BOOM! Terract in Rishon Le Zion

[CyberGnu]

You didn't answer my question.

[Jon Miller]

I would act peaceful until given a nation

then seek redress in diplomacy or war

what is going on now is not working far more than anything else has not worked

what is being showed is that a state of war exists, while palestians need peace so that Israel will no longer have a position that they need to continue the occupiation

nations (now) always do better at peace then at war

Jon Miller

[Ned]

Reading this gives me immense sadness. The Palestinians say they want freedom, but act in a manner that makes freedom impossible. One does not let a mad dog out of its cage next to one's children.

The Palestinians need real leadership committed to non violence and peace. Otherwise, they will require military occuppation either by the Israeli's or some other country for some time to come. I can only hope that both parties do not insist that that be the U.S. IMHO, the Jordanians need to re-occupy and re-annex the West Bank and Gaza.

Ned

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
John, because Israels line echoes prety much every fascist state in history: We want peace, as long as our victims bow down in subjugation.

Isn't that the line of almost every state in history that has engaged in a war? Wanting to ensure that your enemy is no longer a threat before making peace with them is certainly not the sole province of fascist government, but is practiced by all governments. For example, in WWII the democratic Allies (plus the USSR) kicked the crap out of the fascist Axis, occupied their territory, tried and killed many of their leaders, and moved ethnic populations around to form new borders after the war. They certainly didn't sit back and take the attacks launched by their enemies, as you seem to want Israel to do. I don't see how you can call Israel "fascist" when they act like any other country would in their situation.

And this was pretty much my point in the previous thread. Sure, sharon is a man of peace, as long as he gets his way. Hitler would have been a man of peace too, if only Churchill and Stalin had caved.

Sharon is not anything like Hitler. If he is like anyone you mentioned, he is like Churchill, a warrior elected to lead his country in a war for its survival.

[CyberGnu]

John. Fascinating. You really believes that might gives right, even if you are on the recieving end of it? Do you think the french resistance did the wrong thing in WW2 too?

Ned, no, but one takes responsibility if one has tormented a dog enough to make him insane... Treating him humanely is the first step. (Of course, I don't condone equating palestinians to dogs, although that seems to be the official israeli line).


Drake, not at all. At what point in ww2 is it that you think Churchill said 'we can have peace now if the status quo i maintained'? That line is reserved for the (momentarily) victorious aggressor... Hitler, on the other hand, DID actually say something like this after the fall of France, offering the British peace.

What you seem to have confused the situation with is the Allied statement 'we'd be willing to have peace as soon as germany capitulates', which would of course have entailed returning all occupied land.

Which, incidentally, is also the words of Saudi-arabia as well as arafat.


BTW, I think you seriously insult churchill. One of the greatest men of all time, compared to a genocidal war criminal... A disgrace.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
John. Fascinating. You really believes that might gives right, even if you are on the recieving end of it? Do you think the french resistance did the wrong thing in WW2 too?

Ned, no, but one takes responsibility if one has tormented a dog enough to make him insane... Treating him humanely is the first step. (Of course, I don't condone equating palestinians to dogs, although that seems to be the official israeli line).


Drake, not at all. At what point in ww2 is it that you think Churchill said 'we can have peace now if the status quo i maintained'? That line is reserved for the (momentarily) victorious aggressor... Hitler, on the other hand, DID actually say something like this after the fall of France, offering the British peace.

What you seem to have confused the situation with is the Allied statement 'we'd be willing to have peace as soon as germany capitulates', which would of course have entailed returning all occupied land.

Which, incidentally, is also the words of Saudi-arabia as well as arafat.


BTW, I think you seriously insult churchill. One of the greatest men of all time, compared to a genocidal war criminal... A disgrace.

no, but sometimes I think that you should give up (and try other mechanisms), like Italy, Germany and Japan in WW2

yes Palestine would have to trust Israel for a while, but they are not going anywhere now so that is what would be best

the going against citizens in Israel shows that this is a war

Jon Miller

[CyberGnu]

I don't quite follow what you mean when you refer to the Axis in ww2...

yes Palestine would have to trust Israel for a while, but they are not going anywhere now so that is what would be best

They did, in 1993!!!! And this is what this intifada is all about!!!!! Israel has shown two things: It can't be trusted to keep its word, and it will only give something up if forced to. The uprising won't end until Israel actually agrees to give back the occupied land (including settlements) and the palestinians has a viable state to live in. Hopefully, this treaty will be guaranteed by someone more trustworthy than Israel... And the US is unfortunately the only power with the strength to do so.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
What you seem to have confused the situation with is the Allied statement 'we'd be willing to have peace as soon as germany capitulates', which would of course have entailed returning all occupied land.

