0
   

Another Israeli/Palestinian thread

 
 
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 10:52 am
OK, I'm sure many are tired of this issue, but I think most of the problems in the middle east currently can be linked to this issue in one way or another. While I don't support many of Israel's policies, it is my opinion that they are overly critiscized while the beligerence of the Palestinians goes unquestioned. For example, I was reading an article by (cringe)Chomsky and he lambasts Israel for not accepting a peace agreement in 1971. Does he forget that Israel has offered peace on a silver platter 3 times(1938, 1947, & 2001)? Or how the Arabs have consistently tried to wipe Israel off the map(1948, 1967, and currently)??
Also Israel's critics say that the Jews displaced the "native" Palestinians. This in itself is exaggerated(although some displacement did occur), but how is this any worse than the Arabs who conquered the territory of Palestine in the 7th century? The land did not belong to them, so their claim that Palestine is theirs does not hold much weight IMO.

Anyway, I realize this is a complicated situation and have no illusions about having the solution. If both sides would just swallow their pride a bit, I think that would be a good start.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,603 • Replies: 50
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 10:54 am
Without gettin into the ludicrous statements you make about recent history, i'd point out that the Palestinians are not descended from Arabs from the Arabian penninsula who came out of nowhere to take over. They are the descendants of Bedouin who have been there as long as or longer than the Hebrews--literally thousands of years.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 11:27 am
It is both evidence of ignorance (in no pejorative sense) as well as politically deceiving to see discrete groups such as "Arabs" and "Jews" in this situation. All Arabs are Semites, and either descended from or related to the Akkadians, the founders of the first great unified and enduring civilization in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates. The Hebrews are Semites, very likely entirely descended from the Akkadians. The people of Syria are descended from Akkadians and Assyrians, as well as a significant admixture of Greeks and Armenians (the Armenians, now located in the south-eastern portion of what was until recently the Soviet Union, originally lived in Anatolia--which comprises most of what is today Turkey). The people of Iraq are a mixture of Bedouin (little different from either Arabs or Jews) and Parsee and Medes (i.e., the Persians), and, of course, the Kurds in the north. The Kurds are likely an Aryan people related, although distantly, to the Parsee and the Medes.

Geographia-dot-com wrote:
Bedu, the Arabic word from which the name Bedouin is derived, is a simple, straightforward tag. It means "inhabitant of the desert," and refers generally to the desert-dwelling nomads of Arabia, the Negev, and the Sinai.


Over all of those populations is a gloss of Turkic-speaking tribes, who came in with the Seljuk Turks. Turkish tribes took that name of highly-revered leaders, and it is generally considered that the Seljuk Turks were named for a tribal leader famous to them. We can see this in historical times familiar to Europeans with the Osmanli Turks, named for the vigorous tribal leader Osman, who first appeared in Anatolia at the time of the First Crusade. (Osman in Arabic is Uttuman, which is why the French called their empire the Ottoman Empire.)

The Muslim fanatics who came out of Arabia after the death of Mohammed were not necessarily to be considered all that militarily competent. In the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, they faced the Sassanid empire, a corrupt and crumbling survivor of the decay of the Greco-Macedonian kingdoms and the Parthians, who managed to hold off the Romans, but were irrevocably damaged in the process. In Persia, Ali, the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law, defeated an equally decayed and corrupt remnant of the Greco-Macedonian conquest, in what was known as the mother of all battles. Although educated Muslims must read and write at the least, and usually speak and understand Arabic, that does not make them ethnic Arabs. The people of Iran remain Persians, the descendants of the Parsee and the Medes, and still speak Farsi (or Pharsee), the tribal language of those Aryan tribes. When the Arabs turned their attention to the Roman Empire (in a form usually now referred to as the Byzantine Empire), they met disciplined troops commanded competently on a sound military model, and were quickly and decisively defeated--just as their clients, the Berbers and Moors, would be defeated by the disciplined Franks and Burgundians.

