Israeli Reprisal Against Hamas Terrorist Organization Kills Its Leader and Founder

 

I admit, my knowledge on this subject is not as good as it has once been, but I have come to the following conclusion: In the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma, the Palestinians are most definitely the more unjust side. But first, let us discuss the most recent events in Israel.

 

 

 

As usual, Palestinian militants/terrorists, including the political/terrorist organization Hamas, were holding suicide bombings and attacks against Israel. In response, Israel killed the current leader and founder of Hamas, Yassin. All over the news, including the New York Times, television, and even the local Rochester NY paper, the news had a headline that was something like the following:

 

 

 

?Israel Kills Spiritual Leader of Hamas?

 

 

 

Of course, we get to hear how the guy is some sort of ?cleric? who is missing his appendages. Furthermore, it actually is hard to figure out that Israel did this as A RESPONSE to continuing terrorist attacks. But no, the media wants to make it look like Israel killed a feeble old religious man who was not dangerous. I do not care if this guy is missing his penis or if he calls himself something religious like Al Sharpton, he was the leader of a political organization in ?Palestine? that used terrorism to gain popular support at home and abroad. Hamas has a charitable wing that serves the people, much like a the democratic and republican political machines did in the past to guarantee the immigrant vote. Furthermore, Hamas also openly sponsors and holds terrorist attacks against innocent Israelis.

 

 

 

After Yassin was killed, Hamas named a new guy to lead their group. Of course it is not someone looking to break the vicious cycle currently in place, it is Abdel Rantassi, the new hardliner leader of the Gaza Strip (hardliner as in pro killing, never negotiating, wanting Israel not to even exist, and ect.) Hamas declared they will assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in response and already militants have been trying to cross the boarder to reap havoc and a 12 year old male attempted to commit another suicide bombing.

 

 

 

An Al Jazeera poll said that over 60% of its viewers are in favor of the current attacks on Israel and I have read in the past that as much as 80% (if not more) of the Palestinian population supports terrorist attacks, Quite frankly, the majority of these people want violence and because of this it is particularly shameful that the world?s media believes Israel should be denied its right to defend itself against attacks.

 

 

 

There are two reasons why Palestinians ?have to? attack Israel and those are that 1. Israeli settlements are pushing their people out of their homeland and 2. Israel should of never existed to begin with.

 

 

 

Israel has been building settlements for years and under Sharon initially they were built at an unprecedented rate. The reason why is that settlements are built over land that was occupied by ?Palestinians?. However, this land was also used for terrorism, whether it be a base for attacks or bomb factories. The increased amount of settlements is simply a result of increased terrorism, thus increased Israeli reprisals and therefore new ?open space? to build settlements on. Sharon not too long ago as a peace offering decided to DISMANTLE the settlements, but of course this was not good enough for the terrorists and the 80% of the population that supports them, so terrorist attacks occurred, more parking lots are being made, and more settlements are created. If you stop attacking Israel, they will stop taking the land you used for hostility. I understand the Israelis use the settlements as almost a spite measure and there is pressure from extreme Zionists for further expansion, but still a relatively moderate man in Israeli politics is in power (Sharon), he offered to not only stop increasing settlements, but dismantle them, and guess what, more attacks occurred! Same s***, different day.

 

 

 

Furthermore, the displaced Arabs, the so called ?Palestinians? and much of Israel?s Arab neighbors believe Israel has no right to exist to begin with. After World War II ended, Zionist and Arab terrorism scared the British out of Palestine and after the Arabs failed to send representatives to make claim to certain lands, Israel was granted its territory and once it became a state the armies of Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan attacked Israel and were defeated. Contrary to public opinion, Israel never kicked out any non-jewish citizens and in fact many Muslims left Israel to avoid the combat that would ensue because of the Arab invasion. Anyhow, after the first census, about 15% of Israel was non-Jewish (it is about the same today) and to this day all people of any religion or ethnicity have equal rights, get government land, and serve in government. In ?Palestine? today, Jews have no rights, there are enforced Jewish free zones, and corruption runs so rampant, that whoever has the guns has the power. A good example of this is how Yassir Arafat is a billionaire and how armed militants just walk into local businesses and rob the places. Pretty much it is the wild west in the Middle East.

 

 

 

The creation of a Jewish state did not mean the expulsion of non-Jews from Israel, but the expulsion of Jews throughout the Middle East. As much as 800,000 Jews were forced or voluntarily left other nations in the Middle East for Israel. Nonetheless, by the time it was 1967 open Arab hostilities and military build up forced Israel to conduct a preemptive strike in the Six Day War. Then in 1973 the Egyptians and Syrians launched a surprise attack on the holiest of Jewish holidays, Yom Kippur and so the Yom Kippur War started (remember when you hear all that crap about bombing on some Muslim holy time, it is a bunch of bolgna.) Israel repulsed both armies and even brought the offensive to Egypt and captured the Sinai Peninsula. Between these two wars, Israel found the lands occupied necessary for defense, because a lot of luck was involved for these battles to be one. Land in the west bank and etcetera are needed as buffer zones against future Arab attacks. Israel is a tiny nation (smaller than some counties in America) and every inch of land is needed for defense against numerically superior enemies.

