IF tommorow the Palestinian people peacably protested in the street+did so for month

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tuberski


Israel is in a no win situation. As long as this continues, Israel will be seen in a worse and worse light.

You know, It takes a bigger man to step back from a fight than it does to fight.

One side or the other is going to have to learn to be a big man.


ACK!

Tuberski, I suggest you direct your remarks concerning curbing violence to those who instigate it.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ned


Tuberski, I suggest you direct your remarks concerning curbing violence to those who instigate it.

Which is who, exactly? I doubt they know anymore.

ACK!

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


In case you haven't noticed, apart from conflicts with Israel, the arab world IS in peace.

Even if you consider other countries to be harmouniously "at peace", and I find that to be stretching the truth, if you took a closer look, you'll find that that war is, by far, not their only problem. But you prefer to lay blame of all of the problems of the Arab world at Israel, and outside of the Palestinian situation, you really can't do without, again, stretching the truth.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Tuberski

You know, It takes a bigger man to step back from a fight than it does to fight.

One side or the other is going to have to learn to be a big man.

If the Palestinians were to stop using terrorism, they would have a Palestinian state.
If the IDF were to stop fighting the terrorists, there would be no Israel.

[chequita guevara]

Did you know that if you took a Palestinian and an Israeli and shook them up in a bag, they'd be very annoyed at you?

[CyberGnu]

Feasible? No, it's not.

I think the Palistinians won't do it, as they have no leadership.

?

Are you saying that , for example, the Warsaw uprising never would have happened if the jews had had BETTER leadership? That doesn't make sense.

Sacrificing freedom for peace is an individual choice, and not one that many people have choosen in the last 200 years...

Israel won't because they have to look strong in an area where they are surrounded by percieved enemies.

And they keyword here is percieved. Even if they are indeed enemies, what would they do? Mass their mighty armies against Israel? The entire world, including themselves, know that they don't have a chance. And even if they DID succeed, it would only be a matter of time before the US intervened...

So that is patently false. The only reason Israel wont give up the occupation is because the landtehft would come to an end.

[CyberGnu]

Even if you consider other countries to be harmouniously "at peace", and I find that to be stretching the truth, if you took a closer look, you'll find that that war is, by far, not their only problem. But you prefer to lay blame of all of the problems of the Arab world at Israel, and outside of the Palestinian situation, you really can't do without, again, stretching the truth.

So you ARE knocking down your own strawmen.

I didn't bring up interior problems in arab countries, you did. I claim that if Israel starts behaving like a civilized nation there would be peace in the mid east.

If you wish to contend this you have to show why and where there would be war even with Israel removed.

If the Palestinians were to stop using terrorism, they would have a Palestinian state.
If the IDF were to stop fighting the terrorists, there would be no Israel.

I think I've read this before somewhere... Oh, yes, now I remember! It's right after "Hansel and Gretel" in the Grimm brothers Fairtytales!

If there was no more land to take, when Grosse Israel rules the world and the lesser races are eradicated, then there would be no IDF...

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
I didn't bring up interior problems in arab countries, you did. I claim that if Israel starts behaving like a civilized nation there would be peace in the mid east.

And I wopuld claim that the internal matters of those countries has very much to do with the state of peace in the region.

However, if you had read clearly what I had wrote, you would have seen that I had wrote "Yeah, cause then all there problems would be solved, and they'd all be content and happy. After all, Israel is the root of all the problems of the Arab nations. "

If you wish to contend this you have to show why and where there would be war even with Israel removed.

Well, this started as a discussion of terrorism - there was terrorism against Jews more than 20 years before Israel existed. However, concerning the Arab states, they have rarely existed in peace and then, only when they were attacking Israel. Egypt fighting against Saudia Arabia in Yemen, Syria very nearly attacks Jordan, Syria takes and occupies Lebenon (and pretty much still controls it), Iraq attacks Iran, Iraq attack Kuwait, Iraq attacks Kurds, Jordan kills Palestinians, Arafat starts a civil war in Lebenon, Bin Laden plans and carries out a number of terrorist attacks because of American presence in SA, as well as numerous other internal conflicts. And that's just what I can think off the top of my head.

[CyberGnu]

And I wopuld claim that the internal matters of those countries has very much to do with the state of peace in the region.

However, if you had read clearly what I had wrote, you would have seen that I had wrote "Yeah, cause then all there problems would be solved, and they'd all be content and happy. After all, Israel is the root of all the problems of the Arab nations. "

I did read clearly what you wrote, which is why I called you on your strawman. Inernal problems does not equate war - there are plenty of places in the world with pretty hefty internal problems yet no wars. Latin america, for example.

However, concerning the Arab states, they have rarely existed in peace and then, only when they were attacking Israel. Egypt fighting against Saudia Arabia in Yemen, Syria very nearly attacks Jordan, Syria takes and occupies Lebenon (and pretty much still controls it), Iraq attacks Iran, Iraq attack Kuwait, Iraq attacks Kurds, Jordan kills Palestinians, Arafat starts a civil war in Lebenon, Bin Laden plans and carries out a number of terrorist attacks because of American presence in SA, as well as numerous other internal conflicts. And that's just what I can think off the top of my head.

Well, lets first delete the ones caused by the presence of Israel.

Egypt fighting against Saudia Arabia in Yemen, Iraq attacks Iran, Iraq attack Kuwait, Iraq attacks Kurds, Bin Laden plans and carries out a number of terrorist attacks because of American presence in SA, as well as numerous other internal conflicts.

Then we'll delete the posts that are not war and we are left with: Egypt fighting against Saudia Arabia in Yemen, Iraq attacks Iran, Iraq attack Kuwait

Of the three remaining, two are directly related to the cold war, and can hardly be pinned on some kind of arab culture. The one single war remaining, the Iraq-Kuwait war, is now 12 years old.