In North Africa, the Muslim proselytizers/conquerors faced corrupt and decaying Vandal and Visigoth kingdoms. The German element of the population was never large, and the Egyptians and Berbers had long resented their German masters. They proved to be push-overs for the popular uprisings inspired by Islam, but the conquerors were not largely Arabs, but Berbers. Although referred to as Arabs, the "Moors" who fought and lost to Charles Martel at Tours in what is now France were largely Berbers and Morrocans (i.e., Moors).

In all of these considerations, one must never forget the Aramaic factor. Those merchant people thrived in the middle east for literally thousands of years. Although unimpressed by the Persians, they took the monotheism the Hebrews had gotten from the Persians during the Babylonian captivity and began proselytizing in the the region and beyond. Before Mohammed, most of the Arabs in the Arabian penninsula who were not pagans were confessional Jews. The paths of conversion of the christians to the east and northeast from Palestine were identical to those of the Aramaic merchants, and the Syriac christians and especially the Nestorian christians spread well into central Asia. The Nestorians made it as far as China, where confessional Jews had preceeded them. The influence of the Aramaic was so great that it was their language which Jews in Palestine spoke at the time when the putative Jesus is alleged to have lived.

*****************************************

To suggest that the Palestinians are descended from invading Arabs from the Arabian penninsula is historical ignorance. Politically, it is a convenient contention that hard-line, right-wing Isrealis would love for the people in the west to believe.
0 Replies
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 11:31 am
Setanta wrote:
Without gettin into the ludicrous statements you make about recent history, i'd point out that the Palestinians are not descended from Arabs from the Arabian penninsula who came out of nowhere to take over. They are the descendants of Bedouin who have been there as long as or longer than the Hebrews--literally thousands of years.


True, but not all current "Palestinians" are these people that you mention. Many of the present day Palestinians have migrated there in relatively recent times from surrounding Arab countries. The Hebrews have been there for thousands of years also. For the record, I'm pretty sure the "original" inhabitants of Palestine were neither Hebrew or Bedouin.

What was ludicrous about anything I said???
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 11:34 am
I'm not going to get into it--i got sick and tired of the entire discussion at AFUZZ before this site existed. Suffice it to say that you have posted what constitutes the Likud party line on the history of Palestine.

See my second post for an explanation of why it is absurd to talk about who does or does not have a right to be there.
0 Replies
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 11:41 am
Whatever.

I realize that they are all semites and therefore ironic that they hate each other. You might claim it is absurd, but many "Palestinians" want nothing but to drive the Jews into the sea.

So by all means, compare to a right wing zionist if you like. I have nothing to gain from the situation either way. I'm just calling it like I see it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 11:42 am
And i'm saying you see very selective sights . . .
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 11:52 am
I'll give you an example of what i mean. You have said that many of the Palestinians are "Arabs" who immigrated from neighboring countries. Oh? How do you figure? In the period of the late 13th century to 1917, when Palestine was a part of the Osmanli empire, anyone moving there from what are now Jordan or Syria were simply moving within the empire, they weren't moving from one country to another. Most of the new arrivals, by the way, continued to be Bedouins from the Negev or the Sainai, and hence, simply represented the migrations of people already native to the area. Beginning in the 19th century, and particularly after 1870, the Turks yielded to European pressure to allow European Jews to settle there.

In the period 1917-1919, Palestine was a military district of England, and therefore under the control of the Allies. I doubt much migration took place then, but if they did, they likely remained in the character of migrating Bedouin. After 1920, Palestine was a League of Nations protectorate, surrounded by French-controlled protectorates, with the English-controlled protectorate of the Arabian penninsula to the south and English-controlled Egypt to the west. Once again, Bedouin or Arabs who arrived from neighboring protectorates had as much right to move in as European Jews.

