Wall a huge failure

[zenith-nadir]

I can't believe this crap these guys are trying to sell. That is one reason I cannot leave JREF. Cuz of this misinformation regarding the Middle East.

The intifada doesn't equal terrorism? While these folks sitting in their comfy and safe homes 10,000 miles away in Australia try to sell you that load of crap that the intifada does not equal terrorism....somebody better tell their BIZZARE claim to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which ironically is named after the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is responsible for many many suicide bombings inside Israel proper and attacks on settlers in Gaza and the West Bank. It is also the military arm of Fateh, the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority.

Don't listen to these guys, they are so full of LIVESTOCK MANURE that they are actually trying to sell you that the past 4 years of suicide bombings and attacks on settlers has not been the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Why those events are "different", the intifada is just poor Palestinian children throwing stones against mean old IDF tanks.....what a load of crap!

 

[zenith-nadir]

I think if you took note of the posts that disagree with your views, you would have noticed that I have called for both sides to come to a compromise. I'm still interested in why you think that only people who live in Israel are really fit to comment on the situation in that region. Jim Bowen

Lemme try again. I wanna give you a chance to put me in my place. Show all the JREFers what part of your nonsubjectivity in this thread - (about a wall to stop suicide bombers) - covered the topic of islamic fundamentalism and the problem of suicide bombing?

 

[a_unique_person]

I can't believe this crap these guys are trying to sell. That is one reason I cannot leave JREF. Cuz of this misinformation regarding the Middle East.

The intifada doesn't equal terrorism? While these folks sitting in their comfy and safe homes 10,000 miles away in Australia try to sell you that load of crap that the intifada does not equal terrorism....somebody better tell their BIZZARE claim to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which ironically is named after the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is responsible for many many suicide bombings inside Israel proper and attacks on settlers in Gaza and the West Bank. It is also the military arm of Fateh, the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority.

Don't listen to these guys, they are so full of LIVESTOCK MANURE that they are actually trying to sell you that the past 4 years of suicide bombings and attacks on settlers has not been the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Why those events are "different", the intifada is just poor Palestinian children throwing stones against mean old IDF tanks.....what a load of crap!

I could call all Jews big nosed and smelling strangely, but I don't.

 

[zenith-nadir]

I could call all Jews big nosed and smelling strangely, but I don't.

This is where you and I differ. My "big picture" sees two sides of Palestinian society. One side has embraced Islamic fundamentalism and has been perpetrating high-profile international terror attacks since the days of the Munich Olympics in 1972. (and don't give me that crap about islamic fundamentalism is new. Fundamentalist Wahhabis fought shiites and sunnis back in the 19th century and the Saudis funded fundamentalist Wahhabi madrassas and mosques from Pakistan to California throughout the 70's. Fundamentalism, jihad and martyrdom are not "new" concepts. )

Then in 1994 Arafat - the leader of the group who perpetrated all those years of terror attacks - is given the keys to Gaza and the West Bank and on April 13, 1994 suicide bombing becomes the favorite way the Palestinian fundamentalists like to get their rocks off.

Caught in the crossfire between the IDF and the fundamentalists of the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa are Palestinians who are not fundamentalists, muslim and christian.

You on the other hand a_u_p see the problem as a)zionists, b)Israeli expansionism and c) Israeli occupation...oh ya... and d) Sharon's Likud party. Full stop. You dismiss the decades of terror attacks and say;

From their point of view, all they have ever done, (from what I can read), is that they have resisted the takeover of their country. A pretty simple and understandable premise.

Unbelievable. What you've read about 30 years of terrorism is that it is simply "resistance" and it's pretty simple and understandable. Then, unbelievably, you go one step further and say;

Don't confuse the intifada with terrorism. The intifada is a popular uprising and civil disobedience campaign, it is not a part of the suicide bombings.

