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

Could you please verify whom you think to be dishonest (besides Zippo)?

I don't think that anyone condemned any Jews (or any other persons) because they protect innocent women, children and men.

I didn't say 'who' Walter apart from the photos and the member who posted them. Do you not understand what I mean when I say 'by implication'? If you don't understand the implication in those photos, I doubt I would be able to help you to do so.

I wasn't refering to the photo.
I was replying to you post ...

... which I must have misunderstood, since you didn't write what I've read.

Sorry.

Yes, you misunderstood my post. Apparently still do misunderstand it.

Fox, Guns and tanks do not bring peace; it only kills more people. Peace is earned by providing the same freedoms and legal protections to all.

Peace is first achieved by conquering those who are trying to conquer you. Second, peace is preserved by you teaching those you conquered how in future to protect themselves against those among them who seek to conquer those who are not trying to conquer them.

Yup. And peace is achieved by convincing the aggressor that aggression is futile.

I've often wondered if Germany and Japan would enjoy the peace and prosperity they have enjoyed for more than 60 years if they had not been gunned and shelled and bombed into complete submission? Now they are friendly and good neighbors to those who defeated them and are a threat to nobody. Given the nature of the leadership and governments of the early to mid 1940's, would the same have been true for the Allies had Germany and Japan and other Axis nations won that war?

I am pretty darn sure we would not have had the same results if there had been no conclusion but we had simply had intermittant cease fires for the past six decades. Look at all the nations that agreed to a cease fire instead of a victory by one side. We still have two Viet Nams instead of one, two Koreas instead of one, and the Balkans and the former Soviet Union nations are still skirmishing with each other.

The absence of war is not necessarily peace.

In other words, you can't have equality and justice for all when one side is on the record as intending to exterminate and cause the other to cease to exist and is acting out on that intention.

Well, certainly Chinese rule could be re-established in Vietnam as it had been before the colonisation, or the Austrians could get back their Balkan parts ...



This is indeed an interesting question.

From a personal point of view I would have had a family of more than treble the seize, had grown up in another town, another home ...

But I really don't know if I had wished to live under the same circumstances as they had been 70 years ago.


On the other, I'm glad that no-one can put the wheel of history into reverse; it doesn't make much sense in my opinion.

Your analogy makes no sense. We're talking about ONE country called Israel.

Hmm, well you didn't specify that when you pronounced the ingredients for peace.

Do things work differently in or re Israel than anywhere else? If you read the posts of the critics of Israel on this thread, one might think so, but I have yet found anybody who can provide a rational explanation for that conclusion.

I rather think the analogy I used was a good one, and has generally proved its merits many times in modern history.

That is so stupid and reprehensible, it is unworthy of a reply. You are hardly a thinker, but are a liar and an ideologue.

It's because you fail to understand that the international organization called the UN has charged Israel with breaking international laws by taking over Palestinian lands. Your excuses for Israel breaking international laws only shows your depth of ignorance.

Thank you for your observation, CI. While I do not condone or particularly appreciate Advocate's insulting response to you, it was no worse than yours can be, so I'll just refer you back to him and not attempt to engage you in civil debate further. Do have a great afternoon, however.

That's one way to ignore why its "stupid and reprehensible."

International law?

The UN at the request of the British, decided to make a recommendation of what to do with Palestine after the British abandoned it. The UN recommended that the British owned Palestine be divided into two Palestinian states. The Palestinian Jews accepted that recommendation and created Israel. The Palestinian Arabs rejected that recommendation and repeatedly wages war against Israel. So, Israel defends itself as it thinks is required to secure itself. Either Israel adequately defends itself or it will disappear.

If the Palestinian Arabs were to accept the UN recommendation for a two-state Palestine, neither state would have to defend themselves against the other in order to survive.

UN accuses Israel of illegal land grab

March 29 2003


Against a background of fresh violence in the West Bank and a call for the United States to publish its "road map" for peace in the Middle East, the United Nations has questioned the legality of Israel's security wall.