So just how do you figure that European Jews have any more right to live there than do Bedouin or Arabs?
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 12:11 pm
How the West and the West Bank Were Won

Quote:
by Jason Miller

Jan 16, 2006

As I write to you from the heart of the Midwest, the epicenter of one of history's most egregious and shameful genocides, I watch with horror and moral revulsion as the US military industrial complex underwrites and supports a similar act of social extermination in the Middle East. CNN informed me yesterday that the mighty US military had killed eighteen civilians in Pakistan due to "bad intelligence" in the ongoing "war on terror". As an ally in this "war on terror", Pakistani leaders were justifiably upset. Can you imagine the repercussions if Pakistan killed eighteen American civilians on US soil in a "strike against terrorists" based on "bad intelligence"? There would certainly be hell to pay. Yet in this instance, the Pakistanis will be lucky to receive an apology.

It is NOT terrorism when we do it….

While the propaganda, lies, and white-washed accounts in American history books have often portrayed the Native Americans as "savages" who deserved to be "conquered" (while glorifying "how the west was won"), mainstream media frequently informs us of "acts of terrorism" by militant Palestinian individuals and groups. Concurrently, the abhorrent acts of state terrorism committed by the US and Israeli governments are usually presented as "necessary" and "acceptable".

The undeniable fact is that the United States is an imperial power which almost extinguished the Native American population and is working toward a similar result with the Palestinians through their proxy in Israel. Despite professing acceptance of diversity, racism, bigotry, and religious intolerance are deeply ingrained into the sociopolitical structure of the United States. Dehumanizing the human "obstacles" to accomplishing its imperialistic goals has enabled the United States to murder and abuse various groups throughout its history.

If they aren’t human, it isn’t murder…

Viewing Vietnamese as "gooks", "dinks", or "termites" enabled the US military to slaughter at least 2 million of them during the Vietnam invasion. Considering Iraqis as "ragheads" and "cockroaches" enabled the agents of the US government to wipe out 55,000 of their children during the Gulf War and 30,000 to 100,000 Iraqi civilians (and counting) during the illegal occupation of Iraq.

Stoking fires in the bellies of the essential loyal supporters of American mass murder and genocide in the Middle East are perverse propagandists like Michael Savage, the host of The Savage Nation, a syndicated radio show which reaches about eight million listeners across our "savage nation". His work is crucial to the Bush Regime's goal of brainwashing enough Americans to keep our nation sufficiently savage enough to perpetrate state terrorism, rendition, torture, and genocide.

Consider some of his hate speech which fuels rampant American racism against Islamic people and Arabs:
"Right now, even people sitting on the fence would like George Bush to drop a nuclear weapon on an Arab country. They don't even care which one it would be."

"I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity....It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings."

"Take a look at what they've done to the Jewish people in Israel. The lies they've spewn about Israel. A little country [Israel] surrounded by racist, fascist bigots who don't want anyone but themselves living in that hell hole called the Middle East."

Sadly, Savage is not alone in disseminating his blatantly ignorant and irresponsible statements intended to incite hatred and fear in those Americans whose limited scope of knowledge makes them ripe targets for propaganda. Pundits like Ann Coulter and Peggy Noonan "feed the beast" with their inane rhetoric about Islam and people of Middle Eastern dissent. Fundamentalist Christian leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell fan the flames of antipathy by feeding their flocks twisted notions of the nature of Islam.

This land is NOT your land; this land is my land!

Closer to home, and earlier in its history, the United States government waged a similar genocide against another ethnic group. David Stannard (in his American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World) noted that during the American Centennial, William Dean Howells wrote in the influential Atlantic Monthly:

"The red man, as he appears in effigy and in photograph in this collection [at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition], is a hideous demon, whose malignant traits can hardly inspire any emotion softer than abhorrence. In blaming our Indian agents for malfeasance in office, perhaps we do not sufficiently account for the demoralizing influence of merely beholding those false and pitiless savage faces...."