What a load. If I was to take another example, when the 202 people were blown to bits in Bali on October 12, 2002 it was pretty simple and understandable resistance by Jemaah Islamiah against Australia.

You never seem to be able to make that intellectual leap. That terrorism is not resistance, it is terrorism. Targetting Israeli buses and restaurants in Haifa or Jerusalem is not resisting the IDF in Gaza. In your "big picture" of the middle east a_u_p the cart pulls the horse.

 

[Tony]

The claim you made.
The one I posted it for you.
Never mind, let me remind you yet again.
'That's all you do. You ignore the facts and prefer to argue from ignorance.'
I loook forward to you providing evidence for that claim i.e. the claim posted for you once already.

The evidence is in the fact that you have failed to provide a single source for your claim that the majority of muslims in the mid east support peace and/or oppose terrorism.

Au contraire. I proved with your own words your Islamophobic stance.

No you didn't. All you proved was that you have a problem with logic. That fact that you have to rely on ad homs and non sequiturs is evidence of that.

The rest of your post is just more insipid PC crap.

 

[Jim Bowen]

Lemme try again. I wanna give you a chance to put me in my place. Show all the JREFers what part of your nonsubjectivity in this thread - (about a wall to stop suicide bombers) - covered the topic of islamic fundamentalism and the problem of suicide bombing?

Then follow my earlier advice and actually read posts properly and discover all of what they say, rather than just picking and choosing the bits that you want to react to and comment on. You will find, I reitterate, that I would like to see both sides reach a compromise, with the Palestinians stopping blowing up Israelis and the Israelis packing in blowing up Palestinians.

Ref. your rant about livestock manure and the intifada, I find it most odd. It's hard to see how a kid throwing stones at an armoured bulldozer destroying his home is a terrorist. The converse is a lot easier to take note of.

Jim Bowen

 

[davefoc]

Mycroft,
Thanks for your response. I think I am beginning to understand your views. You don't think the settlements have been ethically a bad thing because:

1. They are on territory that Israel disputes the ownership of. Palestinians can't build settlements whereever they want on empty land in Israel because Israel doesn't dispute who owns that territory.

2. They don't do any real harm to Palestinians because there aren't any Palestinians living on it currently. And loss of water rights, loss of mineral rights, loss of land for potential expansion, loss of land for roads, loss of land that Palestinians might want to set aside as wild lands and loss of land to build roads to connect the settlements doesn't count.

3. Someday in future negotiations Israel might agree to give up some of it, so resistance by Palestinians to what they see as encroachment into their land is really not justified since someday Israel might give it up. Although as an American you might be a little bit disgusted by the idea that if the Israelis do decide to give up any of it the Israelis will expect the Americans to subsidize the movement of the displaced Israelis.

Is this a fair description of your views on the settlements?

 

[The Fool]

I can't believe this crap these guys are trying to sell. That is one reason I cannot leave JREF. Cuz of this misinformation regarding the Middle East.

The intifada doesn't equal terrorism? While these folks sitting in their comfy and safe homes 10,000 miles away in Australia try to sell you that load of crap that the intifada does not equal terrorism....somebody better tell their BIZZARE claim to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which ironically is named after the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is responsible for many many suicide bombings inside Israel proper and attacks on settlers in Gaza and the West Bank. It is also the military arm of Fateh, the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority.

Don't listen to these guys, they are so full of LIVESTOCK MANURE that they are actually trying to sell you that the past 4 years of suicide bombings and attacks on settlers has not been the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Why those events are "different", the intifada is just poor Palestinian children throwing stones against mean old IDF tanks.....what a load of crap!

Whats your next claim....All fish are cod? Nobody...I'll say that again...Nobody has claimed that terrorist actions are not performed as part of something called the intifada. Once again I have to ask are children who throw stones at IDF troops terrorists? Are people who abuse and spit at soldiers terrorists? Are people who ignore the directives of an ocupying army terrorists?
If the intifada = terrorism then the war on terror=torture...by your own definition.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Whats your next claim....All fish are cod? Nobody...I'll say that again...Nobody has claimed that terrorist actions are not performed as part of something called the intifada.