 

 

 

A blown up Iraqi nuclear reactor, PLO bashing in neighboring countries, and an intifadah later, Israel and ?Palestine? met at Camp David, and Palestinians would be in time given 95% of their land claims, their own nation, and monetary help from Israel, but the Palestinians walked out because they wanted total control of the water supply (which would take away all of Israel?s water), immediate control of all the land asked for, and to rid Israel?s right to control certain militarily strategic areas for defensive purposes. After this walk out, Ariel Sharon asked the Palestinian Authority permission to visit the Temple Mount, a holy area for all Jewish based religions. What happened was that the Palestinians made up stories of Ariel Sharon walking into a mosque while people were praying holding a machine gun with several soldiers and that he had no permission to enter the Muslim holy place. Staged riots and violent attacks ensued and if one looks back on the chain of events, it is most definitely Palestinian rioting and Palestinian murdering that happened first. As Rambo would say, ?They drew first blood.?

 

 

 

Since then the following has occurred over and over to the point that I actually stopped following the situation: Palestinians kill Israelis, Israel initially does not do much, bombing increase to an absurd level, Israel holds a massive reprisal and or kills heads of terrorist organizations, attacks stop after reprisal, Israel talks peace and makes concessions, and terrorism starts again. Why? ?Palestinian leadership? know they stay in power only through violence and anything that might bring peace is an assault against their authority.

 

 

 

The media has been heavily slanted against Israel. We?re supposed to be ?understanding? to the Palestinian plight, which is short of nothing more than literal racial domination over the area. We are supposed to believe that Israeli reprisals are the Israelis INSTIGATING a fight. The truth is that the Arabs were and always are the instigators 99% of the time, besides the occasional Israeli bulldozer-spite mission to build a settlement, but this is rare. People forget how the entire media said the Passover War was an act of genocide, killing 5,000 innocent people in the Jordanian made refugee camps in Jenin. In reality, short of 50 people died, all but one were militants. Israel closed of the area, because it was so heavily booby-trapped. Yeah, some innocent people needed to booby-trap their homes? Bull s***, they were trying to protect their bomb factories and that?s why Israel leveled the areas. There was talk of Israel burning the bodies and hiding corpses, but none of this happened. What really happened was the Palestinians were caught digging up bodies and taking dead people from hospitals and placing them near the area to make it appear Israel killed them. The media dropped the issue, never admitted they were wrong, and conveniently forgot when the Israelis foiled a 9-11, which would have been three massive bombing attacks against Israeli skyscrapers.

 

 

 

The same crap is happening now. The Palestinians were bombing and bombing, so Israel shot right at the heart of Hamas. Good for them, their reprisal SAVED lives. Israel has tried peace talks, doing nothing (as in no reprisals), and the only thing that works (at least temporarily) is bombing the living hell out of militant zones. Do not kid yourself, the violence will not stop until the people in power in Palestine stop using the violence for political reasons and nations throughout the planet stop blaming Israel to distract the citizenry from domestic problems. But hell, blaming the Jews was always more fun, right?

 

http://www.xanga.com/craigramblings

What amazes me is you have the audacity to claim the media is slanted toward the Palestinian cause then write one of the most slanted obviouslly biased posts on the issue Ive read on these board. Are you serious in half the things you claim or write? Where did you get this?

 

Sharon a moderate? Either you are correct and you dont know much about the issue or you are so blinded that you will say anything.

 

Israel has been building settlements for years and under Sharon initially they were built at an unprecedented rate. The reason why is that settlements are built over land that was occupied by ?Palestinians?. However, this land was also used for terrorism, whether it be a base for attacks or bomb factories. The increased amount of settlements is simply a result of increased terrorism, thus increased Israeli reprisals and therefore new ?open space? to build settlements on. Sharon not too long ago as a peace offering decided to DISMANTLE the settlements, but of course this was not good enough for the terrorists and the 80% of the population that supports them, so terrorist attacks occurred, more parking lots are being made, and more settlements are created. If you stop attacking Israel, they will stop taking the land you used for hostility. I understand the Israelis use the settlements as almost a spite measure and there is pressure from extreme Zionists for further expansion, but still a relatively moderate man in Israeli politics is in power (Sharon), he offered to not only stop increasing settlements, but dismantle them, and guess what, more attacks occurred! Same s***, different day.

 

 

Youve got to be kidding me. What nation has ever used increased settlments as a defense against attacks? This is blatant expansion. When did Sharon offer to dismantle settlments? Almost every offer theyve made has come under various conditions.

 

Explain to me how killing this man will reduce terror attacks? Do you seriously think they will be so demoralized that they will stop the attacks? Do you think they rely on him for policy guidance? He is just a figurehead with no use anymore. Istead this attack has festered even more anger and rage while it accomplishes absolutley nothing. There is a reason that it has been internationally condemend by both the EU and UN. Even the Bush administration, Isreal's biggest ally, said it was not needed though they fall short of condemnation. This attack further speculates the fuel of fire that Isreal intentionally keeps the conflict going so that when the Palestinians fight back, they can justify even greater occupation of land. This was idiotic and very dubious on Isreal's part.

 

Im not getting into the substance of this issue because you really are basing it on your own personel perceptions derived from the new media.

 

 

What frustrates me is that both sides are idiots on this issue. There are fundementalists who are driving the policies of both and every time intelligent moderates try for peace, these idiots stifle it. Foolishness derives from this notion that one side is entitled and the other side shouldnt even exist. The Islamic nations at some point have to realize that Isreal is not going away.

