15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 01:18 pm
ICAN

Any plans to read The Looming Towers?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 01:23 pm
my mother used to use the expression complete tripe

Hi Ican, see you are still banging away.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 01:24 pm
Perhaps the Arabs who are murdering Israeli non-combatants and advocating the extermination of Israel, ought to consider negotiations a more effective alternative for ending the alleged Israeli discrimination against Arabs.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 01:26 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Is Israel's alleged discrimination against Arabs, who freely choose to live in Israel, enough provocation to justify Arabs--who are not living in Israel but are allegedly seeking right of return to Israel--murdering Israeli non-combatants and advocating the extermination of Israel?

I think not!


I also think not. But the question isn't whether or not they are justified, but why they are doing it.

Sometimes the best way to get someone to stop doing unjustified behavior is to remove their reason for doing so, rather than simply killing everyone who engages in unjustified behavior.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 01:27 pm
blatham wrote:
ICAN

Any plans to read The Looming Towers?

No, tell me about it.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 01:44 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Is Israel's alleged discrimination against Arabs, who freely choose to live in Israel, enough provocation to justify Arabs--who are not living in Israel but are allegedly seeking right of return to Israel--murdering Israeli non-combatants and advocating the extermination of Israel?

I think not!


I also think not. But the question isn't whether or not they are justified, but why they are doing it.

Sometimes the best way to get someone to stop doing unjustified behavior is to remove their reason for doing so, rather than simply killing everyone who engages in unjustified behavior.

Cycloptichorn


Sometimes Yes; sometimes No!

Give it a try and tell that to the Arabs exhibiting the "unjustified behavior" of killing Israeli non-combatants!

When the "unjustified behavior" exhibited by someone is the killing of non-combatants among you, it's sometimes (maybe all the time) very very difficult to maintain that level of objectivity required to stop one's own "unjustified behavior" that is far less serious--seemingly trivial by comparison--than their killing of your own non-combatants.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 01:46 pm
Trivial according to who, exactly?

I'm sure that if the problems with the arabs are trivial, then the Israelis would have no problem correcting those problems then, correct?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 02:04 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Trivial according to who, exactly?

I'm sure that if the problems with the arabs are trivial, then the Israelis would have no problem correcting those problems then, correct?

Cycloptichorn

First, I didn't write "trivial" as an absolute. I wrote "trivial by comparison" as a relative.

Second, My whole statement on this was: "far less serious--seemingly trivial by comparison--than their killing of your own non-combatants."

Third, killing Israelies to get them to correct problems far less serious than Israeli's own problems of survival, is in my opinion, a rotten and ineffectual motivational technique. It is simply not normal to focus on extending suffrage to others, while you are threatened with losing not only your own suffrage but your own life.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 02:46 pm
Why should a discriminatory and oppressive regime be allowed to survive?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 03:09 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
Why should a discriminatory and oppressive regime be allowed to survive?

Good question!

Why should have the Taliban regime have been allowed to survive?
Why should have the Saddam regime have been allowed to survive?

They weren't allowed to survive!

Why should the current Iranian regime be allowed to survive?
Why should the current Syrian regime be allowed to survive?
Why should the current North Korean regime be allowed to survive?

They are allowed to survive!

Go figure!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 03:29 pm
ican711nm wrote:
blatham wrote:
ICAN

Any plans to read The Looming Towers?

No, tell me about it.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
Just down a bit on the left, click on streaming video.

Recommended for all, by the by.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 04:14 pm
Some of you that are calling Israel racist towards the Arabs seem to be basing that on Israel's refusing the "right of return".

Now,I have a question for you.
Would you be willing to allow the "right of return" to any American Indian tribes or families that lived on your land years ago?
Would you willingly and gladly cede your house over to someone that claims that their ancestors lived on that land several hundred years ago,based on your support of "right of return"?

Would you also be willing to force someone in whatever countries your ancestors emigrated from off their land,because your family once lived there and you demand "right of return" also?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 06:57 pm
ican wrote:
Is Israel's alleged discrimination against Arabs, who freely choose to live in Israel, enough provocation to justify Arabs--who are not living in Israel but are allegedly seeking right of return to Israel--murdering Israeli non-combatants and advocating the extermination of Israel?

I think not!


