Wall a huge failure

[demon]

Jim Bowen:
"Or of course one could address the causes of the hatred, find a way of living together without fear that the other party will blow you up. For that both parties must be willing to give."

There is a third party in this. The elephant in the room, the gorilla sitting in the corner, The USA. Isreal does not have to seek any peace with the Palestinians so long as it is brave little Sparta sitting in the Middle East, and why would it seek peace? Peace is not conducive to Israel`s Zionist goals and to think they need peace to survive is naive in the extreme. Israel is in no danger of being "pushed into the sea" (the favourite refrain of the Zionist apologists), when it is backed up by the most powerful nation on earth.
Its constant flouting of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions, its total disregard of rulings by the UN, the perpetual vetoing of resolutions by the UN by the USA that are critical of Israel, and its ignoring of the Internaitonal Court should tell you something here. Israel is above the law and will continue to be so. It is under the wing of the USA, end of story.

If we ever get a statement about where the limits of Israel`s boarders are envisged then we have a starting point. You won`t get such a statement though because that would be to give the game up concerning the possibility of any viable Palestinian State.
With aquifiers on Palestinian lands they are quite frankly done for.

If you don`t believe me about trying to get a definitive statement about where Israel`s boarders should be, just try asking some of the Zionists on this forum. You`ll be treated to an exquisitely slippery and Orwellian diatribe that will leave you more confused than when you asked.

Good luck.

 

[Elind]

Or of course one could address the causes of the hatred, find a way of living together without fear that the other party will blow you up. For that both parties must be willing to give.

Jim Bowen

Are you really sure that one can address the causes of the hatred, if they have become a part of one's identity? Perhaps at least one party, maybe both, must be MADE to give?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
It strikes me that a less arbitrary policy would help to ameliorate the serious hardship imposed on ordinary Palestinians by this policy. Heck, it might even show Israel in more of a favourable light to the Palestinians for once.

Then again, if the Palestinian-Arabs would police their own by arresting known terrorists, militants and the ones that support them, if they would stop publicly praising their martyrs, it might show the Palestinian-Arabs in more of a favorable light to the Israelis for once. Further, it would remove the need to close the borders.

This is what I was speaking of as anti-Arab racism. This complete lack of willingness to acknowledge the role the Palestinian-Arabs played in creating the situation, and total denial of Palestinian-Arabs ability to improve the situation. You speak of them as though they were children, incapable of doing anything but reacting with violence to anything.

If peace is to be achieved between these populations, both must play a role in creating that peace. We can and should expect civilized behavior from the Palestinian-Arabs, to do otherwise is anti-Arab racism.

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
Jim Bowen

Denny Crane.

 

[a_unique_person]

Then again, if the Palestinian-Arabs would police their own by arresting known terrorists, militants and the ones that support them, if they would stop publicly praising their martyrs, it might show the Palestinian-Arabs in more of a favorable light to the Israelis for once. Further, it would remove the need to close the borders.

And Israeli's could decide they have had enough of being manipulated by politicians and extremists and pull out the settlements, like the majority have always been prepared to do.

It's wedge politics, force the middle to the extremes.

 

[Mycroft]

And Israeli's could decide they have had enough of being manipulated by politicians and extremists and pull out the settlements, like the majority have always been prepared to do.

It's wedge politics, force the middle to the extremes.

Truly amazing.

Can you think of anything at all the Palestinian-Arabs could do that would improve relations and move towards peace?

 

[a_unique_person]

Truly amazing.

Can you think of anything at all the Palestinian-Arabs could do that would improve relations and move towards peace?

I think I used the word "and", just checking, yes, I used the word "and".

 

[Atlas]

... Peace is not conducive to Israel`s Zionist goals and to think they need peace to survive is naive in the extreme. Israel is in no danger of being "pushed into the sea" (the favourite refrain of the Zionist apologists), when it is backed up by the most powerful nation on earth. ...

Arafat and Islamic Jihad are hardly Zionist apologists.

 

[demon]

When did Arafat say that?

Zionist apologists repeat this all the time..it`s effectiveness depends on the ignorance of the audience. Hence it is pretty effective, especially in America, although it is a ludicrous proposition.

 

[davefoc]

Originally posted by davefoc
Of course I'd be pretty much opposed to setting up American settlements in Mexico to be defended by the American army

No doubt, but I believe that the Mexicans welcome Americans who bring money and resources and would like to settle in Mexico, and the American army is not required to protect them, by virtue of that welcome. The analogy is irrelevant, unless you are slyly suggesting that the Palestinians are jackasses for not considering their own interests, and that of their children, above their inherent anti Jewish bigotry (or racism, as Mycroft would say. )

Do you think that the Mexicans would welcome the Americans if the Americans set up their own little settlements in contravention of Mexican law and then called on the US army to come and protect them if any of the locals attempted to enforce Mexican law against the settlements?

 

[Atlas]

When did Arafat say that?

Zionist apologists repeat this all the time..it`s effectiveness depends on the ignorance of the audience. Hence it is pretty effective, especially in America, although it is a ludicrous proposition.

Strangely, I can't answer when... It seems like a common phrase that anti-Israeli groups used... I found 4 articles saying Arafat, Hamas, Syria, and Nasser said it. Also several articles made passing comments about it being the stated position of the Arab states in the runup to the 6 day war.

Link

When two opposing groups live in the same territory, they may either seek to find a way to live together, or one or both groups may decide that the only way to resolve their conflict is to make the other group just "go away" or "disappear." This results is what Guy Burgess has labeled "into-the-sea" framing (a reference to Yassir Arafat's threat to push the Israelis "into the sea"[1].)
...
[1] This quote has been circulating for years. We found it in print, however, in the excellent chronicle of life in Israel, Home To Stay, by Daniel Gordis. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2003.

