Re: For thsoe who saw that yassin was innocent... 1. Their numbers would have been insufficient even then. 2. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, you'd be a lot less of a moron. Of course it was. Oh yes, lets bring up the Aztecs as a fine example of those evil Europeans. Never mind that every group around the Aztecs HATED the Aztecs (apparently requiring contributions of human sacrifices gives one an image problem). As for disease - are you really blaming the Europeans for coughing? Finally, your number of 60M is way off anyway. There is absolutely no correlation. The Indians of North American did not have the same concept of land ownership as existed in the Middle East in 1900, and the South American parallel fails even worse, because the Jews didn't invade Israel, and certainly didn't kill the Palestinians by breathing on them. Funny; by the time Americans figured out Manifest Destiny, the Indians weren't really much of a problem to them. Expansion into the West wasn't a death march, it was a race to settle open lands. So much for that argument. Besides, most Israelis have absolutely no interest in creating a country based on Biblical borders. You could use a bit of brushing up on your historical concepts. First, its IsrAEl. Please; its just annoying when you keep getting this wrong. Next, Israel has a religious state, not an ideological one. Finally, this state is not at the expense of the Palestinians. The first UN division of the area granted Jews only that land in which they had the majority. This proved so unsatisfactory to Arabs, that they tried to wipe Israel off the map. So it wasn't really at Palestinian expense, now was it? Since, once again, there are no good parallels, your attempt to be Santayana on a cross is quite sad. Just because something bad once happened to your people, doesn't mean it has a direct correlation to something else bad happening somewhere else today. What's next, are you going to make Holocaust comparisons? And Egypt gets what, $2 billion? Despite being surrounded by the ever dangerous........sand? Please. $5 billion is a pretty small number in the grand scheme of things. Well, do we need a democratic strategic ally in Africa? And besides, if this aid is military aid, to whom would you suggest showering such largesse in Africa? The Congo? Zimbabwe perhaps? No? How odd. So your point is? This is the stupidest point you've made yet. We shouldn't sell cool helicopters to Saudis? Or what, they'll use them to.......attack camels? Seriously, what is the potential harm of selling advanced weapons systems incapable of delivering serious payloads? Hell, if we sold attack helicopters to militias in Michigan it wouldn't be that big a deal. I don't sleep in fear of some Sheik driving an M1 Abrams. Really? That's funny. Apparently MLK and Gandhi should have blown themselves up too. A bit hard to condemn them when the people doing all the whining are the same people that have repeatedly launched wars to obliterate Israel off the face of the earth. When staring in the face of total destruction, I think Israel deserves a bit of leeway. Think of it this way - if the Arabs could, would they kill all the Jews? Would the Jews do the same? (Hint - the second answer is no. They already have the power to do it.) Ah yes, that would be 1956. In cooperation with the English and the French. And Israel pulled out, as I recall, when the US asked. And took no territory. So your point is............ So when Iran and Syria fund the Hizbollah, I guess that's not a breach of international law? Oh good, I was hoping we'd get to your double standard. And riddle me this, brainiac - do you really think the Palestinians will stop hostile action if Israel gives them all of the West Bank and Gaza? Well, if their charter that calls for the destruction of Israel is anything to go by, I'd say no. Go plan ole' appeasment, just because palefaces once did something bad to your great-great-great-great-great grandpappy. Yes, because the UN is a good arbiter of Israel's standing in the world. Lets see - how many Muslim countries are there in the UN? And don't they happen to outvote Israel by a bit? Plus, don't some of them control oil? I'd like to see the links for this. And, when are you going to call for Arafat's execution as a war criminal? That nail through your left arm seems to have been dislodged. Here, let me help you with that. That statement alone makes you completely irrelevant in serious discussions. Anti-Semitism is a specific term that applies to JEWS, and has for centuries. That a part of the term has a technical definition is completely irrelevant. And you even including this argument marks you as a total tool. Really? I'd like to see that speech. And if your point is that "we're bad, we should do better", I would say that there are FAR more deserving targets than the Palestinians with whom we should start. Perhaps with a group that doesn't blow up civilians as a form of political action? In other words, you dislike Jews that disagree with you, but delude yourself into thinking that this group is rapidly shrinking. I don't see any evidence of that. Before spouting such nonsense go read some of the deliberations in the Russian Communist party in 1918-1922, and tell me about the nature of Judaism's connection to Israel and Zionism. What's your definition of traditional Judaism? Liberals on the Upper East side? Yeah, they're not Zionists. But after donating to the Democrats, I'd be their next check is to AIPAC. I have confirmed documentation of Palestinian barbarism. Yes, funny, that. There aren't really that many Palestinians, are there? No. And there are a lot of Arab countries, aren't there? Yeah. So why don't any of them help them out by taking them in as refugees, as opposed to giving them bombs? Perhaps because they want them as political tools? No! Perish the thought. The Kurds are the largets group of people in the world without their own state. I think we should help them out first with this problem. As George Will has written, there were over 10 million refugees in Europe at the end of WWII. Within a few years, that number had dwindled to almost 0. If they can do it, you're telling me the Arab countries can't help out the Palestinians? Funny, no?