 

What frustrates me even more than this is when people who reside thousands of miles away like you have the nerve to have such a strong opinion on this issue. I understand why Palestians do what they do for it is their land and their homes and their brothers they see dying. In this I dont expect them to be very rational. I understand why Isrealis feel the way they do because they live in fear when they get on a bus and they lose their loved ones. I dont expect them to be compassionatte. But when you sit here and pretend you know have some emotional tie to this, youre just playing politics. This isnt Nazi Germany. This is a much more complicated issue.

 

 

As long as we have views like yours, there will never be peace in this region.

burn!

Furman, it is only a burn if someone brings up valid counterpoints, so that only shows your own ignorance...BURN!

 

What amazes me is you have the audacity to claim the media is slanted toward the Palestinian cause then write one of the most slanted obviouslly biased posts on the issue Ive read on these board. Are you serious in half the things you claim or write? Where did you get this?

 

Sharon a moderate? Either you are correct and you dont know much about the issue or you are so blinded that you will say anything.

Obviously you know nothing of Israeli politics. Sharon is in between the extreme left (against military intervention and such) and the extreme right Zionists who want no talks whatsoever with the palestinians and involvement during the war with Iraq.

 

You obviously are talking out of your ass and I do not hide which side I obviously agree with, but all the historical events are FACT.

 

Youve got to be kidding me. What nation has ever used increased settlments as a defense against attacks? This is blatant expansion. When did Sharon offer to dismantle settlments? Almost every offer theyve made has come under various conditions.

Obviously you weren't following the news very closely before the end of 2003, so it is not worth me bring it up for you. The extreme right was pissed that Sharon was talking dismantlement. Two, you obviously cannot see the obvious! Take a guess where settlements are built- over terrorist bomb factories, headquarters and ect. Furthermore, I already said Israel builds the settlements out of spite. So again, you're talking out of your butt. The palestinian militants are in are A, israel then clears out the militant and builds a settlement over it. Almost never is a settlement built over some random area for no reason.

 

Explain to me how killing this man will reduce terror attacks? Do you seriously think they will be so demoralized that they will stop the attacks? Do you think they rely on him for policy guidance? He is just a figurehead with no use anymore. Istead this attack has festered even more anger and rage while it accomplishes absolutley nothing.

That's where you wrong. Israeli strike against Hamas after the passover war almost destroyed them and systematic killing of leaders has been thus far the BEST answer to the problem. OBviously you have no idea what you're talking about. Two, he was more than a figure head him just like Arafat were both intimiately involved with the armed segments of their political movements.

 

There is a reason that it has been internationally condemend by both the EU and UN. Even the Bush administration, Isreal's biggest ally, said it was not needed though they fall short of condemnation. This attack further speculates the fuel of fire that Isreal intentionally keeps the conflict going so that when the Palestinians fight back, they can justify even greater occupation of land. This was idiotic and very dubious on Isreal's part.

 

The Bush administration has wobbled on this issue continuously and the UN is dead wrong concerning the issue. When one considers the history and chain of events of the issue, there can be no other way.

 

Im not getting into the substance of this issue because you really are basing it on your own personel perceptions derived from the new media.

I have sat through the entire jenin controversy and ect by going to Israeli, euro left, American, and arab news sites. The opinion I have presented is how I intepreted the truth from all of these sources.

 

What frustrates me is that both sides are idiots on this issue. There are fundementalists who are driving the policies of both and every time intelligent moderates try for peace, these idiots stifle it. Foolishness derives from this notion that one side is entitled and the other side shouldnt even exist. The Islamic nations at some point have to realize that Isreal is not going away.

I would agree, but sadly the use of force has been the most effective way of stopping terrorism short term. I cannot tell you how it will work long term with the perceptions that exist among the arab population, but Israel has gone the "don't attack back" route and it has done absolutely nothing.

 

What frustrates me even more than this is when people who reside thousands of miles away like you have the nerve to have such a strong opinion on this issue.

And you have no opinion? Unless I'm under some rock dodging gunfire I am to have no opinion? Unless I hanged out with Dick Nixon, I am to have no opinion of it? That is one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard. It is pretty much a cop out.

 

I understand why Palestians do what they do for it is their land and their homes and their brothers they see dying. In this I dont expect them to be very rational.? I understand why Isrealis feel the way they do because they live in fear when they get on a bus and they lose their loved ones. I dont expect them to be compassionatte. But when you sit here and pretend you know have some emotional tie to this, youre just playing politics. This isnt Nazi Germany. This is a much more complicated issue.

I'm not playing anything, I am speaking the obvious truth in an absurd world that is missing it. How many god damn more times do the palestinians have to start s*** up until people get the point that they are the true instigators? Who started the second intifadah? God damn it, do you get it? Obviously you don't know enough about the issue.

 

 

As long as we have views like yours, there will never be peace in this region.

So disillusioning ourselves and believing the Palestinians are not to blame for manufacturing a second uprising for no good (well, political) reason and the the continuing of murder is insane. PEOPLE LIKE YOU who are not condemning the terrorists who started the terror and give Israel no choice are the reason the world has not backed the just side in this: Israel.

 

And obviously, I'm not for increased settlements, I have already denounced them.

 

Me 1

Furman and Mollusk 0

 

P.S. If you have no idea what started up the second intifadah, then I don't see why you think you can present an intelligent opinion.

OK

 

First off I think shooting three missles at a guy in a wheelchair is uncalled for. I don't care what that guy did, shooting three missiles at his chest is pushing it. But if it was two it would have been ok.