Quote:
Why is Israel so hated? The constant stalling of "peace plans" in favor of more settlements and more war aggravates that hatred, but the basic cause lies in the very principles on which that state is build. There are basically two arguments that have justified establishing the State of Israel in Palestine: one is that God gave that land to the Jews, and the other is the Holocaust. The first one is deeply insulting to people who are profoundly religious, like most Arabs, but of another creed. And, for the second, it amounts to making people pay for a crime that they did not commit.

Both arguments are deeply racist, with their claim that it is right for Jews, and only Jews, to set up a state in a land that would obviously be Arab, like Jordan or Lebanon, if not for the slow Zionist invasion. This is illustrated by the "law of return": any Jew, anywhere, having no connection with Palestine whatsoever, and not suffering from the slightest persecution, can, if he so wishes, emigrate to Israel and easily become a citizen, while the inhabitants who fled in 1948, or their children, cannot. Add to that the fact that a city claimed to be Holy by three religions has become the "eternal capital of the Jewish people" (and only them) and one should start to understand the rage that all this provokes throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

It is precisely this racist aspect that infuriates most Arabs, even if they do not have any personal connection to Palestine (if they live, say, in the French banlieues). This situation delegitimizes the Arab regimes that are impotent in the face of the Zionist enemy and, after the defeat of the region's two main secular leaders, Nasser and Saddam Hussein (the latter thanks to the US), leads to the rise of religious fundamentalism.

Now, people often find racism far more unacceptable than "mere" economic exploitation or poverty. Consider South Africa: under apartheid, the living conditions of the Blacks were bad but not necessarily much worse than in other parts of Africa (or even than in South Africa now). But the system was intrinsically racist, and that was felt as an outrage to Blacks everywhere, including in the United States. This is why the conflict over Palestine goes beyond the second class status of Israeli Arabs or even the treatment of the Occupied Territories. Even if a Palestinian state were established on the latter, and even if full equality were granted to Israeli Arabs, the wounds of 1948 would not heal quickly. Arab leaders, even religious ones, can of course sign peace agreements with Israel, but they are fragile so long as the Arab population considers them unjust and does not accept them wholeheartedly. Palestine is the Alsace-Lorraine or the Taiwan of the Arab world and the fact that it is impossible to take it back does not mean that it can be forgotten . (I am not arguing here in favor of wiping Israel off the map, or in favor of a one state solution but simply underlining what seems to me to be the root and the depth of the problem. In fact, I am not arguing for any solution partly because none seems to me to be attainable in the short term, but, more fundamentally, because I do not think that outsiders to the Middle East should propose such solutions.)

There is no sign that any of this is understood in Israel by more than a few individuals; if Arabs hate them, this is just another instance of the fact that everybody hates Jews and it only proves that they have to "defend themselves" (i.e. attack others pre-emptively) by any means necessary. That is bad enough, but why isn't this understood in the United States either? There are traditionally two answers to that: one is that the population is manipulated into supporting Israel by the government, the arms merchants or the oil industry, because Israel is a strategic U.S. ally; the other answer is that the United States is manipulated by the Israel lobby. The idea that Israel is a strategic ally, if by that one means a useful ally (useful to, say, the oil interests, broadly understood), although widely accepted, specially in the Left, does not survive a critical examination. That may have been the case in 1967 or even during the Cold War period, although one could argue that, even then, the Arab states were attracted by the Soviet Union only because it might support them in their struggle against Israel, albeit ineffectively. But both in 1991 and in 2003, the United States attacked Iraq without any help from Israel, even begging Israel not to intervene in 1991, in order for its Arab coalition not to collapse. Or consider the post-2003 occupation of Iraq, and suppose that the goal of that occupation is control over oil. In what sense does Israel help in that respect? Everything it does (the currents attacks on Gaza and Lebanon for example) further alienates the Arabs, and U.S. support for Israel makes the control of oil harder, not easier. Even the Iraqi parliament, Malaki and Sistani, who are the closest to allies that the United States can find there, condemn Israel's actions.
SOURCE

This goes hand in hand with the Jews opinion of their foes as being non-human. The Nazi's thought of the Jews in the same way. It's easier to kill women and children when you dehumanize them.

Quote:
Mr. Danieli stigmatizes Hezbollah as terrorists. How does he explain the proud confession of Yitzhak Shamir, one-time terrorist and twice prime minister of Israel: "Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat"? Mr. Danieli's claim about his government's "calculated restraint" sounds terribly ironic with the current proportion of eight Lebanese dying for each Israeli.
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 08:07 pm
xingu wrote:

...