Interesting analysis of why he was killed at this time. http://www.counterpunch.org/gordon03302004.html "Israeli commentator Oded Granot seems to have an answer. "A day following the assassination, he noted that the Hamas and Fatah (the largest party within the Palestinian Authority) were on the verge of reaching a cooperation agreement regarding the distribution of authority in the Gaza Strip. The two major political factions in the Strip wanted to ensure that there would be no internal strife and that joint control would be assumed over the region if Prime Minister Sharon went ahead with his plan to dismantle the Jewish settlements and withdraw Israel's troops. Israeli officials, Granot added, feared that if such an agreement was signed then the Bush Administration would veto all Hamas assassinations. Israel consequently decided not to take any chances and killed Yassin."
Re: For thsoe who saw that yassin was innocent... Arab states did buy arms and receive loans from Socialist/Communist states such as China, N. Korea, and even the USSR...buy alliance? No. Communism is, by nature, atheistic and the Communist states you speak of outlawed the practice of religion. The fact that all Arab states have a more than slight tilt towards government through religion as well as the open practice of it would preclude any real alliance. Not to mention that the Communist movement wanted all its allies to also be communist states (particularly during the Cold War era I believe you're referring to). It is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and it's attempts to assimilate other Arab states into the Soviet block that caused the formation of groups like the modern Mujahedeen. If anything the last 40 years have shown that Arab/Islamic states are decidedly against Communist states and the spread of the Communist ideology. Israel is not the only "body subject to pinpoint and accusation." On the contrary, my argument is that Israel has been the only body that has gotten off "scotch free" despite offenses that other nations (including Western states) are punished for severely. While you are correct in that the British, French, Spanish, Romans, Arabs, and I would add Americans, all strove to create vast empires, you are incorrect in including Isreal. Israel is not striving to create an empire, it is striving to create a Jewish state. A state in which Palestinians are second class citizens. If this is not the case, then why does Isreal violate international law and the Geneva Convention by settling on Palestinian land? Why in cities like Hebron, does 85% of the water supply go to 4oo something settlers while the approximately 120,000 Palestinians living in Hebron must share the remaining 15%? "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." —Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 Israel ratified this treaty yet between 1967 and 1999, Isreal established 145 settlements on Palestinian land where some 172,000 Isreali citizens reside. No, a viable Palestinian state has existed in the region for the better part of 1500 years. The sovereignty of a nation is not dependant on its population. Furthermore, Palestinians, Jews, and even Christians lived in the region in relative peace for the majority of this period. Yes, even through the Ottoman Empire's run through the area and the later annexation of Palestine into the British Empire after WWI. It was the 1948 decision by the UK, US, and Zionists that Palestine should become the new Israeli state and the subsequent 1967 war that polarized tensions to their current levels. The amount has been as low as 3 and as high as to go over 5. If you include private donations the amount is even higher, but between 3 and 5 you're splitting hairs. And yes, you are correct that this money eventually gets recycled into the US arms economy and into the cash flows of prominent government contractors like Raytheon. If you read what I actually typed you would have seen that I argue against the fattening of these corporations at the expense of facilitating hostilities between people. I argued that arms sales should also stop to Egypt and KSA, etc.. I have not turned a blind eye. But this discussion is not about them. Not to mention the fact that violations committed by these states are immediately dealt with on the international level by Western countries whereas Israel's transgressions are routinely swept under the rug. Now what are you talking about? Foe nations? This is exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about. It doesn't seem like you have any intention of there being a lasting peace. And as for failed negotiations, lets look at this more closely. The first Camp David accord was hailed as a rousing success yet Isreal not only continued but escalated settlement building in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. More Palestinians were displaced and Israel went on to claim that the Geneva Convention (which it signed) no longer applied to them...funny they decided that as they were flagrantly in violation of that treaty (an example of which is quoted above). In 1993, Palestinians ratified the Oslo Agreement. This agreement had the Palestinians accepting only 22% of their original lands (the West Bank and Gaza Strip) while the State of Israel would occupy the remaining 78%. These are the so-called "1967 borders"...settlements continued and the Oslo Agreement, like so many Geneva Convention articles and UN resolutions, were ignored by Israel. Fast forward to the Clinton-Barak-Arafat version of Camp David where Arafat was accused of deserting the talks. This is simply false. The now infamous "generous offer" that Ehud Barak presented to Arafat would have meant that a Palestinian state would enjoy: - No territorial contiguity - No control of its own borders - No control of it's own water supply - No full withdrawal from occupied territories (as recquired by the Geneva Convention) - Isreali military control over vast portions of the West Bank and