group.

Again, you refuse to accept how reality works.

No country has gone to war under the slogan 'let's punish them a little bit'. However, that is usually what eventually happens. See Iraq, for example.

What?
[QUOTE]
Of course Fatah calls for the destruction of Israel. You are occupying their land. What do you expect them to do? [QUOTE]
This logic could have been used to justify German agression in the 1930s "oh, they're calling for killing Jews and Slavs, but surely they'll be quiet once given the Sudetenland." What you're essentially saying is that if a group has one just claim, they can have no unjust ones. And while we're on the subject, shouldn't the predominantly German-speaking parts of eastern europe had the right to secede, since to do otherwise would be to give poles and czechs unfair advantages through "zoning?"

But if you leave their land, the palestinian people are prepared to live in peace. The very fact that the first intifada ended with promises of negotiation should tell you that much.

Actually, it was on the verge of collapse when the Oslo proccess began.

I guess this is symptomatic of your entire view of the conflict... You just haven't developed the ability to separate propaganda from reality. Hopefully it will come when you get older, but not too late in your life for you to change your mind...

Please, the counseling is even worse than the sermonizing, and it too is worth just what I pay for it.

[Superpopanz]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by CyberGnu

Yeah, they really should have accepted losing their land because the UN said so...

You are as blind as blind can be!
THEY ALREADY LOST THEIR LAND!!!
The decision of the UN general assembly ha been made! It finally gave the jews back what they owned 2000 years ago. Never before in history happend anything like the Holocaust and the decision to resettle the jews back to Israel/Palestine was the only logical conclusion after centuries of perpetration. In the 20. Centuries dozens of borders have been drawn, dozens of countries have been newborn by the internatial community. There was no Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Algeria, Tunesia, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Palestine, Albania, Suomi, Letia, Lituana, Iceland, Pakistan and and and!!! Not to speak about the huge rest of Africa and Asia! Al above mentioned countries were born in the last century, they didnt exist before! The arabs in Palestine went to war and LOST! Can you mentally get a grip on this? They LOST! Not only did they loose the wars against the jews and, like their always german friends, failed to exterminate them, they also lost the chance for a peaceful coexistence and their very right on this land! Neither you nor the rest of the leftliberal/socialist/far-right, "goodhuman-underdog-friend" pro-arab pack will ever change this fact! Israel exists, it is there and strong! Every suicide attack brings your poor friends who have nothing left than to attack civilians closer to annihilation, and if they continue to do so, they deserve it.

One more thing! The IDF hurts innocents by mistake, your scumbag friends by purpose!

And England really shoulnd't have involved itself in WW2, it would have been
much more peaceful if Hitler had been allowed to just grab whatever he wanted,right?

No matter how hard you try, history is quite clearn about! Hitler was a big friend of the arabs, both had the same enemy, the jews! Now we have everything from leftliberal/socialist to far right/right extreme allying with fundamentalist muslims! A well mixed bunch, eh? Anti jew/anti america and in the end, anti democracy! Know your enemies...

Furthermore, since the UN was responsible for the creation of Israel, why
shouldn't the UN do something about the evil it created? How is that hypocrisy?
If you are unjustly sentenced to jail for a crime you didn;t commit, is it
hypcritical of you to appeal, since the court system failed you before?

Poor boy you are! You want the UN to cancel Israel but they wont listen....*whine whine*
Evil UN, evil jews, evil life!
If reality goes a way you dont like you can appeal to destiny and whine all you want, but if you dont accept reality and learn to deal with it, you can too choose to smash you head aganst the wall again and again instead! But then you must`nt be surprised if you get a bloody nose...

I assume you are talking about Germany vs. France, right?
My point has nothing to do with left/right, pacifism/warmongering or whatever categories you are setting up.
The land was stolen, it should be given back. Barring that, the original owners should be compensated.
If Israel insists on living on stolen land, they should be fought tooth and nail.

Your assumption proves one thing only: Your reality perception is totally screwed by ideology and you are incapable of having a halfdecent and balanced worldview.
No, i wasnt talking about germany and france and YOU are as obvious with your point as a fresh cleaned glass house. The difference between you and me is that i see BOTH sides, that my world is unlike yours not black&white! You have put yourself into the category, it wasnt me! Iraq/Afgahnistan/Israel, we have democracies, the USA and the jews who do support our acting there, and we have leftliberal pacifists, right-extreme nationalists and fundamentalist muslims who are not only against it alltogether, no, you even use exactly the same arguments wich are infact nothing more but anti-american, anti-jewish and, in the end, anti-democratic propaganda phrases.
STOLEN??? You can not steal something wich is not owned, and even then: History and the United Nations made a decision about the areas of the former ottoman empire, history and the UN gave back the ancient motherland to the ancient people of Israel but punished one brother with a stubborn false pride, with the blindness to reject compromise and the dumb will to fight a war of extermination.
And your mother, my friend, failed to teach you to use heart, brain and mind together and in balance.
The difference..., the difference between you and me is that while i strongly support the state of Israel, while i recognize them as the only democracy in an ocean of corrupt, ruthless and archaic arab countries, while i admire them for their strenght to live under the constant threat of war and slaughter, while i applaude how they deal with terrorist scumbags, i also dont want anymore new jewish settlements in the bank and some even given back , i want so see the radical orthodox jews getting hindered to throw even more oil in the fire, i want to see the arabs getting as much water as they need and having their kids playing football instead of getting killed. You, on the other hand, you have already maneuvred yourself out of the circle of human decency, with your rejection of Israels right to exist, with your pitiful excuses for arab bombs, with your obvious ignorance of the true guilty for dead arab kids, with your unknowledge of the dirty reality, in short, with your utter and stubborn blindness.

Just for you i will repeat a few questions!

Q: Who sends young boys with stones against tanks?
Q: Who sends FATAH fighter with AK 47 and Molotov cocktails to attack from inbetween the kids?
Q: Who released terrorists and bombbuilders, HAMAS and JIHAD fighters from
prison?
Q: Who praises suicide bombers as heroes and martyrs on tv?
Q: Who makes it possible that 6 year old children learn in public school how good it is to become a martyr?
Q: Who tolerates (or worse) the use of refugee camps, family kitchen/bedroom/garden as a nice spot for sniper and mortar attacks on israeli
forces/settlements/civilians?
Q: Who has started to prepare Intifada II long before fat Ariel went on the rock?

[MOBIUS]

Wow - this Popanz geezer makes even Natan's arguments seem reasonable...

[faded glory]

What Mobius? No 30 paragraph reply? Have you given up already old man?

[Superpopanz]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Wow - this Popanz geezer makes even Natan's arguments seem reasonable...

[Natan]

MOBIUS, if you want to argue with my posts, you're more than welcome, but posts consisting solely of snide comments don't really serve much of a purpose.