Link2

Hamas, the radical anti-Arafat fighting group in Palestine, has always asserted- at least until its remarkable volte-face in Cairo a month ago- that they were determined to drive Israel into the Mediterranean.

Link3

NPR Diplomatic Correspondent Mike Shuster reports on the Six Day War and its aftermath in the fourth segment of the Morning Edition series on the history of the Middle East conflict.

"In 1967, the mood in the Middle East was ugly," Shuster reports. "Israel, independent since 1948, was surrounded by Arab states dedicated to its eradication. Egypt was ruled by Gamal Abdel Nasser, a firebrand nationalist whose army was the strongest in the Arab Middle East. Syria was governed by the radical Baathist Party, constantly issuing threats to push Israel into the sea."

Link4

On the Six-Day War, he defends Nasser by denying that the Egyptian leader had any bellicose intentions against Israel when he closed the Straits of Aqaba in May 1967. He accepts the fable that Nasser’s intentions were "only defensive, not offensive..." and that Nasser was ready to negotiate and "was about to send his vice president to Washington to get negotiations started, when Israel struck before talks could get under way." Anyway, one who remembers the traumatic days in June 1967, when Nasser daily screamed over the media that his armies were poised to push Israel into the sea, knows that this re-writing of history is false.

 

[a_unique_person]

Strangely, I can't answer when... It seems like a common phrase that anti-Israeli groups used... I found 4 articles saying Arafat, Hamas, Syria, and Nasser said it. Also several articles made passing comments about it being the stated position of the Arab states in the runup to the 6 day war.

quote:Hamas, the radical anti-Arafat fighting group in Palestine, has always asserted- at least until its remarkable volte-face in Cairo a month ago- that they were determined to drive Israel into the Mediterranean.

note how it says Hamas, the anti-Arafat fighting group.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Now a_u_p is arguing that Hamas is anti-Arafat while Demon denies "drive jews into the sea" was ever said. Classic . Hamas is anti-Arafat a_u_p because;

HAMAS ONLINE Hamas opposed the 1993 accord between the Zionists and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which granted Palestinians gradual limited autonomy in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and called for complete Zionist withdrawal from both areas.

Why does Hamas oppose peace with the "zionists" and the Palestinian Authority a_u_p?

THE CHARTER OF THE HAMAS: Hamas regards Nationalism (Wataniyya) as part and parcel of the religious faith. Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims. And this becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman may fight the enemy even without her husband's authorization, and a slave without his masters' permission.

 

[a_unique_person]

Now a_u_p is arguing that Hamas is anti-Arafat while Demon denies "drive jews into the sea" was ever said. Classic . Hamas is anti-Arafat a_u_p because;

Why does Hamas oppose peace with the "zionists" and the Palestinian Authority a_u_p?

I thought we were discussing Arafat. Can you stick to one point, or do you have ADD?

 

[demon]

ZN:
"...while Demon denies "drive jews into the sea" was ever said."

What the hell is it with you Zionists that you have to constantly misrepresent and invent what other people say around here?

I have a suspicion it comes from defending a weak and duplicitous position vis a vis Israel. It seems to make you resort to this sort of behaviour to bolster your "arguments" and it seems to be second nature. What`s the matter? Can`t they stand on their own merits?

You will show me where I stated that "drive jews into the sea" was never said?
On second thoughts, never mind.

 

[Elind]

Do you think that the Mexicans would welcome the Americans if the Americans set up their own little settlements in contravention of Mexican law and then called on the US army to come and protect them if any of the locals attempted to enforce Mexican law against the settlements?

Of course, but you missed the point; completely.

 

[Jim Bowen]

Since Arafat's actions are being questioned, would anyone care to comment on Ariel Sharon's actions in 1982 at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps? It seems that he's a war criminal, in case you didn't know I guess that it's not just some of the Palestinians who are a bit morally dubious

Jim Bowen

 

[Elind]

Since Arafat's actions are being questioned, would anyone care to comment on Ariel Sharon's actions in 1982 at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps? It seems that he's a war criminal, in case you didn't know I guess that it's not just some of the Palestinians who are a bit morally dubious

Jim Bowen

All Israelis are war criminals according to some, and Sharon shares that accusation with many leaders, including the USA, and they always will.

However, to my knowledge he has not been convicted of this by any court outside of Ramalah. Please correct me if wrong.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
Since Arafat's actions are being questioned, would anyone care to comment on Ariel Sharon's actions in 1982 at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps? It seems that he's a war criminal, in case you didn't know I guess that it's not just some of the Palestinians who are a bit morally dubious

You're such a newb at this Israel bashing thing.

The massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps were conducted by the Southern Lebanese Army. It was Israel’s army that put a stop to the massacre when they pulled the Lebanese out. Ariel Sharon’s "guilt" was in not anticipating that the Lebanese might want to take revenge for the recent slaying of Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel as well as the years of brutality the Lebanese had received at the hands of the PLO.

However, if you're interested in Lebanese massacres, check out what happened in Damour here and here.

So…will you be posting about the USS Liberty next?

Originally posted by Jim Bowen Jim Bowen

Denny Crane

 

[demon]

Mycroft:
"So…will you be posting about the USS Liberty next?"

Yeah, like that`s done and dusted.
Mistaken identity my ass and even if it was what the hell were they playing at?

 

[Mycroft]

Mycroft:
"So…will you be posting about the USS Liberty next?"

Yeah, like that`s done and dusted.
Mistaken identity my ass and even if it was what the hell were they playing at?

In the lower right hand corner of every post you read, right above the button that says "post reply" is a button that says "quote". If you click on it, it's just like hitting "post reply" only it also includes the text of what you're responding to.