The Allies didn't return all the occupied German land. Almost all the ethnic Germans in Silesia and Pomerania were expelled and that land was given to Poland. Same thing happened in Konigsberg and the surrounding portions of East Prussia, which were annexed by Russia.

As for Israel, the Arab powers have never capitulated. Egypt and Jordan are the only ones who even acknowledge Israel's right to exist, something the Saudis are only now offering. How can the Allies' occupation after their enemy had surrendered be alright, but Israel's occupation while a state of war still exists be wrong? Until the Arabs show that they are serious about peace, Israel shouldn't give them any land back.

Which, incidentally, is also the words of Saudi-arabia as well as arafat.

Arafat's English words or his Arabic words? There's a big difference.

BTW, I think you seriously insult churchill. One of the greatest men of all time, compared to a genocidal war criminal... A disgrace.

You must not know much about Churchill. The similarities between him and Sharon are pretty numerous. While I respect the hell out of Churchill and consider him one of the greatest men of the last century, he was also a downright mean bastard and a warrior to the core. You call Sharon a war criminal, but Churchill approved things that make Sharon's supposed war crimes look like a picnic. You don't think Dresden was very respectful of human rights, do you?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
I don't quite follow what you mean when you refer to the Axis in ww2...



They did, in 1993!!!! And this is what this intifada is all about!!!!! Israel has shown two things: It can't be trusted to keep its word, and it will only give something up if forced to. The uprising won't end until Israel actually agrees to give back the occupied land (including settlements) and the palestinians has a viable state to live in. Hopefully, this treaty will be guaranteed by someone more trustworthy than Israel... And the US is unfortunately the only power with the strength to do so.

so what was Israel talking peace about

yes it wasn't fair and no I am not suggesting Palestine should have taken it, I am just suggesting that while peace was being discussed (and Israel just suggested the best deal ever) was not the time to throw it all away by going back to war

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

human rights donot matter the same way in war as they do in peace

in the end, in war the point is to survive

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

Subsequent actions showed that Israel never intended to honor the oslo process, and the palestinians learned their lesson. They won't settle for promises of 'security now, land later'.

Exactly... like the Who said, "We Won't Get Fooled Again". They know that they aren't getting the land if they just start acting nice, no matter what the rhetoric is now. If Palestine bows down now, they will lose everything in the long run.

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't besmirch the good name of The Who by associating them with the Pals.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They'd probably back the Pals, actually .

[morb]

I see. So when the US gets attacked by the same extremists in what is probably the worst act of terror, the US declares war on all terror, it gets massive support and in any case declares if worst comes to worst it will act unilaterally anyway. But we're the US, so we can do that.

Israel has acts of terror being commited against it on a daily bases for whatever reason, they launch a campagn to fight terror (basicly doing the same thing US is doing) and the world and ESPECIALLY the US slaps their wrist and tells them, "hey, you can't do that!" jews aren't supposed to kill muslims, even in self-defence.

what I find puzzling is, if the US won't let the Israelis take care of business, why won't we do it ourselves? we went to the philipiens to help them out. we gorged out the taliban. why won't we fight terror in Israel?

this is like patching all the holes of a sinking ship except one or two and hoping that if you ignore them long enough, they will patch themselves.

I want to know when will we finally tell the palestinians that ITS NOT OK TO DO THAT???

final words. its been proven throughout history, that making claims without having the physical means to back them up (or being unwilling to use them) is pointless. talking to the palastinians and asking them if they would kindly stop killing people (jews as well as their own) is obviously not working. I don't see how anyone can even suggest that negotiating with terrorists could lead to peace. as in the case of afghanistan or iraq, nothing except a military action can get the job done or deliver the message.

P.S. if we go into iraq trying to eliminate a perceived future threat, we will probably kill more civilians (i don't know if you can call all of them innocents) than israel would if we just let them do their job and eliminate a current and real threat. and in any case, as I made the point before, what level of hypocrisy is this?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Israel has acts of terror being commited against it on a daily bases for whatever reason, they launch a campagn to fight terror (basicly doing the same thing US is doing)

If you think what Israel is doing in Palestine is even CLOSE to what the US is doing in Afghanistan, then you are blind... or purposely have closed you eyes. We aren't humiliating the Afghan people or brutally occupying them against their will. We aren't saying we are simply fighting terror and then randomingly killing any of the 'other' (whether it be terrorist or civilian) that we see.