Jordan Valley - The right for Isreali forces to be deployed in Palestine without notice (a violation of sovereignty laws) - the continued presence of Isreali settlements and Jewish-only roads within Palestine - and nearly 4 million refugees would have to reliquish their right of return. - In addition, Jerusalem itself would fall under the complete control of Isreal. "it is hard to imagine the Palestinians accepting such a state. Certainly no other nation in the world has such curtailed sovereignty." *Source: "The Impossible Partition," New York Times, January 11, 2001* I will add this quote as well to further cement my point: "Many have come to believe that the Palestinians' rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel's right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem -- neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel -- not Anwar el-Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria -- ever came close to even considering such compromises." -Robert Malley, Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs under Clinton Well I doubt Eichmen was involved very heavily with Amnesty International but it's funny, so does Rabbi Zimmerman, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Neturei Karta, the hundreds of Isreali citizens activley refusing to serve in the IDF, and the millions of Jews around the world that oppose the Zionist movement. I leave you with a final quote from Rabbi Weiss: "As we gather our thoughts and attempt to again stand up to the evils of Zionism and the State of "Israel", the words of our leaders, the Rabbis of the generation past, stand before us. How they warned us that Zionism and all the evils emanating from it, will cause endless bloodshed, of course the misnomer and tragedy of equating Judaism with Zionism is of the major contributing factors to this endless stream of blood. And so we are reminded of one of the exceptional attributes of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin. How he constantly drew a clear distinction between true Judaism and Zionism and between the practitioners of Judaism and Zionist perpetrators. The followers of Judaism were never considered by the Sheik to be an obstacle to true peace."
Re: For thsoe who saw that yassin was innocent... The Arab world has been split between pan-Arabist nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism. Regimes such as the former were allies of the Soviet Union. Baathist socialism was the order of the day in Iraq, and still is in Syria. In any event, when it comes to killing Jews, even Islamists will turn to anyone who will help, even if they are not necessarily ideological allies. Not at all. Israel is given second class status at the UN, and is routinely castigated for actions that are routine in other countries. Witness Syria's massacre of Kurdish citizens, which went by with not a peep from the UN. Israel is striving to create a Jewish state, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. While discrimination exists, minorities in Israel fare better than comparable minorities in other countries, including western countries. That's no reason to abolish the Jewish state. And Israel hasn't deported or transfered a one of them. That provision applies to forced population migration, not individuals who voluntarily move. I think the settlements are a problem, but I doubt that they are illegal. No nation state of "Palestine" with "Palestinians" existed at the time of the mandate or the Ottoman empire. And Jews were regularly massacred in Arab socieities. Not as bad as they were in Christian Europe, but that's a low bar to hurdle. Most of the aid are loans and loan guarantees, some of the guarantees aren't even used. Again, I will agree to phase out aid to Israel when the Arab states take their own position of "neutrality" on this issue, and back it up with actual neutrality. What claims does Saudi Arabia have against Israel? There's nothing wrong with recognizing what these countries have explicitly declared, that they are at war with Israel and want it destroyed. Any other country would have the right to respond to such declarations with force. But if Israel takes any actions, the Arab states run like little bitches to the UN, crying foul. This is so laughably ahistorical it's tough to figure out where to start. Israel negotiated a peace agreement with Egypt which basically led to Egypt supporting terrorists covertly, rather than overtly. An achievement to an extent, but hardly a rousing success. After that, Israel was told it could only negotiate with the PLO, a group of racist murderers who were deemed the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people." Any attempts to negotiate with local leadership, i.e., Palestinians who actually were under occupation, were scuttled as "subversive" by the international community. And not until the late 80s did Jordan relinquish it's claims to the West Bank. It made the formation of a Palestinian state impossible. Again, wrong on so many accounts it's tough to figure out where to start. The offer may not have been perfect, but it gave Arafat all of Gaza, most of the West Bank, and concessions on East Jerusalem. There would have been no problem with temporary Israeli control so long as Palestinian terror groups didn't try to continue their war. If Arafat wanted to make peace, he could have counteroffered. Instead, he said no, walked away, and boasted how he stood up to Israel and the U.S. This was all about Arafat trying to show what a tough hombre he was and nothing about Arafat wanting to make peace. He doesn't know how to do so. Neuteuri Karta are a bunch of reactionary extremists who represent no one except themselves. Not all Jews are Zionists. So what? There are several million who have created a thriving democratic society, and several million more in the diaspora who support them for doing so. The fact that you can find a reactionary cult to cover your personal anti-semitism doesn't change anything.