Quote:
Why is Israel so hated? The constant stalling of "peace plans" in favor of more settlements and more war aggravates that hatred, but the basic cause lies in the very principles on which that state is build. There are basically two arguments that have justified establishing the State of Israel in Palestine: one is that God gave that land to the Jews, and the other is the Holocaust. The first one is deeply insulting to people who are profoundly religious, like most Arabs, but of another creed. And, for the second, it amounts to making people pay for a crime that they did not commit.


The Jews were hated and murdered by the Arabs long before (e.g., 1920s) the Jews declared Israel an independent state. My guess is that the Arabs early on were afraid the Jews would eventually, after more than 1,800 years, re-conquer part of Palestine and deny the Arabs their claim that all of Palestine belonged to the Arabs.

There currently is only one valid argument for Israel's existence in Palestine. Back in 1948 the Israelies conquered and have held to the present (a period of more than 57 years) that part of Palestine which is now Israel.

At one time there was exactly the same valid argument for the Arabs existence in Palestine. The Arabs conquered Palestine in 638 and held it until 1099 (a period of more than 460 years) when they were in turn conquered.

The Israelies have two choices:
1. flee Palestine;
2. risk their own destruction by defending themselves as best they can in the hope the Arabs will eventually come to tolerate Israel's existence.

The Arabs have two choices:
1. tolerate Israel's continued existence;
2. risk their own destruction by attempting to destroy Israel.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 10:35 pm
Ican- Senator Inhofe has given a wonderful speech on the floor of the Senate outlining the rights of Israel. I will replicate it for you!



by Senator Jim Inhofe A presentation by U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) on the Senate floor, March 4, 2002.



http://inhofe.senate.gov

I was interested the other day when I heard that the de facto Saudi ruler, Crown Prince Abdullah, made a statement which was received by many in this country as if it were a statement of fact, as if it were something new, a concept for peace in the Middle East that no one had ever heard of before. I was kind of shocked that it was so well received by many people who had been down this road before.

I suggest to you that what Crown Prince Abdullah talked about a few days ago was not new at all. He talked about the fact that under the Abdullah plan, Arabs would normalize relations with Israel in exchange for the Jewish state surrendering the territory it received after the Six Day War, as if that were something new...

[But] there isn't anything new about the prospect of giving up land that is rightfully Israel's land in order to have peace. When it gets right down to it, the land doesn't make that much difference, because Yasser Arafat and others don't recognize Israel's right to any of the land. They do not recognize Israel's right to exist.


Yasser Arafat and others don't recognize Israel's right to any of the land. They do not recognize Israel's right to exist.

I will discuss seven reasons why Israel is entitled to the land they have and that it should not be a part of the peace process. If this is something that Israel wants to do, it is their business to do it. But anyone who has tried to put the pressure on Israel to do this is wrong.

We are going to be hit by skeptics who are going to say we will be attacked because of our support for Israel, and if we get out of the Middle East -- that is us -- all the problems will go away. That is just not true. If we withdraw, all of these problems will again come to our door. I have some observations to make about that.

But I would like to reemphasize once again the seven reasons that Israel has the right to their land.

1) ARCHEOLOGY

The first reason is that Israel has the right to the land because of all of the archeological evidence. All the archeological evidence supports it. Every time there is a dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that Israelis have had a presence there for 3,000 years. The coins, the cities, the pottery, the culture -- there are other people, groups that are there, but there is no mistaking the fact that Israelis have been present in that land for 3,000 years. It predates any claims that other peoples in the region may have.

The ancient Philistines are extinct. Many other ancient peoples are extinct. They do not have the unbroken line to this date that the Israelis have. Even the Egyptians of today are not racial Egyptians of 2,000, 3,000 years ago. They are primarily an Arab people. The land is called Egypt, but they are not the same racial and ethnic stock as the old Egyptians of the ancient world.

The Israelis are in fact descended from the original Israelites.

2) HISTORY

The second proof of Israel's right to the land is the historic right. History supports it totally and completely. We know there has been an Israel up until the time of the Roman Empire. The Romans conquered the land. Israel had no homeland, although Jews were allowed to live there. They were driven from the land in two dispersions: One in 70 A.D. and the other in 135 A.D. But there was always a Jewish presence in the land.

The Turks, who took over about 700 years ago and ruled the land up until about World War One, had control. Then the land was conquered by the British. The Turks entered World War One on the side of Germany. The British knew they had to do something to punish Turkey, and also to break up that empire that was going to be a part of the whole effort of Germany in World War One. So the British sent troops against the Turks in the Holy Land.