 

Second, how about we just let the Middle East blow itself up?

OK

 

First off I think shooting three missles at a guy in a wheelchair is uncalled for. I don't care what that guy did, shooting three missiles at his chest is pushing it. But if it was two it would have been ok.

 

Second, how about we just let the Middle East blow itself up?

So if bin laden lost his limbs and such from the tora bora bombings we shouldn't MAKE SURE he's dead? How many explosions did saddamn and supposedly bin laden escape? They did it right the first time.

 

And two, letting people blow each other up and have the world go blame america and the "jewish conspiracy" is never a good thing.

Well, doesn't everyone criticize our being in the Middle East? Let's leave for a while and show everyone what would happen. A year out of there and see how fast everyone wants us back.

 

And yeah, you make sure he is dead. You don't fire missiles at a guy in a wheel chair. I'm sorry that is pushing it.

Sharon is in between the extreme left (against military intervention and such) and the extreme right Zionists who want no talks whatsoever with the palestinians and involvement during the war with Iraq.

 

Ok, so you believe that because Sharon isnt an extreme zionist, he is automatically a moderate? Thats like saying Ralph Nader is a moderate because he isnt a hippy who lives in a combine.

 

Sharon's "Eretz Yisrael Hashlemah" (the "whole Land of Israel") beliefs is clearly against any possible settlment. He truly believes that the best peace for the region is continued expansion of occupied territories. This is a belief he has stated numerous times.

 

Do you know why he was appointed foreign minister under Binyamin Netanyahu? BN needed to appease the conservatives in the party and this is why Sharon was appointed. He vigorously opposed the Olso peace accords.

 

What was Sharon's view of Ehud Barak's attempt to bring a settlement with ENA over east Jerusalem? "Barak does not have the right to give up Jerusalem, which the people received as a legacy," His election cleary an attempt show Barak is being too moderate on such events.

 

The Likud party has a policy of peace for peace which is a strong divergence from peace for land of the more moderate such as Barak.

 

Obviously you weren't following the news very closely before the end of 2003, so it is not worth me bring it up for you. The extreme right was pissed that Sharon was talking dismantlement. Two, you obviously cannot see the obvious! Take a guess where settlements are built- over terrorist bomb factories, headquarters and ect. Furthermore, I already said Israel builds the settlements out of spite. So again, you're talking out of your butt. The palestinian militants are in are A, israel then clears out the militant and builds a settlement over it. Almost never is a settlement built over some random area for no reason.

 

You didnt my answer my question in regards to any other nations use of such a policy.

 

Secondly, dont fall pray so easily to the words stated in newspapers. What people say and what really evokes from this is always a more complicated matter. Sharon has to create an image that he is trying to negotiate with the Palestinians or else people who base everything they say on the surface analysis news programs might not be fooled. Its called politics my friend.

 

Wait, I dont undestand. Does Isreal build those settlements out of spite or does it build them over "bomb factories" as you would say? I mean since they are getting a bad reputation from there creeping expansion internationally, why dont you provide substanative evidence that these settlments are built over "bomb factories." I mean you seem so sure that you know where these things are built whereas the international community has supposedley been decieved by the very people the critisize.

 

 

And you have no opinion? Unless I'm under some rock dodging gunfire I am to have no opinion? Unless I hanged out with Dick Nixon, I am to have no opinion of it? That is one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard. It is pretty much a cop out.

You flat out missed my point. Perhaps I should make it clear. Having an opinion on a conflict is fine. But this is a conflict in which saying one side is "good" and the other is "evil" is not. You see the arguments and evidence you are going to read are always in controversy and always ambigious. Both sides ardently interepret events differently.

 

For example, let me take the your weakest claim:

 

I'm not playing anything, I am speaking the obvious truth in an absurd world that is missing it. How many god damn more times do the palestinians have to start s*** up until people get the point that they are the true instigators? Who started the second intifadah? God damn it, do you get it? Obviously you don't know enough about the issue.

 

You say you speak the obvious truth by saying something so childish. You say that the Palestinians "started it" or they "instigate it." The enormity of this conflict goes beyond a few fundementalists who dont want peace with Isreal. There mere creation of the Isreali state brought up a furor with their neighboring nations. Id argue Britian should have maintained a transitional peace. Then the first conflict with Egypt, Syria, and TransJordan happend(48-490. In addition came the Suez canal conflict(56), the six day war(67), and Yom Kippur war(73-74). Now I know for some people all the middle easterners or "brown people" as some can only refer to them are the same but they are not. You see the Palestinians didnt engage these conflicts nor did they initiate the first conflict after the British handover. Jews and Paletinians lived in peace by some testimony until the other Arab states(now remember, not all people follow the same views in the middle east so not everyone agreed with their fellow Arab states) attacked.

 

Here is where the massive debate happens and here is where someone who lives in New York is not entitled to pretend to know who is "bad" and who is "good." The Isrealis say that Palestinians were encouraged by the other Arab states to leave and that they all left willingly as they did not want to live with Jews. The Palestnians say they were forced out by Isreali troops. Remember this is not Isreal but would become Isreal. So it is a question of whether forced departure or defense occupation occured. Now this occured over the course of many years and the Palestiians were essentially were not there anymore but were not a major player until around the late 70s. But starting in the mid to late 70s, Palestinians wanted to go back to their former homes(remember both sides disagree as to whether they left or were forced out) and they argued they were forced out and had to fight back. Isrealis resisted saying that they left and that the nation had established itself.