Re: For thsoe who saw that yassin was innocent... Ironically, nations such as Syria and Egypt are autocratic and dictatorial regimes who have had close ties with the USSR. Back in the 60's and 70's, the biggest ally to the Arab World was the USSR. Syria was one of the beneficiaries of it. Although the Arab states are muslim, that doesn't mean that they can't be communist as well.. Indonesia is communist...big woo-woo there.. And Let it be known that Syria, in 1982, wiped out the inhabitants of Hama, Syria after they suspected of a revolt in that town. The reason for the revolt was that many syrians wanted to overthrow Assad and make Syria and Islamic State. Syria didn't want that and they killed about 15,000 people. Where were u at that time? Moreover, the same issues goes to Egypt, where the Islamic movement/muslim brotherhood is outlawed there. Many of its members want to ovethrow what they call as 'the communist government' of Mubarak and establish a Islamic State in not only Egypt but Africa as well.. Remember, that even in an ISLAMIC state such as Saudi Arabia...There is still insurgents trying to overthrow a monarchy and establishing an islamic state. So the idea of having Islamic nations in the arab world is far from it..Moreover, it can have astonshing consequences like we saw in Afganistan. If you do agree, than how come Israel is the only one to blame. I don't see the French nor the Arabs making any repermendation for the people who lived in there lands and got expelled. Infact, when you talk of palestinains you must come to terms with one statement and that is...Israel is the only one willing to make a palestinain state. The Arab nation, if had succeeded in there wars "without no excuses" than it wouldn't have made a palestinain state. Israel, since the Madrid Conference and the Oslo, has agreed to make concessions, including establish a Palestinian State in the DISPUTED areas of the West Bank and Gaza. I doubt the Arabs would have done the same, or the british, spanish and French...... When Jordan occupied what was to become THE PALESTINIAN state in 1948, they had done the same. When Israel got its hands on the west bank, the jordanians left and there was no real peace negotiator available. IN 1984 the talks between Shimon Perez and King Hussien in Washington was meant to bring a bridge or understandment between the 2 nations...and perhaps make a final agreement to give the west bank back to Jordan while Israel had a buffer zone..... That didn't work when King Hussien declared in 88 that Jordan had no NATIONALISIC Means of the west bank. Which meant the caretakers of that land just walked away from it. Unfortunately, to have a viable state, you have to have viable authority, a monarchy, a regime...some sort of power in order to have a nation. The Palestinain didn't have anything since 1994. The closest they ever had was in 1964, when a popular front started and hence the term "PALESTINIANS" came into existance. Yes, the peoples of the middle east lived in freedom and harmony. That is until the hebbron riots in the 20's-30's made coexistance hard and later arab nationalism. To say that Palestinie (the area) is all of Israel, West Bank and Gaza is misleading. Palestine, or what the British and the Ottam once occupied and recognized was Israel, WB, GAZA, some Parts of Lebanon, some of Syria and all of Jordan. When the first agreement was rejected in the 30's to have East Palestine (80%) given to the Arabs and West Palestine (20%) given to the jews.... Tensions mounted and at that time, the Hashmeite Monarchy of Saudi Arabia fled and created Trans-Jordan..While at the same time taking Jewish Inhabitants of East Palestine and Expelling them. And until 1994, implaced a provision that did not allow jews to live in Jordan or to have property. Don't guess. You look foolish by doing that. Your call that the money is given by charity is also a little off. Israel gets a 3 billion Loan and Egypt gets a 2 billion. IN all, the U.S gives the 2 nations 5 billion. Israel agreed to use that 3 billion in buying arms to defend its nations against insurgents and gurillas who attack it daily. The Egyptians use it for what ever they want to use it. If you really cared, the Egyptians buy weapons from North Korea, which is forbidden, but yet they do it. So one one hand they get the 2 billion dollars..but in the other hand they make open contracts with North Koreans.... Its going on as we speak and no one is doing anything. The difference between a country like Syria and Egypt and a coutnry like Israel is that Israel is democratic and open. If you wanted to get information about an event that happened in Syria, you couldn't. I guess that Israel's democracy is to blame for having people bash it. It should be an autocratic regime like Syria, which hides what it is doing to its people. The only proof we have of what the other countries are doing is by having dissendents tell its horrifying expeirence and demand immediate action.....But what do you do...nothing....so what is that interantional community you were talking about? A good case is the kurd revolt that left around 200+ dead. And that is in a couple of weeks. THe number can go higher and the misssing as well... But what does the International Community do? They don't lift a finger at all... Well I doubt Eichmen was involved very heavily with Amnesty International but it's funny, so does Rabbi Zimmerman, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Neturei Karta, the hundreds of Isreali citizens activley refusing to serve in the IDF, and the millions of Jews around the world that oppose the Zionist movement. [/QUOTE] You know whats funny about the organization that you mentioned? Is that the reason many of them oppose Israel is because it is secular. They hate that fact. They hate the fact that Israel is more DEMOCRATIC than a REAL JEWISH STATE. Neturie Karta has a close assimilation with Settlers. Since both of them are somehow against Israel and both burn israeli flags and hate the fact that Israel is secular.... So go on..support them Just like the muslims are supporting all those nice college students who support facism and socialism. Although one day, there gonna have a nice time getting there back stabben. Then i like to see what organizations pop up in the Western World to demonize Islam and its culture......