One of the generals who was leading the British armies was a man named Allenby. Allenby was a Bible-believing Christian. He carried a Bible with him everywhere he went and he knew the significance of Jerusalem. The night before the attack against Jerusalem to drive out the Turks, Allenby prayed that God would allow him to capture the city without doing damage to the holy places.

That day, Allenby sent World War One biplanes over the city of Jerusalem to do a reconnaissance mission. You have to understand that the Turks had at that time never seen an airplane. So there they were, flying around. They looked in the sky and saw these fascinating inventions and did not know what they were, and they were terrified by them.


They dared not fight against a prophet from God, so Allenby captured Jerusalem without firing a single shot.

Then they were told they were going to be opposed by a man named Allenby the next day, which means, in their language, "man sent from God" or "prophet from God." They dared not fight against a prophet from God, so the next morning, when Allenby went to take Jerusalem, he went in and captured it without firing a single shot.

The British government was grateful to Jewish people around the world, particularly to one Jewish chemist who helped them manufacture niter. Niter is an ingredient that was used in nitroglycerin which was sent over from the New World. But they did not have a way of getting it to England. The German U-boats were shooting on the boats, so most of the niter they were trying to import to make nitroglycerin was at the bottom of the ocean. But a man named Weitzman, a Jewish chemist, discovered a way to make it from materials that existed in England. As a result, they were able to continue that supply.

The British at that time said they were going to give the Jewish people a homeland. That is all written down in history. They were gratified that the Jewish people, the bankers, came through and helped finance the war.

The homeland that Britain said it would set aside consisted of all of what is now Israel and all of what was then the nation of Jordan -- the whole thing. That was what Britain promised to give the Jews in 1917. In the beginning, there was some Arab support for this action. There was not a huge Arab population in the land at that time, and there is a reason for that. The land was not able to sustain a large population of people. It just did not have the development it needed to handle those people, and nobody really wanted this land. It was considered to be worthless land.

Mark Twain -- Samuel Clemens -- took a tour of Palestine in 1867. This is how he described that land. We are talking about Israel now. He said: "A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."

Where was this great Palestinian nation? It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there. Palestine was a region named by the Romans, but at that time it was under the control of Turkey, and there was no large mass of people there because the land would not support them.

This is the report that the Palestinian Royal Commission, created by the British, made. It quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea in 1913. The Palestinian Royal Commission said:

"The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track, suitable for transport by camels or carts. No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the Yavnev village. Houses were mud. Schools did not exist. The western part toward the sea was almost a desert. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many villages were deserted by their inhabitants."

That was 1913.

The French author Voltaire described Palestine as "a hopeless, dreary place." In short, under the Turks the land suffered from neglect and low population. That is a historic fact. The nation became populated by both Jews and Arabs because the land came to prosper when Jews came back and began to reclaim it. If there had never been any archaeological evidence to support the rights of the Israelis to the territory, it is also important to recognize that other nations in the area have no longstanding claim to the country either.

Did you know that Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913, Lebanon until 1920? Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932, Syria until 1941. The borders of Jordan were established in 1946 and Kuwait in 1961. Any of these nations that would say Israel is only a recent arrival would have to deny their own rights as recent arrivals as well. They did not exist as countries. They were all under the control of the Turks.

Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.

3) AGRICULTURE

The third reason that land belongs to Israel is the practical value of the Israelis being there. Israel today is a modern marvel of agriculture. Israel is able to bring more food out of a desert environment than any other country in the world. The Arab nations ought to make Israel their friend and import technology from Israel that would allow all the Middle East, not just Israel, to become an exporter of food. Israel has unarguable success in its agriculture.

4) HUMANITARIAN

The fourth reason I believe Israel has the right to the land is on the grounds of humanitarian concern. You see, there were 6 million Jews slaughtered in Europe during World War Two. The persecution against the Jews had been very strong in Russia since the advent of communism, and before then under the Czars.

These people have a right to their homeland. If we are not going to allow them a homeland in the Middle East, then where? What other nation on Earth is going to cede territory, is going to give up land?

They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel would fit into my home state of Oklahoma seven times. They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel is very small. It is a nation that, up until the time that claims started coming in, was not desired by anybody.

5) STRATEGIC ALLY

The fifth reason Israel ought to have their land is that she is a strategic ally of the United States. Whether we realize it or not, Israel is an impediment to certain groups hostile to democracies and hostile to what we believe in, hostile to that which makes us the greatest nation in the history of the world. They have kept them from taking complete control of the Middle East. If it were not for Israel, they would overrun the region.