 

Now that said, I dont like it when you sit here and say that one person started it or the other person started it when all youve done is read news reports and opinions. Its fine to have an opinion on the issue but dont talk about who is right and who is wrong when this is an issue for which right and wrong is drowning in a ocean of ambiguity.

 

 

You justify actions based on these news reports and opinions. These reports have two sides of a coin. For example, there is immense debate to what happend at Sabra and Shatila in September 1982. All we know is that 2000 Palestinian civilians were killed and Ariel Sharon was found to be indirectly by the Kahan Commission which removed him from office. To many who are staunchly behind Isreal, it is an event that had to happen to end the missle launches that PLO was engaging in from S. Lebanon. To those on who are staunchly behind the Palestinians, it was an event that represents the hypocrisy and inate hatred for Palestinians civilians that Isreal has.

 

 

Now since you think you have the ideal answer as you have " intepreted the truth from all of these sources" you must know what really caused the people to leave their homes and what really happend at events like Sabra. You must know why both sides have their viewpoints.

 

You see, many people started off on the middle. They watch the news and see a terrorist attack. They say, the Palestinians started it. Then they say Isreals response is ok. Which cause Palenstinias to respond. Tit for tat for tit for tat. The reality though is its extremley wrong to start in the middle. Both sides have reasons but who is right and who is wrong?

 

If you have no idea what started up the second intifadah, then I don't see why you think you can present an intelligent opinion.

Well I know the answer you have. To some, the second intifadah was caused by the Palestinians overreacting to Sharon's visit to al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam. But there are many other things to consider. Sharon knew full well that his visit there would cause a furor and would lead to greater turmoil. He went anyway which says so much about his opinion of the other side. Id partially fault him.(Remember this is an opinion on a small event and not an opinion of an entire side that you seem eager to have).

 

More than that though, It is strongly argued that the event was just a touchstone of the underlying frustration of the Palestinians. To them it was the overflow of the violations of the Oslo agreement, the failed promises of the superpowers, the failed economic development, the loss of rights they thought they were getting.

 

I dont know what truley and ultimatley caused the Intifadah. Im assuming youve interviewed every Palestnians and you know that the ultimate cause based on your analysis of the "truth" was that they like to kill Jews though.

 

 

Soriano fan, I havent posted here much but I can gather a few things about you. You really like to argue and you do it by taking up absolute assertions and truths that you defend bitterly. I think you are someone that doesnt realize that the world isnt simple and in fact it is immensley complex so that broad assertions and generalizations are not the best ways to look at it.

 

If ever an issue didnt need the sort of broad assertions you make, its this one. The people there live in turmoil and danger. Just because you see a terrorist attack happening and then the another person sees Isreali troops attacking people doesnt mean one side is so obviously right.

 

Me 1

Furman and Mollusk 0

 

How old are you?

There is a great book by Chomsky on this issue...let me see if I can dig it up. I recommend all to pick it up at the public library.

The Fateful Triangle is what you refer to correct? I havent read it but Ive heard good things about it.

 

 

It seems to be an indictment on the perception fed to America through various media. The same thing which I ask Soriano fan not to be so reliant on when he says such things as "In the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma, the Palestinians are most definitely the more unjust side."

 

My intitial irritation was primarily to that assertion. Its such a surface assertion and he backs it up with more surface assertions.

You can't really put fault anywhere in this conflict. These people were just meant to fight each other it seems, and they are both equally to blame for continuing to retaliate at each other constantly. It is basically a pissing contest that costs lives at this point, and it won't be stopped for quite a while it seems.

 

And everytime someone tries to bring about a peace treaty, it gets shot down. Either literally (Anwar Sudatt) or otherwise, it'll get torn up somehow or it will stand for a while and then people will stop paying attention to it.

 

They've been fighting for centuries, with many different people trying to stop them. They are going to keep fighting. The best thing is to move one of the two out of there so they aren't next to each other, but that likely won't happen because both claim the same city as holy.

The Fateful Triangle is what you refer to correct? I havent read it but Ive heard good things about it.

 

 

It seems to be an indictment on the perception fed to America through various media. The same thing which I ask Soriano fan not to be so reliant on when he says such things as "In the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma, the Palestinians are most definitely the more unjust side."

 

My intitial irritation was primarily to that assertion. Its such a surface assertion and he backs it up with more surface assertions.

Yes, thats the one.

Well, doesn't everyone criticize our being in the Middle East? Let's leave for a while and show everyone what would happen. A year out of there and see how fast everyone wants us back.

 

And yeah, you make sure he is dead. You don't fire missiles at a guy in a wheel chair. I'm sorry that is pushing it.

That's bull, if he's calling out attacks I don't give a s***. Are people in wheel chairs not people too? Then what's the difference between killing someone in a wheelchair and some who is not? Are they somehow not human?

 

Supposedly his last words were, "God will protect me."

I'm not saying don't kill the dude! But how would you like it if you had three missiles shot into your chest? That's wrong for anyone, especially someone in a wheelchair.

 

Real manly of the Israelly army. If this guy was the leader he was, at least give him the decency of seeing the face that puts the bullet in his forehead.

I'm not saying don't kill the dude! But how would you like it if you had three missiles shot into your chest? That's wrong for anyone, especially someone in a wheelchair.