Re: For thsoe who saw that yassin was innocent... Just stop. Please. The above paragraph reinforced for everyone here that you have a superficial knowledge of the middle east, gleaned from pro-palestinian websites and what you assume to be common sense. The fact is that there are still secular states in the Middle East - Syria and Iraq, for one. Iran was secular until the revolution, and if you knew ANY history of the region besides the nonsense you're trying to peddle to us, you'd know that one of the most vocal groups in the Persian revolution were Marxists. Khomeini's victory was a result of phenomenal political scheming on his part, not a measure of his support; Marxists may well have been the largest group opposing the Shah. The nature of the Baath party further weakens your point, as JP correctly stated. The flowering of the ideological socialism in Syria was hardly opposed to the spread of Communist dogma. To argue that men such as Nasser, who openly allied himself with the USSR for a time was "Islamic" is sheer lunacy into the bargain. Nor is your blanket statement concerning Afghanistan correct. The USSR was not trying to assimilate Arab states into its orbit with that invasion, since as you probably don't know, Afghanistan is not Arab. Moreover, that resistance was not religious in nature, but was focused against invaders. Some of the mujahedeen, even the majority, were very religious. Not all of them were of the Taliban variety, however. What you have proven with the above paragraph is that you've come to an intellectual showdown with your pants down. The millions of Jews that oppose the Zionist movement? This must be another one of your "typos", like the 600 million Indians. There are approximately 10 million Jews in the world. Since many of them live in Israel, and the American ones overwhelmingly support Israel, where you find these millions of Jews is simply beyond me. Your attempt to say you're not against Judaism but against Zionism is a pathetic defense. It holds no water. Awww, so the murderous thug had a few nice qualities. You know, Hitler was a vegetarian! And for the last time, its ISRAEL. Not Isreal.
Re: For thsoe who saw that yassin was innocent... Whoops, almost forgot this little nugget. Tell me, o great historian, name any king, prince, shah, emir, sultan, caliph, prime minister, president, high holy water buffalo, grand high poobah, his most exalted dingleberry or assistant manager in charge of special sauce of this viable Palestinian state. (Excluding the current PLO incarnation, of course.) Go ahead! Surely there must have been one, since a viable state existed.
nicephoras, You've had the better of the above discussion--and deservedly so--but I wanted to coment on something that bugs me. The comment about there not being a Palestinian state in history, while true, seems to me to miss the point. I don't think anybody denies that the people now called the Palestinians have been living in Palestine for hundreds of years. And I would also say that, up until about the middle of the last century, there had been no state called "Syria" or "Jordan" either. Yet those modern states certainly have very ancient pedigree when you look at the cultures within them. None of which matters a whit in regards to terrorism, the poisening of Palestinian society by nihilistic terror tactics, the cynical manipulation of the Palestinian situation by corrupt, autocratic Arab regimes, etc. But the George Will quote, I think, overlooks that the refugees in Europe, by and large, returned to their homes. There are also no refugees left over from the partition of the Indian subcontinent as far as I know, either, but that doesn't mean that the partitian was a wise or just course of action. [Also, "Pakistan" is another mid-twentieth century national designation]. Having said all that, I'm glad the Hamas SOB is gone. Whatever the short-term backlash might be, I'd like to think that long-term, Hamas will be weakened and the Palestinians will be forced to turn to movements which practice something more resembling civilized behavior.
You have a good point there i'd like to say... No one can reject that there has been people living in Palestine. Maybe not many, but there was people...perhaps for hundreds of years. Those include Bedouins, Muslims, Druze, jews, Samarians, Christians, and so forth.... The Term Palestine and Palestinian are very different. Of course Palestine being the region (included Israel, WB/GAZA and Jordan) and Palestinian is the popular movement that started in 1964 with FATAH and the PLO. No one can also say that eventhough there is conflict in the middle east today, it is hard to relax and think for a second that 80 years ago, there was no one who claimed to be "SYRIAN" or "Israeli" or "Palestinain" or "Jordanian". It was based on nationalistic means. Both Arab and Jewish Nationalism, as well as world nationalism....... No mattrer how you say, there were people here. I try to quote Author Mark Twain, when he came to Israel in the 1800's. He said that land was neglected and the only hostels he had stayed in were in the 'densed' areas in Nablus and Jerusalem. The rest of the places were very quiet and unhinhabited.... odd....
Because I see too much prejudice vs muslims running around in our wonderful superior civilization? Too many ppl willing to make dumb generalizations some for political gain many just because they're idiot - if they didn't hate muslims they would hate some other undefined "evil" group/ppl (maybe the jews). In sabra and shatila there were christian palestinians also, they thought that they could escape the slaughter because of that, but phalangist didn't give a fvck if the palestinian was old, a child, a woman, tall, muslim or christian. As always you state blatant inaccuracies hoping that noone will notice it. I mean funded, giving money, paying. I will offer you some HRW articles about SLA if you go on. The way you link the few facts you know, you link them with some curious distortion of facts and evident lies, to create your own parallel universe where palestinian (and muslim) is a synonim of evil, devil and satan is always amazing. Look, my last post was very clear. I have no intention to discuss with ppl trying to save sharon from the blame he clearly deserves. I am not bashing israel nor "the jews", I am bashing sharon because IMHO he is a butcher deserving a life in prison. In his biography there's also a former episode where he slaughtered an entire palestinian village (men, women and children).