Israel votes with America in the United Nations more than England, Canada, France, Germany -- more than any other country in the world.

They are our strategic ally. It is good to know we have a friend in the Middle East on whom we can count. They vote with us in the United Nations more than England, more than Canada, more than France, more than Germany -- more than any other country in the world.

6) ROADBLOCK TO TERRORISM

The sixth reason is that Israel is a roadblock to terrorism. The war we are now facing is not against a sovereign nation; it is against a group of terrorists who are very fluid, moving from one country to another. They are almost invisible. That is whom we are fighting against today. We need every ally we can get. If we do not stop terrorism in the Middle East, it will be on our shores.

One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States is that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them.

Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought four wars: The 1948 War of Independence, the 1956 Sinai campaign, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In all four cases, Israel was attacked. They were not the aggressor. Some people may argue that this was not true because they went in first in 1956, but they knew at that time that Egypt was building a huge military to become the aggressor. Israel, in fact, was not the aggressor and has not been the aggressor in any of the four wars.

Also, they won all four wars against impossible odds. They are great warriors. They consider a level playing field being outnumbered 2-to-1.

There were 39 Scud missiles that landed on Israeli soil during the Gulf War. Our president asked Israel not to respond. In order to have the Arab nations on board, we asked Israel not to participate in the war. They showed tremendous restraint and did not. Now we have asked them to stand back and not do anything over these last several attacks. We have criticized them. We have criticized them in our media. Local people in television and radio often criticize Israel, not knowing the true facts. We need to be informed.

I was so thrilled when I heard a reporter pose a question to Secretary of State Colin Powell. He said: "Mr. Powell, the United States has advocated a policy of restraint in the Middle East. We have discouraged Israel from retaliation again and again and again because we've said that it escalates the violence. Are we going to follow that ourselves?"

Mr. Powell indicated we would strike back. In other words, we can tell Israel not to do it, but when it hits us, we are going to do something.

But all that changed in December when the Israelis went into Gaza with gunships and into the West Bank with F-16s. With the exception of last May, the Israelis had not used F-16s since the Six Day War. And I am so proud of them because we have to stop terrorism. It is not going to go away. If Israel were driven into the sea tomorrow, if every Jew in the Middle East were killed, terrorism would not end. You know that in your heart. Terrorism would continue. It is not just a matter of Israel in the Middle East. It is the heart of the very people who are perpetrating this stuff. Should they be successful in overrunning Israel -- which they won't be -- but should they be, it would not be enough. They will never be satisfied.

7) BIBLICAL RIGHT

I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel, and that it has a right to the land, because God said so. In Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says: "The Lord said to Abram, "Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, southward, eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever... Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee."

That is God talking. The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, "I am giving you this land" -- the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.

CONCLUSION

The seven reasons, I am convinced, clearly establish that Israel has a right to the land. Eight years ago on the White House lawn, Yitzhak Rabin shook hands with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. It was a historic occasion. It was a tragic occasion. At that time, the official policy of the government of Israel began to be, "Let us appease the terrorists. Let us begin to trade the land for peace." This process continued unabated up until last year.

Here in our own nation, at Camp David in the summer of 2000, then-Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak offered the most generous concessions to Yasser Arafat that had ever been laid on the table. He offered him more than 90 percent of all the West Bank territory, sovereign control of it. There were some parts he did not want to offer, but in exchange he said he would give up land in Israel proper that the PLO had not even asked for.


Barak even spoke of dividing Jerusalem. Arafat stormed out of the meeting.

And he also did the unthinkable. He even spoke of dividing Jerusalem and allowing the Palestinians to have their capital there. Yasser Arafat stormed out of the meeting. Why did he storm out of the meeting? Everything he said he wanted was offered there. It was put into his hands. Why did he storm out of the meeting? A couple of months later, there began to be riots, terrorism. The riots began when now-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon went to the Temple Mount. And this was used as the thing that lit the fire and caused the explosion. Did you know that Sharon did not go unannounced and that he contacted the Islamic authorities before he went and secured their permission to be there? It was no surprise.

The response was very carefully calculated. They knew the world would not pay attention to the details. They would portray this in the Arab world as an attack upon the holy mosque and use it as an excuse to riot. Over the last eight years, during this time of the peace process, where the Israeli public has pressured its leaders to give up land for peace because they are tired of fighting, there has been increased terror.

