Israel Kills Some More Children, Sharon Impressed At It

[Natan]

How did you get that from what I said? I make no claims whatsoever about whether Palestinians are inherently good. I say, however, that palestinians are not inherently evil because they are resisting occupation.

No, you say that all evil things they do (terrorism etc.) will end with "the occupation," which is essentially saying that they do no evil

I have also said in previous thread that any people, from aborginies to eskimoes, would behave in the same fashion if occupied by a nation intent on stealing the rest of their land.

Actually, this obsession with exact national boundaries is absurd. People fight when they think it improves their position. That simple. This "occupation" stuff is nonsense.

Nope, I'm saying that dragging up a statement made five years ago, addressed to his own people about another people who are trying to kill them can not in any way say anything about his intentions if the killing stops. Any student of history knows this.

Firstly, your very statement already betrays the truth of the quote, that for Arafat, Islamic Jihad, and you (oh, wait, I'm being redundant) the peace proccess never started, they are still engaged in struggle with Israel. How exactly was Israel trying to kill Arafat or his people five years ago?

I also refer you as well to Stalin in 1941 and 1943.

I refer you to Hitler, 1933-1945. The Polish Corridor and the Sudetenland were not enough, as he himself said. Besides, we don't know what Stalin would have liked to do to the Germans if not for western restraint, what he did to the Germans in Romania was certainly in keeping with his reputation. Also, I refer you to the KLA, which began an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Serbs once NATO intervention gave it the upper hand. Or the PLO in Lebanon, or the Viet Cong campaign against collaborators. Or Pol Pot.

Well, since this postion was set at the end of the first intifada, I think that is a fairly safe assumption.

So you agree that he might be interested in survival rather than peace?

[CyberGnu]

Would you like to deny that Hitler was motivated by the desire to reclaim the German territories in Poland taken from his nation after WWI?

Yep. He was motivated by the desire to create a 'third reich', to reclaim Germanys 'natural supremacy'. He was a paranoid and a megalomaniac. He had no intention to stop after the polish corridor. His goal was all of Europe, and especially the destruction of his own personal enemy, communist Russia.

Guess you've never read American conservative magazines and newspaper columnists. Ever.

I have, although not too often. They are so depressing. And they are usually stunning examples of how to play on peoples ignorance.

Where I grow up we had a lot of skinheads. Most skinheads aren't 'evil', most aren't even racist. They are, however, for the most part not particularly bright, and thus easily manipulated by the usually very intelligent leaders. Likewise with american rightwingers. More so, in fact, since people like Pat Buchanan can twist religion to his own ends, which is an even more persuasive argument for the majority of these people.

But why? They agree that Arafat can't bring peace

WHILE ISRAELI AGGRESSION CONTINUES.

and can't even accept Israeli concessions.

Well, as long as the 'concessions' are in the style of 'we won't take more land than we've stolen so far', what do you expect? It is not a question of what Arafat wants. It's a question of what the palestinian people would agree to.

Why should peace be possible here when it isn't in any other Arab country with such an active Islamist movement?

Because with a just peace in place support of Hamas and their ilk will melt away. Do I think it will become peaceful overnight? Of course not. Israel have occupied palestine for over 50 years, and it will take time to heal.

[CyberGnu]

Jules, good points. I don't necessarily agree with every single one of them, but nice.

Natan:

No, you say that all evil things they do (terrorism etc.) will end with "the occupation," which is essentially saying that they do no evil

Correct. So?

Actually, this obsession with exact national boundaries is absurd. People fight when they think it improves their position. That simple. This "occupation" stuff is nonsense.

Funny, so why hasn't the U.S. invaded Canada a long time ago?

In reality do most people have what we call 'morals'. A person with a sense of right and wrong doesn't accept that aggression should allow you to take stuff. Someone who does not agree with this (Hitler, Hussein, Sharon etc) is usually branded 'evil'. Sociopath is the medical term, I think.

Firstly, your very statement already betrays the truth of the quote, that for Arafat, Islamic Jihad, and you (oh, wait, I'm being redundant) the peace proccess never started, they are still engaged in struggle with Israel. How exactly was Israel trying to kill Arafat or his people five years ago?

For the palestinians it was pretty clear at that point that Israel had no intentions of actually living up to their commitements in the Oslo treaty. Perpetuation of the occupation reads 'killing', in response to your question.

I also refer you as well to Stalin in 1941 and 1943.

I refer you to Hitler, 1933-1945.

What does that have to do with my statement? Do you even have any idea what I'm talking about? I know your grasp of history isn't the best, so that is propably the case...

So you agree that he might be interested in survival rather than peace?