 

Real manly of the Israelly army. If this guy was the leader he was, at least give him the decency of seeing the face that puts the bullet in his forehead.

The first rocket probably killed him though right. I say kill him however possible. He didn't think how is the most humane way I can kill these Israeli's? He's a ist and doesn't deserve to die humanely.

Everyone, no matter how cruel, deserves at least a humane death.

Ok, so you believe that because Sharon isnt an extreme zionist, he is automatically a moderate? Thats like saying Ralph Nader is a moderate because he isnt a hippy who lives in a combine.

 

Sharon's "Eretz Yisrael Hashlemah" (the "whole Land of Israel") beliefs is clearly against any possible settlment. He truly believes that the best peace for the region is continued expansion of occupied territories. This is a belief he has stated numerous times.

 

Do you know why he was appointed foreign minister under Binyamin Netanyahu? BN needed to appease the conservatives in the party and this is why Sharon was appointed. He vigorously opposed the Olso peace accords.

 

What was Sharon's view of Ehud Barak's attempt to bring a settlement with ENA over east Jerusalem? "Barak does not have the right to give up Jerusalem, which the people received as a legacy," His election cleary an attempt show Barak is being too moderate on such events.

 

The Likud party has a policy of peace for peace which is a strong divergence from peace for land of the more moderate such as Barak.

Again, a stance concering east jerusalem doesn't change the fact that Sharon is as I said initially, relatively moderate. What do you expect if he is the leader of the strongest party in Israel? Furthermore, it is debatable what should be done with east jerusalem after israel recaptured it in 1967.

You didnt my answer my question in regards to any other nations use of such a policy.

 

Secondly, dont fall pray so easily to the words stated in newspapers. What people say and what really evokes from this is always a more complicated matter. Sharon has to create an image that he is trying to negotiate with the Palestinians or else people who base everything they say on the surface analysis news programs might not be fooled. Its called politics my friend.

First, policy of what, I am confused.

 

Dude, the truth still is he made the offer, he then reoffered it, and the terrorism continued. I'm not making out Sharon to be some great guy, he's a politician, but as I have stated repeatedly it is the ones who cause and START the violence who are to blame.

 

Wait, I dont undestand. Does Isreal build those settlements out of spite or does it build them over "bomb factories" as you would say? I mean since they are getting a bad reputation from there creeping expansion internationally, why dont you provide substanative evidence that these settlments are built over "bomb factories." I mean you seem so sure that you know where these things are built whereas the international community has supposedley been decieved by the very people the critisize.

Didn't I say that most of the time Israel bulldozes a hostile area and these particular areas usually are the ones where the settlements are built. This is a fact and it happens all the time.

 

You flat out missed my point. Perhaps I should make it clear. Having an opinion on a conflict is fine. But this is a conflict in which saying one side is "good" and the other is "evil" is not. You see the arguments and evidence you are going to read are always in controversy and always ambigious. Both sides ardently interepret events differently.

You don't get it, I seen what both sides have to say and I have come to MY decision. the "palestinians" are most definitely the unjust side.

 

You say you speak the obvious truth by saying something so childish. You say that the Palestinians "started it" or they "instigate it." The enormity of this conflict goes beyond a few fundementalists who dont want peace with Isreal. There mere creation of the Isreali state brought up a furor with their neighboring nations. Id argue Britian should have maintained a transitional peace. Then the first conflict with Egypt, Syria, and TransJordan happend(48-490. In addition came the Suez canal conflict(56), the six day war(67), and Yom Kippur war(73-74). Now I know for some people all the middle easterners or "brown people" as some can only refer to them are the same but they are not. You see the Palestinians didnt engage these conflicts nor did they initiate the first conflict after the British handover. Jews and Paletinians lived in peace by some testimony until the other Arab states(now remember, not all people follow the same views in the middle east so not everyone agreed with their fellow Arab states) attacked.

You're telling me stuff I already know. Where did I write that the Palestinians attacked in 48. 67, or 73? No where. Those events are what shaped the political boundaries of israel and that's what makes them relevant. To be totally honest, I am not sure if "palestinian" arabs even fought in at least the first war, but the truth is that those wars were more the undertaking or Arab states. So the point you're trying to prove is beyond me. I'm more b***hing about the more current chain of events after the second intifadah.

 

Here is where the massive debate happens and here is where someone who lives in New York is not entitled to pretend to know who is "bad" and who is "good." The Isrealis say that Palestinians were encouraged by the other Arab states to leave and that they all left willingly as they did not want to live with Jews. The Palestnians say they were forced out by Isreali troops.

The Palestinians were not forced out. What resulted from Arab instigated wars is another matter. At this point a "right of return" will only destabalize israel and that makes it unacceptable (because the whole right of return hooey is an attempt to just dominate the israeli voting system.) No one was forced out in a direct deportation. A good example of this is the muslim population that currently resides in Israel: those were the guys who didn't leave.

 

Furthermore, the Arab population of palestine grew as a direct result of zionism, because zionism brought money and jobs.

 

Now that said, I dont like it when you sit here and say that one person started it or the other person started it when all youve done is read news reports and opinions. Its fine to have an opinion on the issue but dont talk about who is right and who is wrong when this is an issue for which right and wrong is drowning in a ocean of ambiguity.