Also, according to Stannard, "progressive" President Teddy Roosevelt advocated the elimination of Native Americans and the confiscation of their land and resources. A commonly held belief throughout American history was that the indigenous peoples of North and South America were culturally, spiritually, and intellectually inferior to their "civilized", "Christian" conquerors, and that since the native population was not utilizing land and resources "productively", they deserved to lose them. Stannard notes the sick irony that Roosevelt's face is now carved into Mount Rushmore, which is located in the Black Hills, a site sacred to the Lakota Sioux.

Bearing in mind that the 1994 UN Convention on the Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as "the destruction and extermination of a culture", it is instructive to consider that it also includes five activities considered to be genocidal:

Killing members of the group.

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

For perspective, a brief look at some low-lights of the American Holocaust is in order:

While difficult to determine with certainty, conservative estimates place the Native American population at 5 million when Columbus was credited with discovering the Western Hemisphere. A decrease of 95% (to 250,000) by 1900 demonstrates the severity of the genocide committed by the European invaders and ultimately the US government.

In 1637 the Puritans of the Connecticut Valley murdered close to six hundred unarmed Pequots, and in the words of their minister, Increase Mather, "sent six hundred heathen souls to hell". Other significant massacres of noncombatant Native Americans throughout America's history include the Gnadenhutten Massacre in 1782, the Chehaw Affair in 1818, the Battle of Bad Axe in 1832, and the Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890.

As the European conquerors sought to satiate their seemingly endless appetite for more land, they displaced many indigenous people from their homelands, disrupting their ability to cope and to maintain their culture. With the advent of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the US military began utilizing force of arms to move aboriginal people westward to free up land for the "more deserving" whites. Perhaps the best known and most tragic of these "evictions" was the Trail of Tears, in which 4,000 Cherokees died during their forced march from their homeland. The Cherokees had schools, businesses, and a system of government modeled after that of the United States, but these "savages" were still "unworthy" to possess their land. Ultimately the Indian Removal Act resulted in the US government forcing 100,000 Native Americans west of the Mississippi River.

In an effort to assimilate Native Americans into their "superior culture", white settlers separated children from their parents and put them into boarding schools. There the Native American children had little alternative but to abandon their beliefs, mode of dress, language and other cultural aspects in favor of Christianity, English and Western ideals. Understandably, many of these children suffered from depression or fled from these horrid institutions. Native Americans did not regain the right to self-determination until the 1960's. While Native American populations have risen significantly since, the poverty rate for Native Americans was 27% in 2000, compared with an overall US poverty level of 13.9%. Perhaps more troubling, 7% of Native American pre-teen school age children were not even enrolled in school.

American Genocide II: Aiding, Abetting and Taming the Wild, Wild West Bank

In the Middle East, the United States bears significant responsibility for many atrocities committed against innocent civilian populations. The US military has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians directly. US support of ruthless dictators like the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein (before he became our "sworn enemy") has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands more denizens of the Middle East. Wealthy and influential Zionist individuals and organizations (i.e. AIPAC) have ensured the US support of the Israeli squatters in Palestine. The US government has been complicit in the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians to enable the Zionists to realize their objective to drive the last vestiges of their own "indigenous savages" from "Zionist land". Providing obscene amounts of financial support to Israel and utilizing its power as a member on the Security Council to nullify UN efforts to intervene in the Palestinian crisis are perhaps the US government's most horrendous crimes (and morally reprehensible acts) in the Middle East. Not only are they participating in acts of state terrorism and murder, they are also abetting the eradication of an entire ethnic group.

Consider this brief overview of the Palestinians’ plight:

Admittedly, throughout human history, the Jewish people have been persecuted and I feel compassion for them. However, some of them responded by determining that they needed their own sovereign state and founded the Zionist movement in the late Nineteenth Century. Palestine became their target site for their "homeland" as they viewed it as "a land without people for a people without land". Regardless of the Jewish plight, there was a significant moral flaw in the Zionists' goal. Palestine was a "land with people".

In 1917, Great Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, a letter to the Zionist Federation, in which it stated British support of the Zionists' "national home" in Palestine and that the British would employ their "best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this objective". At the close of World War I, Palestine became a British "mandate" as the Western powers divided up the former Ottoman Empire.