Survival THROUGH peace.

[Eli]

With this interpretation of peace it will be much more efficient for us to just jump to the sea and that's it.

[CyberGnu]

What interpretation of peace? The peace that is gained when Israel ends the occupation?

The whole idea of the occupation of palestine conributing to the national security of Israel has been a farce for many years. The nation of israel is less likely to be wiped out by the surrounding arab nations if the occupation ends.

Whether israelis might still die from terrorist attacks after a peace is a different question. However, even if 100.000 israels were to die from terrorist attacks, this would still not threaten the nation of Israel. You see?

So a statement of 'we might as well jump in the sea' is overly melodramatic. What it really comes down to is 'we are willing to accept a few israelis being killed in incessant attacks as long as we can steal more land'.

And with that, I bid you good night.

[MORON]

Nice seeing that time will never dull ME threads.

FLAME ON

[Eli]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
What interpretation of peace? The peace that is gained when Israel ends the occupation?

The whole idea of the occupation of palestine conributing to the national security of Israel has been a farce for many years. The nation of israel is less likely to be wiped out by the surrounding arab nations if the occupation ends.

Whether israelis might still die from terrorist attacks after a peace is a different question. However, even if 100.000 israels were to die from terrorist attacks, this would still not threaten the nation of Israel. You see?

So a statement of 'we might as well jump in the sea' is overly melodramatic. What it really comes down to is 'we are willing to accept a few israelis being killed in incessant attacks as long as we can steal more land'.

And with that, I bid you good night.

During the Oslo agreements, Israeli left wing leaders said stuff like "if they use the guns we gave them against us, we will reconquer the lands we gave them in two days". Today, they oppose to attacks on empty buildings.
Making Israel a 10miles wide country, without any guarantee for the future except optimistic hopes is suicidal. Even during the more optimistic times of the Oslo process the Palestinian media was talking about killing Jews and the next step in their struggle after they get the 1967 borders. Today, the future leaders of the Palestinians are the 5 years old kids who go with guns and explosives strapped on their body in Hamas demonstrations.

I believe that the best way, after the major military offensive Israel must take to end the Intifada and disarm the Pals is a long term agreement, a-la Oslo which will allow the Pals their autonomy, but not a state. Actually, it should be almost identical to the Oslo agreements, who failed only and only because of the Israeli leaders.
When Rabin saw that the incitement continues he had to destroy all Pal media infrastructure, retake all lands except the big cities and personally hurt the interests of the Pal leaders. But he didnt want problems for himself, and preffered to ignore long term Israeli interests. And now, those 12 years old kids who listened to martyrdom songs on the radio are blowing up in Discoteques.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Survival THROUGH peace.

Unfortunately, here is the Palestinian policy:

"We the Palestinian nation, our fate from Allah is to be the edge of the sword in the war against the Jews until the resurrection of the dead, as the prophet Muhammad said: 'the resurrection of the dead will not arrive until you will fight the Jews and kill them.' We the Palestinians are the edge of the sword in this issue and in this campaign, whether or not we want this. All of the agreements being agreed are temporary."

-Dr. Ahmed Yusuf Abu Halabiya

Unfortunately, Eli was right: if Israel makes peace with these people they will have to jump into the sea. Because they can and will refuse to honor any peace agreements made.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
2. They just want their land back. Barring that, they want a fair deal.

I wish I believed you, but Arafat is so afraid of his own people that he couldn't even take the risk of giving them more than 90% of the West Bank. They'd apparently rather blow themselves up in shopping malls.

Originally posted by CyberGnu
3. Bush is a stupid and cowardly man. As many an american politician, he is under the influence of the very powerful jewish lobby, who contributes plenty of money to campaigns, not to mention spends equally much on PR.

This is just insulting, both to Bush and Americans in general. How can a group which comprises only 3% of the richest nation on earth dominate policy so effectively? Especially when they are divided internally between liberals and conservatives and doves and hawks and Republicans and Democrats? You read too much anti-semitic stuff to have any idea what really goes on here. There is a large well of support for Israel that comes from a much wider spectrum of the American population than just jews. This has nothing at all to do with oil, if Americans were only interested in oil (like so many lefties and eurocoms think) then the whole problem would be over with already, and Israel would look like Afghanistan does. Americans like and relate to Israelis more than to Arabs. Christian Americans support Israel because they want to be on the 'right' side of Armegeddon (no sh!t). People who feel strongly about the issue tend to line up on the side of Israel, which has the effect of making them one or few issue voters, and thus a lot more persuasive to politicians. This is not cowardice, it is democracy.