You see, that's the problem. You conveniently say that it is "debatable" iof the Israelis kicked out Arabs. The fact is they didn't. The fact is that Arabs caused wars that shifted Israel's boundaries. The fact is that the direct cause to the termination of the camp david peace accords and the second intifadah are PALESTINIAN. So yes, I can honestly blame those who DESERVE the bulk of the blame, the palestinians.

 

Convenient you didn't touch the recent events after 2000.

 

You justify actions based on these news reports and opinions. These reports have two sides of a coin. For example, there is immense debate to what happend at Sabra and Shatila in September 1982. All we know is that 2000 Palestinian civilians were killed and Ariel Sharon was found to be indirectly by the Kahan Commission which removed him from office. To many who are staunchly behind Isreal, it is an event that had to happen to end the missle launches that PLO was engaging in from S. Lebanon. To those on who are staunchly behind the Palestinians, it was an event that represents the hypocrisy and inate hatred for Palestinians civilians that Isreal has.

Again, how does this deal with post second intifadah?

 

1. Well I know the answer you have. To some, the second intifadah was caused by the Palestinians overreacting to Sharon's visit to al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam. But there are many other things to consider. Sharon knew full well that his visit there would cause a furor and would lead to greater turmoil. He went anyway which says so much about his opinion of the other side. Id partially fault him.(Remember this is an opinion on a small event and not an opinion of an entire side that you seem eager to have).

 

2. More than that though, It is strongly argued that the event was just a touchstone of the underlying frustration of the Palestinians. To them it was the overflow of the violations of the Oslo agreement, the failed promises of the superpowers, the failed economic development, the loss of rights they thought they were getting.

 

3. I dont know what truley and ultimatley caused the Intifadah. Im assuming youve interviewed every Palestnians and you know that the ultimate cause based on your analysis of the "truth" was that they like to kill Jews though.

 

 

4. Soriano fan, I havent posted here much but I can gather a few things about you. You really like to argue and you do it by taking up absolute assertions and truths that you defend bitterly. I think you are someone that doesnt realize that the world isnt simple and in fact it is immensley complex so that broad assertions and generalizations are not the best ways to look at it.

 

If ever an issue didnt need the sort of broad assertions you make, its this one. The people there live in turmoil and danger. Just because you see a terrorist attack happening and then the another person sees Isreali troops attacking people doesnt mean one side is so obviously right.

1. It is a fact that Sharon asked permission and he never stepped foot in the mosque. Think about it, wasn't he going to visit the wailing wall? Furthermore, how does this deal with the fact that there were events planned to purposely arouse resenment on part of the Palestinians? They started the rioting, they spindoctored the true events of Sharons visit, they are to blame for the violence.

 

2. No, this does not justify violent rioting, killing, and fabricating false events for violent purposes.

 

3. You purposely not want to know the truth because you choose to keep the possibility open that the whole affair was totally made up to purposely case violence, placing the blame entirily on the Palestinians.

 

Lastly, use your common sense. The prime minister of a nuclear power isn't going to walk into a mosque with soldiers showing off their weapons. DOESN'T THAT SOUND A LITTLE MADE UP TO YOU??? Well, here is the truth. In advance it was known Sharon would come to the temple mount and he never stepped foot inside a mosque.

 

4. There is no doubt in my mind i'm right about this. I know who caused the second intifadah, I know what political situation exists in israel now, and I know about the system concerning settlements and the wars of the pasts that set the political borders neccesitating their existence.

 

This is as much as I can write before I have to start pulling up "the sources" that I did at least two years ago, because it has been so damn long. But I assure you, the second intifadah is ENTIRELY the palestinians fault. If my memory serves me right, the moment the camp david peace accords failed (because of guess who) they already started planning for the events that would lead to the second intifadah.

 

So you can pretend or choose not to know the truth to keep the Palestinian's hands free of blood, but that's just being dishonest.

 

Me 2

You 0

Everyone, no matter how cruel, deserves at least a humane death.

I'm sure you were calling for that after 9-11. hypocrite.

There is a great book by Chomsky on this issue...let me see if I can dig it up. I recommend all to pick it up at the public library.

I read his lies and propaganda, it's a load of crap. Again to prove wrong an entire piece from chomsky will take me a million years. I am no longer the well seasoned zionist I once was.

Everyone, no matter how cruel, deserves at least a humane death.

I'm sure you were calling for that after 9-11. hypocrite. If you die in a bombing, that is fine. If you get executed, most of the time that is fine. I don't even want the dictator that has run the country of my origins for 45 years to be shot by three missiles in the chest. Sorry.

Again, a stance concering east jerusalem doesn't change the fact that Sharon is as I said initially, relatively moderate. What do you expect if he is the leader of the strongest party in Israel? Furthermore, it is debatable what should be done with east jerusalem after israel recaptured it in 1967.

I give you numerous examples evidencing why he isnt a moderate and you respond with "Yes he is."

 

 

Dude, the truth still is he made the offer, he then reoffered it, and the terrorism continued. I'm not making out Sharon to be some great guy, he's a politician, but as I have stated repeatedly it is the ones who cause and START the violence who are to blame.

 

You missed my point here. I wont explain it a second time.

 

Didn't I say that most of the time Israel bulldozes a hostile area and these particular areas usually are the ones where the settlements are built. This is a fact and it happens all the time.

 

This is getting futile. To you everything is a hostile area.

 

You don't get it, I seen what both sides have to say and I have come to MY decision. the "palestinians" are most definitely the unjust side.