So your claim is that one war, 12 years ago, is enough to conclude that the area is not peaceful. This is obviously rubbish.

Again we can compare with Latin America, which has had significantly more wars than that, yet no one in the right mind would call Latin america a continent in war...

Of course, we can't say what would have happened had the zionists never managed to get any support from England and the US: Maybe the middle east would have been even more war torn that today. Maybe not. Maybe everyone would have been killed by a mysterious virus contracted through dirty telephones. We don't know. But we DO know that the vast majority of the conflict in the area is caused by the ambitions and barbarian acts of ONE nation: Israel. And so we can conclude that there is a good propability that the region would be a LOT better off without Israel having a free reign.

Well, this started as a discussion of terrorism - there was terrorism against Jews more than 20 years before Israel existed.

Which isn't even remotely relevant. What is relevant is whether "terrorism against jews" existed before the zionist movement delcared that they wouldn't share palestine with anyone, which was in 1920. And even a mediocre scholar of history knows that before 1920 jews and arabs coexisted not only peacefully, but actually enthusiastilly.

Look. I'm not an ignorant american. I know the lies the Israeli propaganda machine uses, and you are simply repeating them. The only thing I don't know is whether you do it consciously or unconsciously.

No one ever bothered teaching you about palestine at around 1900? They spoon fed you stories about all the violence against the innocent jews between 1920 and 1948, but not ONCE touched on the causes?

Or did your teachers have some integrity, but you are ignoring it because it doesn't fit with your worldview?

[Ned]

CyberGnu, the reasons that the Jews and Arabs got along famously prior to 1920 was because the Arabs or better yet, the Moslem authorities were sovereign and the Jews lived under their domination. The problems in Palestine essentially began went the Jews made it clear that they wanted to live in her own country. This was unacceptable to the Arabs. Fighting started, leading to the political division of Palestine and the situation we have today.

This is not so much about Jewish theft of land. The land that they occupied in 1920, in 1930, and indeed in 1948, was land they purchased from Arab,Turk and British owners. They stole no land. The war in 1948 was not about taking back land that the Jews stole from the Arabs. It was about denying the Jews a sovereign nation of their own.

[CyberGnu]

CyberGnu, the reasons that the Jews and Arabs got along famously prior to 1920 was because the Arabs or better yet, the Moslem authorities were sovereign and the Jews lived under their domination. The problems in Palestine essentially began went the Jews made it clear that they wanted to live in her own country. This was unacceptable to the Arabs. Fighting started, leading to the political division of Palestine and the situation we have today.

Exactly. Zionism is the cause of the whole conflict.

Imagine if the mexicans living in the US today decided to break away southern california, and in the process forcibly expelling all other ethnicities. Do you think the US goverment would quitely aquiesce? Of course not. And in the following war, who do you think started it?

This is not so much about Jewish theft of land. The land that they occupied in 1920, in 1930, and indeed in 1948, was land they purchased from Arab,Turk and British owners. They stole no land. The war in 1948 was not about taking back land that the Jews stole from the Arabs. It was about denying the Jews a sovereign nation of their own.

First off, only 3% of palestine was actually owned by jews... And that according to the jewish national fund.

But even if jews had owned 50% of the land, it wouldn't have mattered. Ned, buying land does not mean you can partitioning it off to form a country of your own. When you buy land you implicitly agree to conform to the laws of the country... And while your voice should be worth as much as your neighbours, if you try to wrest the land away from the country it belongs to, then it is theft.

Maybe the problem is that you confuse individual ownership with national ownership...

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Then we'll delete the posts that are not war and we are left with: Egypt fighting against Saudia Arabia in Yemen, Iraq attacks Iran, Iraq attack Kuwait

Ahh, I see, so if it's an internal conflict it's not war?
OK, then, Israel isn't causing a war, now is it, since the current conflict is an internal matter.

Of the three remaining, two are directly related to the cold war, and can hardly be pinned on some kind of arab culture. The one single war remaining, the Iraq-Kuwait war, is now 12 years old.

And most of the Israeli-Arab wars were cold-war related, and all are decades old now.

And even a mediocre scholar of history knows that before 1920 jews and arabs coexisted not only peacefully, but actually enthusiastilly.

False. There are reports of numerous anti-semitism by the late 19th century, and there had been violence since the middle of that century - true it had escalated by the mid-1920s, in a way that make the previous violence inconsequential, but to claim that they were living peacefully is stretching the truth. And the Jews and Arabs had rarely lived "enthusiastically" together, and then, only in the middle ages.

[Panag]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


Exactly. Zionism is the cause of the whole conflict.

Imagine if the mexicans living in the US today decided to break away southern california, and in the process forcibly expelling all other ethnicities. Do you think the US goverment would quitely aquiesce? Of course not. And in the following war, who do you think started it?



First off, only 3% of palestine was actually owned by jews... And that according to the jewish national fund.

But even if jews had owned 50% of the land, it wouldn't have mattered. Ned, buying land does not mean you can partitioning it off to form a country of your own. When you buy land you implicitly agree to conform to the laws of the country... And while your voice should be worth as much as your neighbours, if you try to wrest the land away from the country it belongs to, then it is theft.

Maybe the problem is that you confuse individual ownership with national ownership...

hi ,

anti semite you are completely wrong ones again on your numbers , speak when you know something , .......
and when you have the right data , .......

or are you just only enjoying to spread hate , .....

have a nice day anti semite

[Eli]

A shooting terract in Morag. Gunfire and grenades, there are casualties, some are soldiers.

[Eli]

One soldier lightly injured, one terrorist dead.