Muslims dug up there own grave. Its a patter. Better yet a cylce. What is going on in Israel, is the same as what happened in Bosnia. What happened in Bosnia, same as what happened in Chechnya, what happened in Chechnya same as what happens in 9/11, what happened in 9/11 same was what happened in Bali, what happened in Bali is same as what happened in the Phillipines. Its not that your protecting the muslims from prejeduce, but your defending there prejeduce. I a mean, to hate one culture is something occurance. But the muslims go after everyone! And i mean everyone! Im still not sure if your a muslim or not, but they go after: Christians..... Jews.....Buddahist......Hindus...small groups (Zoroastriasts and Bahais).. They even go after there own freaking people! I mean.... When the muslims...as they want it to be...take over.....the next target they would do is to annihalate the Shi'ite muslims.... This is crazy.... Its a shame you defend hate! [qupte]In sabra and shatila there were christian palestinians also, they thought that they could escape the slaughter because of that, but phalangist didn't give a fvck if the palestinian was old, a child, a woman, tall, muslim or christian. As always you state blatant inaccuracies hoping that noone will notice it.[/quote] Bear face lie! There was no christian! Its the lowest thing i have heard from you. If they would have Christian Palestinain refugee's than they would have been already killed. Someone forgot to mention to you that the whole Lebanese conflict,which led to 250,000 Lebanese being killed was a Muslim vs. Christian conflict. Or better yet...Palestinains coming to Lebanon and finding refugee from the horrible king Hussien, while at the same time taking a rifle and killing 5 Phalangist monk. Be careful what you say Sardinia, causue its pathetic that you assume that chrisitian palestininas were in that camp.... If they were, they would have been killed earlier. Moreover, the plalestinain refugee population for muslims is at around 98.4%....... Also...to add insult to injury with your claim...let me state that most christian palestinains are from the central part. Not the north. They reside in Nazareth, Bethlehem, some in Jericho and some in the Arab Triangle of Umm-EL-Farm and stuff like that. We didn't fund the SLA in any way. We aligned ourselves with them. You can use all the HRW articles as you want. There bullsh-it! Talk about a abonded group, while ignore current groups which get directly funded by your friends. I'll say it befroe and i'll say ir again.... Israel and the SLA were strategic partners. Israel did not give money nor fund the SLA. SLA gave israel information and Israel gave them Ammo to protect itself from the Amal, the PLO and the syrians...... Better than making stuff up that Palestinain Christians were in Sabra and Shatilla... Cause you know very damn well, that the minute the Palestinain Christian steps into the camp, he's gonna have his head cut off. Infact, if you were there, i don't think they would give you any "sanctuary" as well. Even if you have a "Im a muslim...Kiss me" t-shirt! I got plenty of information. I don't run to the nearest Leftist/biased site and try to find ridiculous info.. Especially on your accusation that israel funded SLA...when both were strategic allies. One wanted to protect it's citizens and they other one wanted to protect its north.... Ever asked why the Syrians got into the whole conflict? Ever ask why the palestinains not only ran to lebanon, not only set up a terror base there...but also targeted innocent Phalangist for fun? Why do you ignore such easy and basic questions. Not clear at all. Very distortive and questionable. As much as you hate Sharon. Let me state that even with the ridicoulous court system in Belgium to try leaders....it failed! He wasn't convicted. He was innocent. You blame israel for what? For making a Kahane commission to investigage? For finding that Sharon didn't act responsibly but at the same time didn't engage in any Massacre? So unless you want to accuse Sharon of causing you cancer from smoking...i have yet to see.... You bash sharon cause he is the leader of Israel and someone you just don't want to negotiate with. Infact, if you were soo reliable...you could have accused him back in the 90's right after the Civil war of war crimes.... But you didn't...you only accused sharon of war crimes when he took office.... oooo and how odd the "jews" needed to be quoted.... Do you have another name for us....Zionists? Butchers? Criminals?