 

Im going to give up trying to understanding the inner workings of your mind. Im glad youve come to such a strong assertion in your life.

 

I'm more b***hing about the more current chain of events after the second intifadah.

Its intellectual fraud to takes this out of context of what happend previously. History is 99% the explanation of this conflict. Which is what makes it two sided issue and precludes an intelligent person from making a final ruling on "truth." Its no wonder you want to forget the history of this conflict.

 

The fact is that the direct cause to the termination of the camp david peace accords and the second intifadah are PALESTINIAN. So yes, I can honestly blame those who DESERVE the bulk of the blame, the palestinians.

 

Youre in college right? Whenever you state something as a "fact" you have to back it up with truly objective evidence. Please reinforce the above fact with unbiased sources.

 

Lastly, use your common sense. The prime minister of a nuclear power isn't going to walk into a mosque with soldiers showing off their weapons. DOESN'T THAT SOUND A LITTLE MADE UP TO YOU???

Second intifadah-September 2000

Sharon elected PM-February 6th 2001

 

Right. The whole thing was made up. You know the ultimate truth. :banghead

 

 

Me 2

You 0

 

Ugh. There is no point. Believe whatever you want to beleive. Ive given up on having a normal conversation on this issue with you.

 

You might learn in life one day that making yourself feel like you won an argument and pulling out all the stops to win it is much less valuable than hashing out an issue with other intellgent people .

Everyone, no matter how cruel, deserves at least a humane death.

I'm sure you were calling for that after 9-11. hypocrite. If you die in a bombing, that is fine. If you get executed, most of the time that is fine. I don't even want the dictator that has run the country of my origins for 45 years to be shot by three missiles in the chest. Sorry. I don't care about the method of death. That's superficial. I just care if the guy is dead, end of story.

My whole god damn response was deleted so here's a quickie

 

I give you numerous examples evidencing why he isnt a moderate and you respond with "Yes he is."

From his positions when contrasted to others, how the israeli media portrays him, and his stance concerning the idea of even making peace and concessions RELATIVELY makes him a moderate. The end.

 

This is getting futile. To you everything is a hostile area.

Nice try implying that I think all palestinians are terrorists, Most support terror however.

 

Hostile area=place with terrorists and weaponry

 

Bulldozers then go over these places and up goes a settlement.

 

So are you implying that there are no hostile areas in the west bank and ect or you just don't know how the settlement system works?

 

Its intellectual fraud to takes this out of context of what happend previously. History is 99% the explanation of this conflict. Which is what makes it two sided issue and precludes an intelligent person from making a final ruling on "truth." Its no wonder you want to forget the history of this conflict.

It takes an intellectual fraud to totally ignore the DIRECT causes of recent violence, not causes over the years that make a depp ingrained hatred amongst a people. You know, there was peace in the 90s before camp david.

 

 

Youre in college right? Whenever you state something as a "fact" you have to back it up with truly objective evidence. Please reinforce the above fact with unbiased sources.

Who walked out? Who didn't accept generous concessions? Who immediately started planning reprisals? These are facts, I rest my case.

 

Second intifadah-September 2000

Sharon elected PM-February 6th 2001

 

Right. The whole thing was made up. You know the ultimate truth.? :banghead

Obviously, leaders of nuclear powers don't do things that make absolutely no sense- the lie the palestinians perpetuate. Sharon was obviously in the running for power, can you imagine John Kerry walking into a mosque with guns, or George Busing doing that in the Summer of 2000? No, leaders of nuclear powers don't do stupid crap like that, it is common sense, which you seem to lack.

 

Furthermore, the whole thing WAS made up, everything concerning the temple mount I said was true. Sharon did not walk into a mosque, he did not hold weapons, and if my memory serves me right, people were protesting his appearance just in the area itself, not a mosque. Then all hell broke loose when these lies got repeated by the palestinians and by people like you.

 

Ugh. There is no point. Believe whatever you want to beleive. Ive given up on having a normal conversation on this issue with you.

 

You might learn in life one day that making yourself feel like you won an argument and pulling out all the stops to win it is much less valuable than hashing out an issue with other intellgent people .

You consider and intelligent discussion denying all the facts presented to you and then bringing up irrelevant points? Face it, you know deep down unless you have never done the research to find out that the whole temple mount thing is a sham just like Jenin, another point you didn't concede to or conveniently forgot.

 

Hopefully one day people like you will cease to exist, it will save lives in the middle east and the world.

 

Me 3

You 0

 

Luckily, I didn't have to pull out the archives on you, which saves me a lot of time.

 

Now here's something you leftists love, BBC articles!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitorin...orts/953507.stm

 

Sharon did not walk into a mosque, people were just protesting his appearance, and protests and violence WERE orchestrated. Thought he article fails to say that Sharon's appearance there was long planned and known by the PA, it still proves what I was saying all along.

 

As I said, same shi* different day.

Everyone, no matter how cruel, deserves at least a humane death.

I'm sure you were calling for that after 9-11. hypocrite. If you die in a bombing, that is fine. If you get executed, most of the time that is fine. I don't even want the dictator that has run the country of my origins for 45 years to be shot by three missiles in the chest. Sorry. I don't care about the method of death. That's superficial. I just care if the guy is dead, end of story. No, see, it isn't superficial. The end does not always justify the means.

Did Juanky have a bad experience with 3 missiles to the chest or something?