A UN investigator said the wall Israel says is to protect its citizens from Palestinian gunmen and suicide bombers was an illegal "creeping annexation" of Palestinian territory.

"The wall is being used as a way of expanding Israel's territory," the special rapporteur, John Dugard, said on Thursday before presenting a report to the Geneva-based UN Commission on Human Rights. "It amounts to illegal territorial gain."

Israel's Defence Ministry this week proposed extending the fence, which roughly follows the frontier with the West Bank, deeper into the West Bank to protect the Jewish settlements of Ariel, Emmanuel and Keddumim.

"Israel claims this is a temporary security measure, but I think the reality is that this is a form of creeping annexation of Palestinian territory," Mr Dugard said.

In his report on the violation of human rights in the occupied territories he said neither party in the more than two-year Palestinian uprising for statehood had paid proper respect to civilian life.

While Israel had real security concerns which could not be ignored, its response was excessive and disproportionate to the Palestinian attacks, he said.

The huge number of deaths and injuries, the humanitarian crisis, property destruction and the expansion of Israeli territory into the West Bank were not justifiable, he said.

"In this age of anti-terrorism measures, Israel has succeeded in gaining tremendous sympathy for its argument that it is engaged in defensive action in response to Palestinian suicide bombers," Mr Dugard said. "It is a disproportionate response which can't be justified on the grounds of military necessity."

In fresh violence, Israeli troops shot dead a 20-year-old Palestinian man in a refugee camp in the West Bank town of Tulkarm yesterday, Palestinian witnesses said.

The shooting followed a strike by an Israeli helicopter gunship on Thursday that killed two Palestinian policemen in Gaza.

Israeli-Palestinian violence has continued sporadically despite Washington's appeal for calm after 30 months of conflict.

Witnesses said troops entered the Tulkarm refugee camp in jeeps and armoured personnel carriers shortly after midnight and searched several houses.

They said soldiers fired without provocation from one of the houses towards the street, killing a 20-year-old Palestinian passing by and wounding another man.

On the diplomatic front, Palestinian officials urged President George Bush to keep his promise and publish the so-called "road map" for peace between Israel and Palestine.

Mr Bush said at a meeting in Camp David with the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on Thursday: "Soon we will release the road map that is designed to help turn that vision into reality," without specifying exactly when.

The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erakat, called for concrete action, saying: "We hope that these promises are not just trying to soften us up ... and that we can expect action rather than words."

He noted that publication of the plan, drafted by the US, Russia, UN and European Union, had already been put back six times.

"I don't know what pretext he could find for putting it off a seventh time," Mr Erakat said.

Reuters

When and only when the Gazians agree to stop firing rockets into Israel and stop trying to steal Israel, Israel will return the land belonging to the Palestinian Arabs that it currently occupies.

Prove me wrong if you can!

Well for those that have a problem with Israel's existence, I wonder how far one should go to find the ethical place to put Israel's Jews hypothetically? Should we make a homeland in Germany, based on the Holocaust? Should there be a homeland in Spain, since Spanish (Sephardic) Jews were in Spain 300 BC? Or, how about Italy, since Rome started the modern Diaspora, with the destruction of the Second Temple. I say all this tongue-in-cheek, since I do not want Israel, as a Jewish homeland, to go anywhere; however, I am just trying to point out that the need for a homeland may be based on a few quite civilized countries and their historical treatment of Jews. Amazing, how many otherwise intelligent folk, that are anti-Israel, might prefer to ignore the history of the Jews!

Ridiculous through and through. Jews "always" had the opportunity from early on to create a peaceful country. You ever hear of the urgune? They were a Jewish terrorist organization. After they established a military with mostly US funds, they terrorized the Palestinians into submission, and started taking over their lands at will.

Guns and tanks will never provide them with the peace they say they seek; they continue to kill innocent Palestinians - even women and children - which results in revenge.

They have created their own nightmare.

BTW, your charge of "anti-Israel" has no substance or meaning. We all want peace for both the Jews and Palestinians of Israel. So quit making a fool of yourself; you bigot.