Well, of course. I wasn't arguing that Palestinians were new and exotic people that the British imported from Macao and New Caledonia. However, there is quite a bit of truth to the assertion that there has NEVER been a Palestinian state. There's also an imortant consideration - this particular area of the Middle East is the center of most trading routes and many immigration routes. Trying to figure out the static population of this area is well nigh impossible. Finally, it has to be realized that until the 60s, there wasn't really a notion of "Palestinian". Those living in Gaza would have called themselves Egyptian, or Arab. The concept of Palestinian nationalism is an entirely new one, and it owes a great deal to Nasser's strong support of pan-Arabism, which then segmented. Well, come now. Syria has repeatedly been a state, historically. Your point on Jordan is taken. That is actually not true. Some of the most severe population shifts occurred in areas bordering Germany, where ethnic Germans were forced to simply move. The Sudetenland was depopulated, the German presence in East Prussia and what used to be Silesia practically evaporated overnight. You could argue that Germany took Germans, which is different. But how different were Arabs living in Palestine from those in Jordan in 1948? I'd venture there was almost no difference at all. And this doesn't even take into account the Jews, who most certainly did not return to Poland or Germany. True, but that is not very analogous. India and Pakistan was a planned partition of one country during peacetime. (And even then, see Kashmir!) There was a plan, however draconian and inhuman, to get the refugees to the other side of the border. One would hope. I suppose I still see a chance for peace in the region, against the better judgement of my brain.
Wow, I really flubbed that one. You're right. Your earlier point about Palestine being a crossroads is a good one. As far as nationalism and national identity go, though, I'm talking about a national identity, not an ethnic one. Your point about the recent development of the idea of Palestinian nationalism is valid but doesn't necessarily invalidate the legitimacy of national. It does, though, put that concept into some context. It goes without saying that this cuts both ways--this ridiculous and toxic refusal of the leadership in the Arab world (and in the PLO) to accept the 'legitimacy' or even the existance of Israel I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the concept of 'nationalism' can be used to downplay the legitamacy of people--the old argument that there "are no Palestinians" has been invoked to justify clearing them out of their homes in the West Bank and Gaza so they can go live with 'all the other Arabs.' >Disclaimer--this is NOT what I think you are saying!< Some histories of the former Yugoslavia have pointed out how the concept of "nationality" in that area has been somewhat fluid, with the fixed identities that led to the seemingly intractable hatreds and fierce 'ethnic' violence in Bosnia the product not of ancient national grievances but rather insecure, relatively recently formed national identities (i.e., 'Bosnian Serbs' would have considered themselves 'Bosnians' generations ago). Not necessarily a universally accepted thesis, but worth considering. So a new 'national' identity created without historical precedent is not necessarily in invalid one. There is a distinct group with historical and demographic claims on their homes in the region. That's the trees. The forest is, as you mentioned, the fact that they became Palestinians at least partially because the Egyptians and Jordanians didn't want them and wouldn't take them.
[/b] Sure, sure. I never question your reliability. http://www.mideastfacts.com/sla_no_funds.html http://www.vegsource.com/articles/kathy35.htm You don't fool noone with your lunacies. The least problem palestinians have is the religious one. There is no struggle between christian palestinians and muslim palestinians. They both fight you as palestinians. There were christian palestinians in sabra and shatila i clearly remember reading a testimony. Coming soon. Listen genius, did we know each other back in the 90's that you say I didn't consider sharon what he is (a war criminal) then? sharon is a miserable person to represent israelis. http://mediamonitors.net/drbenalofs1.html http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon.html http://www.indictsharon.net/case.shtml
You know... Part of going to google and searching "SLA" And "Funds" is actually reading the topic and not copy/pasting it! Clearly..you 'accidently' pasted a article that talked about an internal israeli matter between the SLA veterans who seeked refugee inside israel and the government of israel. Eventough it tells the reader of the article about 1982, it does not state or have anything to do with what we were talking about, which was that israel gave funds for arms with phalanginists. Once again, you distorted things, with acting macho...by searching google and not even talking about the argument.... But let me just point out, once again, cause im talking to a shell.... Israel & SLA did not have anything more than a parallel strategic alliance. If you accuse Israel of having STRAIGHT FUDNING with the SLA, i can surely tell you that, the SLA would have been more equipped with weapons and more trained. They had alot of information and in a way, helped israel, since they had eons of experience with lebanon. If you call that funding, than i guess that if Sardinia goes to work on Saturday morning and does not expect pay, that is also funding..... ooo well... Goes to show how much you know about the conflict or the middle east. Anyone who knew about the conflict can tell you that religion is a prime base for it. No matter what religion you are. Ever since pretty much the ottamans, the christians in Palestine have been victimized. Some threw taxation, others threw property. The best examples of Palestinian Christian persecution can be heard from Chilean's with dissendents of Bethlehem. Many of them came in 1900's after fearing persecution from the ottamans. Also..with your Stuggle comment. LEt me just say, that if they both fight for palestine, than how come there is no Christian Suicide bombers or the fact that Christian Palestinains have never been a victim to the onslaught of the intifahada. There casaulties is in the 0.088% of the whole conflict and most of them died in 'cross