The vast majority of the palestinian resistance is slightly less dramatic than bombs... what I do have a problem with is Intifada=terrorism. They are two different things.

So much for listening to you the fool. You can't even remember what you and a_u_p lied about several posts ago...

 

[The Fool]

So much for listening to you the fool. You can't even remember what you and a_u_p lied about several posts ago...

It always amuses me when you accuse people of lying.

I'm also aware of how disagreement within the supporters of zionism on this forum seems to be not allowed so I can understand how disagreement between myself and aup may be a shock. We are not disagreeing about the date of the queens birth, we are possibly in disagreement over a matter of opinion...

So show me some of my lies in this thread.

 

[zenith-nadir]

It always amuses me when you accuse people of lying.
So show me some of my lies in this thread.

I just did. And then you responded with a lie that you didn't lie. Bizzare.

 

[Mycroft]

Whats your next claim....All fish are cod? Nobody...I'll say that again...Nobody has claimed that terrorist actions are not performed as part of something called the intifada.

If someone said, "Don't confuse cod with fish" I would take issue with that statement. Certainly there are fish that are not cod, and it may sometimes be necessary to talk about cod while excluding other kinds of fish, but to portray the two as separate and unrelated topics as AUP tried to do with terrorism and the intifada is absurd.

 

[Mycroft]

Mycroft,
Thanks for your response…

…Is this a fair description of your views on the settlements?

Not really, Dave. I count 8 different things in your response that are either directly contradictory to what I’ve said or just way beyond the scope of what I’ve said. This seems to have become a pattern with our discussions, and that puzzles me.

I’ll get into more detail later.

 

[The Fool]

I just did. And then you responded with a lie that you didn't lie. Bizzare.

then you will have no trouble showing me which of your random ravings you are talking about.. whats the lie?

come on zn, don't let fear hold you back...

 

[Atlas]

Jim Bowen says his hope is for compromise from both sides. He sides with AUP and Fool in these discussions and I think that AUP and Fool would hope with the rest of us that compromise can be reached.

This is why my hopes soar with the passing of Arafat. An uncompromising partner if ever there was one. He continuously asked for talks but came with no plan of his own.

The rule the N Vietnamese taught the world was that intransigence wins against the soft compromisers of the West. But the Israelis are not soft compromising types. That's why Arafat had to bring in nations from the West. To pressure Israel into compromising what they won at the risk of their extinction.

Anyway, that's how it always seemed to me. It's why I've always been on the side of the Israelis. They have seemed the more willing and civilized partner in the land of treachery and blood. Plus, their contributions in science and medicine continue to outpace the other nations of the Middle East. They can see tomorrow and the Muslims can only see the yesterday they long for. That is, all they threaten me with is a brighter tomorrow. A completely different message than that brought by the Islamicists.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

..

 

[Elind]

Only keeps terrorists out, not IDF and settlers.

The settlers are fanatics too, but not random murderers. What exactly is your point in trying to equate them?

 

[Jim Bowen]

Jim Bowen says his hope is for compromise from both sides. He sides with AUP and Fool in these discussions and I think that AUP and Fool would hope with the rest of us that compromise can be reached.

This is why my hopes soar with the passing of Arafat. An uncompromising partner if ever there was one. He continuously asked for talks but came with no plan of his own.

The rule the N Vietnamese taught the world was that intransigence wins against the soft compromisers of the West. But the Israelis are not soft compromising types. That's why Arafat had to bring in nations from the West. To pressure Israel into compromising what they won at the risk of their extinction.

Anyway, that's how it always seemed to me. It's why I've always been on the side of the Israelis. They have seemed the more willing and civilized partner in the land of treachery and blood. Plus, their contributions in science and medicine continue to outpace the other nations of the Middle East. They can see tomorrow and the Muslims can only see the yesterday they long for. That is, all they threaten me with is a brighter tomorrow. A completely different message than that brought by the Islamicists.