Following World War II, the United Nations created two independent states in Palestine, one Jewish and one Arab. The city of Jerusalem was intended to be international with UN oversight. At the time of the UN partition plan, Jewish people owned 6% of the land and were 33% of the population, yet the UN ceded 55% of Palestine to the Jewish state.

In 1948, Israel declared itself to be independent, and a Palestinian-Arab war ensued. By the war's end, the Palestinians no longer had a nation. Israel controlled 78% of Palestine and between 700,000 and 900,000 Palestinians became refugees, fleeing primarily to Syria and Lebanon. To discourage their return, Israelis confiscated or destroyed the property of those who fled. Of those Palestinians remaining in what had been their homeland, about 130,000 Palestinians remained in the area the UN had designated as the Jewish state, while approximately 500,000 settled in the West Bank and Gaza.

Preying on the divisions amongst the Palestinians, and the ambiguity of their national identity, Israeli leaders like Golda Meir fueled the Zionist cause with absurd propagandistic statements like:

"There was no such thing as Palestinians. It was not as thought there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country from them. They did not exist."

Until the 1967 War, France was Israel's chief source for weaponry. However, it was at that time that the US began taking a significant interest in Israel's cause. It became Israel's chief enabler as it supplied it with money, weapons and powerful diplomatic support. By the 1970's the international community was calling for an independent Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, but the United States threw its weight behind Israel's rejection of this possibility.

In 1982, Israeli forces launched an invasion of Lebanon (which the UN Security Council condemned) to strike at the Palestine Liberation Organization. They killed approximately 20,000 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in the process. Utilizing the assassination of Lebanese president Bachir Gemayel as a catalyzing event (it was later discovered he was killed by a Syrian rather than the PLO), Ariel Sharon (Bush's so-called "man of peace"), urged the Lebanese Phalangist militia to enter the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps to eradicate the PLO while he sealed the perimeters with Israeli forces. The Phalangists massacred anywhere from 700 to 2,000 Palestinian civilians (depending on whose count one believes). Israel's own government determined that Sharon bore "personal responsibility" for the massacre because he knew it was taking place and did not act to stop it. As a result, Sharon resigned his post as Israeli Defense Minister in 1983.

What are the conditions for the Palestinians who chose to remain in the West Bank and Gaza? According to CIA data, over half of the labor force is unemployed. One of five Palestinians subsists on the equivalent of $2.10 per day. As a result of Israeli military actions, restriction of Palestinian movement, and border closings, over 100,000 Palestinians are now former employees of businesses in Israeli settlements. Despite the window-dressing of the recent withdrawal of Jewish settlers in Gaza, Israel continues to expand its number of settlements in Palestinian territory (which is illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention). Israel persists in demolishing Palestinian homes without permits (utilizing colossal American-made Caterpillar armored bulldozers purchased with US funds).

In the West Bank, Israel is building the Apartheid Wall, an 8 meter tall monolith which is twice the height of the former Berlin Wall and will eventually be four times the length. This barrier encroaches on Palestinian territory and will displace still more Palestinians as its construction continues.

Palestinians are essentially prisoners in their own lands (Gaza and the West Bank) as Israel segregates Palestinians into isolated "bantustans" (similar to those of Apartheid South Africa) and maintains an iron grip on natural resources (like water). The IDF (Israel's military) consistently employs US supplied F-16 fighters and Apache helicopters to terrorize a Palestinian people with no organized military or state (killing an average of 1,000 Palestinian civilians per year). Yet Israel and their enablers label the Palestinians who lash out against the unbearable oppression and injustice as "terrorists". Who is truly terrorizing whom?

Taking home the prize regardless of the cost

History repeats itself. The United States "won the West" through committing genocide and has facilitated Israel's "winning the West Bank" through their own ethnic cleansing. Since 1949, the US has supplied Israel with over $100 billion in aid. With a population of only 6 million people, Israel receives more annual US aid than Asia, Latin America and Africa (excluding the nations of Egypt and Colombia). The Palestinians who engage the Israelis violently wield the equivalent of rocks and sticks against some of the highest tech weaponry on the planet in their pitiful effort to prevent their annihilation. Sound familiar?