fire' or accident'. Moreover, there not the rock throwers or the deadly gun mans who try to ambush and make a video before they die. One of the biggest conflict between muslims and christians started since the jordanians OCCUPIED (illegally, but in Sardinians eyes..'its okay....Jordans a muslim state!") the West bank. Much of there Montessories (even in Israel [modd'in]) were used as a fotress for attacks and acts of terrorism... Some unity they had sardina, huh? And on another point. After the 1986 Arab summit, where Muhammar Ghaddafi made a speech about making a pan-arab state of all 22 arab states (meaning to make the UNITED STATES OF THE ARABS), than he recommeneded that all enemies of "allah" which would be the evil jews, chrstians and small minorities be cleansed... Well....that didn't bother the palestinan muslims who actually listened to him.... Once again, not only don't u show wrong information..but you also make stuff up... Remembering does not really get your argument across. Especially when you are forgetting that the Lebanese Civil War was a civil war between Muslims and Christians. The players were PLO,Syria,Amal, and the Phalangist. On top of those players, many foreign militants from pakistan, sudan and abroad were sheltered in sabra and shatilla. Many of them didn't come to fight for all PALESTINIANS. They camr to fight the jihad and the infidels. THey see a Christian...THey kill a christian! So stop arguing and stop promising B.S of your Copy/Paste garbage that has nothing to do with anyhting...... NO CHRSITIAN PALESTINAINS WERE IN SABRA AND SHATTILLA. U don't have to know me...But you are accusing Sharon, based on the fact that he is Israels prime minister. Like i said before, if you had Hardcore evidence that Sharon...himself planned/executed and even took part in the massacre than i can understand that. But he did not! Sharon, nor the IDF were part of the massacre. The Phalangist never even used guns to kill. They used non-ballistic weapons and mashedies to kill.... But till this day, the worst sharon did was not know how grusome the phalangist could get. Can u blame him? Can u blame the police for not knowing of a murder that could have been stopped? Even though sharon is innocent and has not done anything, other than not know ahead of time of what was to occur... he did however get a court hearing that was known as the Kahan hearing...and he was forced to resign. In other places...as much democratic as you can possibly get. People go scotch free. In a conservative juricdical place that yearns for justice like in Israel, we tried him and he got a fair trial? Now you want him to be punsiehd for something he didn't do?
[/b] One should just use his basic common sense to understand you're lying. Just because it serves your reconstruction of the whole thing as a muslims vs all stuff. This is true for the lebanese side of that civil war but not for palestinians who didn't perform a an internal religious fight amongst christian and muslims. They were there messing around (I mean the fighters, not the civilian refugees) just to attack Israel. Where there are palestinians (refugee or else) a minority of them will be christian. http://www.tmcrew.org/int/palestina/libano/infernosabrachatila.htm The bolded part says "he thought he had nothing to fear of because he was christian, a christian palestinian". The old man was killed, his daughter raped and then killed (two revolver bullets) The slaughter was against palestinians not a religious matter. Reset your brain. Only blind and dumb men can really think sharon was innocent and that he didn't know what was going to happen letting in the phalangists soon after the assassination of Gemayel (not by palestinians but this was unknown few days after the assasination). Only blind and dumb men can really think IDF didn't know anything of what was happening in the camps. sharon, your PM, is a war criminal. A sick man that will give you blood and more blood. I would like all of you israelis finally realize it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/1779321.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/1779316.stm
Sardinia, nice job of cutting and pasting. Hopefully someone will read the entire article, especially the lasst few paragraphs Another interesting article: http://www.meib.org/articles/0201_l1.htm
Assassination won't work because leaders can be replaced but a political movement can't be. Assassination, as a policy of political expedition, just prolongs the struggle between Israel and Palestine, and makes the way to peace more deadly. Sharon now proposed to kill Arafat too. It only shows that he is running out of patience. He has no interests in peace and he has no interests in co-existing with the Palestinians because he thinks that killing the leader of one's opposition would solve all of the problems. US is also partially responsible for the violence in Middle East by supporting Israel in UN regardless how wrong the actions of Israelis are. Under the right wing governments of Israeli and USA, this world is going backwards. Sad.
I just want you guys to realize that USA is the bigger part of the Middle East problem. With USA's blind support for Israel (like the one happened recently in UN), there wouldn't be a solution to it. So for anyone who is genuinely hopful for a stable Middle East, harsh criticism for US Middle East policy is the right direction to go. Otherwise, quit complaining why they still keep killing each other for decades. My solution is - USA has to be inpartial in this conflict. We should supply weapons to both sides as long as they can pay for it (no more free weapons or free money for Israelis). Let them duel it out. Specifically, provide tanks and heavy weaponry to Palestinians, to level the playing field. Meanwhile, we sit tight in the living room watching the war at CNN.
I love the unintentional comedy from the man that thinks the Irish are a race. Provide tanks to the people who already use suicide bombers to kill children in discos. [guiness guy]Brilliant![/guiness guy]
Of course a brilliant guy like you pretends not to realize that the body-strapped bombs were the only means left that Palestinians can use to fight Israelis. I'm 100% sure they won't need suicide bombers to kill civilians if they have M103s and F16s to fight the IDF.
The point is that they shouldn't have to fight at all. A non-violent means of resistance would have worked decades ago. The suicide bombings only set back their cause.