Well, Atlas, I can't say that I agree with everything that you say , but you have my respect for being able to see that a compromise is the only sensible solution. The Israel-Palestine question is not black and white and the sooner this is realised by the world, the quicker it can be solved.

Jim Bowen

 

[davefoc]

Mycroft, I am sorry that you felt that I had not accurately represented your views. I can assure you that I read your words carefully and I tried to figure out exactly what you were saying. I have listed my understanding of your views together with some quotes from you that led me to that understanding below:

If it doesn't seem helpful to try to correct my incorrect inferences about what you were saying, perhaps you could just state why you believe the settlements beyond the 1967 borders were justified.

davefoc's understanding of mycroft's first justification for the settlements:
They are on territory that Israel disputes the ownership of. Palestinians can't build settlements wherever they want on empty land in Israel because Israel doesn't dispute who owns that territory.

Calling it "Palestinian territory" presumes an agreement that hasn’t been reached yet.

davefoc understanding: Mycroft believes Israel disputes ownership of land beyond its 1967 borders.

An interesting question. I can think of some scenarios where that could happen. Suppose, for example, a peace agreement involved a one-state solution instead of two? Or suppose years after a two-state solution had been implemented successfully, and the violence had been forgotten?

davefoc inference from the above statement:
At the present time Palestinians shouldn't have the right to build on empty land in Israel but they might in the future.

davefoc conclusion from these mycroft statements and mycroft's apparent agreement with Israel's settlements on land outside 1967 borders:
Mycroft believes It's ok and one of the reasons is that the ownership of the land outside the 1967 borders is disputed by Israel. But at the present time the converse (Palestinians building on empty land in Israel) is not justified and that is because Israel doesn't dispute the ownership of that land.


davefoc's understanding of mycroft's second justification for the settlements:
They don't do any real harm to Palestinians because there aren't any Palestinians living on it currently. And loss of water rights, loss of mineral rights, loss of land for potential expansion, loss of land for roads, loss of land that Palestinians might want to set aside as wild lands and loss of land to build roads to connect the settlements doesn't count.

Assuming the land is legally purchased, in what way does building a housing development intrinsically harm the Palestinian-Arabs? These developments are portrayed as the reason for Palestinian-Arab hostility, and that claim, by some, is taken at face value without skepticism.

davefoc inference from Mycroft's statement above:
Mycroft believes that if Israel decides that settlements built on land outside 1967 borders has been legally purchased and that land wasn't occupied when the settlements were built then there isn't any harm to nearby Palestinians. Since there is considerable obvious harm to nearby Palestinians Mycroft must assume that that harm doesn't count as actually a loss to Palestinians.

davefoc's understanding of mycroft's third justification for the settlements :
Someday in future negotiations Israel might agree to give up some of it, so resistance by Palestinians to what they see as encroachment into their land is really not justified since someday Israel might give it up.

The future status of this land is uncertain as far as issues of sovereignty, so it seems to me anyone buying and building on it would be taking something of a risk. I imagine people buying land in Hong Kong in the days when it was still ruled by the British felt they were taking something of a risk too, but it didn’t stop them.

davefoc inference from above statement:
Since the land outside of the 1967 borders is in dispute it might theoretically be returned to the Palestinians why should Palestinians complain when they might get it back. It's just like people buying land in hong kong that might have it taken away when the Chinese took over control.

 

[zenith-nadir]

If it doesn't seem helpful to try to correct my incorrect inferences about what you were saying, perhaps you could just state why you believe the settlements beyond the 1967 borders were justified.

Dave, one question. Since you blame settlements for everything, before 1967 - when the settlements didn't exsist - was there peace between Palestinians and Israelis? Please do not give a long-winded rationalization, a yes or no will do.