I have tended to be pretty neutral recently until Arafat threw away his chance at peace. Frankly I'm sick of the Palestinians and their bloodthirsty histrionics. They seem to be too immature to rule themselves responsibly. I think Palestine will only turn out to be at best as bad as the rest of the Arab world, and without oil money to even make it look nice. I fully understand why the Israelis are hesitant to have a brainwashed and hateful people form a state along an extremely long frontier with them. Part of leadership is preparing your people for the decisions you have to make on your behalf. Arafat has pushed the poison of hatred and struggle against a nuclear power for 40 years now. His people are only ready to blow themselves to peices.

[Solly]

Originally posted by MORON
Nice seeing that time will never dull ME threads.

FLAME ON

[Natan]

Yep. He was motivated by the desire to create a 'third reich', to reclaim Germanys 'natural supremacy'.

Exactly. And every Arab nationalist (Fatah is an Arab nationalist movement) wants to unite an powerful Arab nation against its enemies (Jews, Persians, Christians, etc.) with the nationalist's own single region/state as the center.

He was a paranoid and a megalomaniac.

Sort of like Arafat.

He had no intention to stop after the polish corridor. His goal was all of Europe, and especially the destruction of his own personal enemy, communist Russia.

What indication is there that Arafat intends to stop after the West Bank when his movement explicitly says that it will never stop?

I have, although not too often. They are so depressing. And they are usually stunning examples of how to play on peoples ignorance.

Look, many Americans on these boards fit your definition of supporters of Zionism-Nazism, and they're not Jewish.

Where I grow up we had a lot of skinheads. Most skinheads aren't 'evil', most aren't even racist. They are, however, for the most part not particularly bright, and thus easily manipulated by the usually very intelligent leaders. Likewise with american rightwingers.

Yeah, I know, the republican party of skinhead racists which more than half of Muslim Americans voted for last time around. I always knew it.

More so, in fact, since people like Pat Buchanan can twist religion to his own ends, which is an even more persuasive argument for the majority of these people.

Since when has Pat Buchanan made religion a major plank? And I was reffering to more mainstream groups and persons, like George Will, Michael Kelly, etc.

Well, as long as the 'concessions' are in the style of 'we won't take more land than we've stolen so far', what do you expect? It is not a question of what Arafat wants. It's a question of what the palestinian people would agree to.

No, it's not, because Arafat is a tyrant who will shoot as many of them as he wants to achieve his goals.

Because with a just peace in place support of Hamas and their ilk will melt away.

Are you intentionally ignoring what I write? Why is it that there is such strong support for Islamists in other countries far away from Israel?

Do I think it will become peaceful overnight? Of course not. Israel have occupied palestine for over 50 years, and it will take time to heal.

So how many free hits do the Palestinians get on Israeli kindergarteners?

Correct. So?

It's absurd to argue that someone can do no wrong just because they have suffered a wrong. I think you can see why that is.

Funny, so why hasn't the U.S. invaded Canada a long time ago?

If you knew as much about history as you think you do, you'd know that we have, and twice. Secondly, we haven't in recent times because there is no incentive to, we get great benefits from trading with them and they are a peaceful neighbor, conquest would achieve nothing.

In reality do most people have what we call 'morals'.

Only when society constrains them with such. See: Holocaust, (esp. Jedwabne) Rwandan genocide, Yugoslav civil war, etc. etc.

A person with a sense of right and wrong doesn't accept that aggression should allow you to take stuff.

For example, the tens of millions of Arabs who thought Saddam had a right to Kuwait and the hundreds of millions of Russians who thought WWII gave Russia a right to dominate eastern europe.

Someone who does not agree with this (Hitler, Hussein, Sharon etc) is usually branded 'evil'. Sociopath is the medical term, I think.

I think it's blatantly obvious that almost all leaders who take over other countries do not say or believe that they have a right to do so because they can - Hussein, for example, claimed Kuwait on several legal and moral grounds, but never on the grounds that he was capable of taking it. Hitler is really the main exception.

For the palestinians it was pretty clear at that point that Israel had no intentions of actually living up to their commitements in the Oslo treaty. Perpetuation of the occupation reads 'killing', in response to your question.

So what you're saying is that Arafat abandoned the peace proccess six years ago. Thanks for admitting it.

What does that have to do with my statement? Do you even have any idea what I'm talking about? I know your grasp of history isn't the best, so that is propably the case...

If you don't want to adress my points, I can't force you to.

Survival THROUGH peace.

But you just said he thought the peace proccess was a farce.

You're response to Eli ignores the possibility that terror attacks can destroy a state, and that the Arab states might not be satisfied with the 1948 borders.