US imperialists conquered the West and now employ their proxy in Israel to justify conquering their next "frontier" inhabited by "savages" who possess the coveted resource of oil. Dehumanizing Arabs, Persians, and Islamic people in the psyches of average Americans through a variety of propagandistic means allows our criminal leaders to participate in a genocide in Palestine similar to the one they perpetrated against the Native Americans. As they routinely kill innocent civilians throughout the Middle East and support the Palestinian genocide, members of America's ruling elite blithely dismiss these murders with platitudes like "war is hell".

Radical? Yes. Irrational? No.

In December, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told Iranian television:

"If European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II... why don't they provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe.....Germany and Austria can provide the... regime with two or three provinces for this regime to establish itself, and the issue will be resolved."

Let's consider the logic and tremendous potential benefits afforded by Ahmadinejad's proposal for a moment....

The Middle East sans a "Mini-Me" clone of the United States, the perpetrators of the Holocaust footing the bill for reparations to the Jewish people, the end of Palestinian genocide, and the return of Palestine to its rightful owners......

Why not get started now?

And if that plan doesn't come to fruition, a massive movement of We the People of the United States could insist that OUR government end the Apartheid and genocide in Palestine by ending our support of Israel with OUR tax dollars. While we are at it, we could also demand that our government end its malevolent imperialistic foreign policies which entail state terrorism, conquest of sovereign nations, and the deaths of tens of thousands of our military personnel in regional wars to maintain "Pax Americana".

It is not too late for America to rise to the ideals spelled out in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, but it will take a massive awakening and effort on the part of We the People to end the criminal and morally despicable behavior of our government. I believe We are up to the challenge!

source
0 Replies
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 12:29 pm
Setanta wrote:

So just how do you figure that European Jews have any more right to live there than do Bedouin or Arabs?


Right here is where there is a miscommunication. I don't think they have more of a right to the land. I think they all have an equal right to the land being that they all have some sort of historical heritage there. I simply stated that it seems to me, that the Israeli's have been more open and willing to share the land, then the Palestinians have. I think the Palestinians should have their own state, but they have rejected one every time they've had the opportunity to have one. Israel is the sole Holy place for the Jews as opposed to the Muslims who have Mecca & Medina. This might not mean anything to some people, but I respect that.
0 Replies
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 12:32 pm
F4F, please spare me your cut and paste propaganda.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 01:15 pm
Ah ha so you only prefer propaganda that supports your ideology... good luck with your thread. :wink:
0 Replies
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 01:19 pm
I don't have an idealogy and I haven't posted any propaganda.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 01:26 pm
Re: Another Israeli/Palestinian thread
John Creasy wrote:
Does he forget that Israel has offered peace on a silver platter 3 times(1938, 1947, & 2001)?


I'm really a bit unaware of what you mean by those dates - Israel's independence wasn't proclaimed before 1948 May 14, I think.
0 Replies
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 02:13 pm
No but, the Palestinians were offered their own state nonetheless.

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/1938-british-partition-plan.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 02:16 pm
Is that response related to my question?

(You said: "Israel has offered peace on a silver platter 3 times(1938, 1947 ..."
0 Replies
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 02:40 pm
yes
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 03:45 pm
In that case, you have a false statement--as Israel did not exist in 1938 or 1947, and so was not offering jack to anyone . . .
0 Replies
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 08:34 pm
Setanta wrote:
In that case, you have a false statement--as Israel did not exist in 1938 or 1947, and so was not offering jack to anyone . . .


technicalities, snechnicalities
0 Replies
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 08:36 pm
What about 2001??? They offered them 97% of the land they wanted. Rejected. No counter offer, just increased the suicide bombings in return.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Another Israeli/Palestinian thread
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 06:13:41