In fact, it has been greater in the last eight years than any other time in Israel's history. Showing restraint and giving in has not produced any kind of peace. It is so much so that today the leftist peace movement in Israel does not exist because the people feel they were deceived. They offered a hand of peace, and it was not taken. That is why the politics of Israel have changed drastically over the past 12 months. The Israelis have come to see that, "No matter what we do, these people do not want to deal with us... They want to destroy us."

That is why even yet today the stationery of the PLO still has upon it the map of the entire state of Israel, not just the little part they call the West Bank. They want it all.

We have to get out of this mindset that somehow you can buy peace in the Middle East by giving little plots of land. It has not worked before when it has been offered.

These seven reasons show why Israel is entitled to that land.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 10:39 pm
Ican- I am sure that you recognize the people who are Anti-Semites!

If these people had been in Germany in the late thirties, they would have been the SS loading the Jews on to the trains and would also have been among those leading the Jews to the gas chambers!

With Anti-Semites like this, Ican, you know there is no right for Israel to exist.

But I do know one thing, Ican. The Israelis will never allow it to happen again. If the Islamo-fascists try to obliterate Israel, Teheran will be turned into a parking lot!!!
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 05:31 am
Quote:
The Jews were hated and murdered by the Arabs long before (e.g., 1920s) the Jews declared Israel an independent state. My guess is that the Arabs early on were afraid the Jews would eventually, after more than 1,800 years, re-conquer part of Palestine and deny the Arabs their claim that all of Palestine belonged to the Arabs.


Actually the Jews were more tolerated by the Muslims than by the Christians. It was the Christians that were very good at killing and persecuting Jews.

As for Jewish history I don't care when the Jews lived in Israel. I don't care how long ago. That does not give them the right to to come back in, steal land and kill or expel the people living on it. If Israel has the right to claim the land because they lived there 2,000 years ago then the American Indians have the same right to demand that all non-Indians leave this land and return to Europe or Asia. The argument of who lived there 2,000 years ago is nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 07:13 am
Quote:
I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel, and that it has a right to the land, because God said so. In Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says: "The Lord said to Abram, "Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, southward, eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever... Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee." That is God talking.
Fine, let God sort out the Arab Israeli dispute. How about organising a petition?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 07:44 am
xingu wrote:
Quote:
The Jews were hated and murdered by the Arabs long before (e.g., 1920s) the Jews declared Israel an independent state. My guess is that the Arabs early on were afraid the Jews would eventually, after more than 1,800 years, re-conquer part of Palestine and deny the Arabs their claim that all of Palestine belonged to the Arabs.


Actually the Jews were more tolerated by the Muslims than by the Christians. It was the Christians that were very good at killing and persecuting Jews.

As for Jewish history I don't care when the Jews lived in Israel. I don't care how long ago. That does not give them the right to to come back in, steal land and kill or expel the people living on it. If Israel has the right to claim the land because they lived there 2,000 years ago then the American Indians have the same right to demand that all non-Indians leave this land and return to Europe or Asia. The argument of who lived there 2,000 years ago is nonsense.


You don't care about long ago but you use ancient Christian history to make your point while saying that ancient Israeli history is irrelevent? But okay, I agree that what once was is far less relevent than what is now.

How many accounts can you find of Christians methodically killing Jews now? And how many accounts can you find of Arabs methodically killing Jews now?

Bernard's post of Senator Inhofe's speech contains a lot of useful information that should give some of you anti-Israel types at least pause for thought. Israel does not have the right to claim the land because they once lived there. Israel has the right to the land because it was provided to them by a U.N. resolution and was legally handed over by the Brits who had possession of the land and willingly relinquished it.

Israel has made the land flourish and their policies--their policies NOW--are the most democratic and inclusive of any that you can find anywhere in the Middle East. Those Arabs willing to live peacefully within Israel are afforded the exact same liberties and opportunities that are afforded all Israeli citizens.

And yet much of the Arab world has clearly expressed that there will be no more Israel if they have their way.

I'll repeat an earlier post:

If the Arabs lay down their arms today, there will be no more violence.

If the Israelis lay down their arms today, there will be no more Israel.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 07:54 am
Just recalling Senator Inhofe's reasons:

- The first reason is archeological evidence,
- The second reason is historic right,
- The third reason is the practical value,
- The fourth reason is humanitarian concern,
- The fifth reason is Israel's friendship,
- The sixth reason is a roadblock to terrorism,
- The seventh reason is that God said so.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 02:29:22