Gaza Behind the Scenes

[BigCountry]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072475.html

I feel bad for Obama. Whatever side he will choose to support in this conflict, he will be supporting terrorists. I was born in Israel and grew up there, my Grandfather survived the Holocaust and fought in the independance war, my Dad was army intelligence, my uncle is a decorated pilot and my cousin recently completed his training to join one of the two elite counter terror units, but I have to feel a little less pride after reading that. When did we become like those we are fighting?

[RedskinsDave]

Wow, some of those quotes sounded a lot like the ones from Islamic Terrorists when talking about Americans. Everyone is the enemy.

[akhhorus]

Wow, some of those quotes sounded a lot like the ones from Islamic Terrorists when talking about Americans. Everyone is the enemy.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072466.html

This is just disgusting.

[BigCountry]

Wow, some of those quotes sounded a lot like the ones from Islamic Terrorists when talking about Americans. Everyone is the enemy.

Them I do not believe, but those were Israeli soldier testimonies.

[Skins7ny]

But see this...
http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=1647.
No other army in the world is expected to place their soldiers at additional risk in order to lower the risks to the enemy. Unfortunately, the Palestenians have proven that they are not above using women and children as suicide bombers, let alone as lookouts and scouts, placing them directly in harm's way while their "soldiers" hide among the civilian population. Hamas terrorists also have used hospitals, mosques and schools to hide out and to fire at Israeli soldiers. Hamas terrorists don't come dressed in uniform so as to make themselves easily identifiable, and female suicide bombers don't announce themselves as such until they press the button.

Under the circumstances they face, the Israeli armed forces do an exemplary job of avoiding civilian casualties. While they are not perfect, and there are always some rotten eggs in any army, to compare them to the terrorists of Hamas is completely irresponsible and factually incorrect.

[BurgundyNGold]

But see this...
http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=1647.
No other army in the world is expected to place their soldiers at additional risk in order to lower the risks to the enemy. Unfortunately, the Palestenians have proven that they are not above using women and children as suicide bombers, let alone as lookouts and scouts, placing them directly in harm's way while their "soldiers" hide among the civilian population. Hamas terrorists also have used hospitals, mosques and schools to hide out and to fire at Israeli soldiers. Hamas terrorists don't come dressed in uniform so as to make themselves easily identifiable, and female suicide bombers don't announce themselves as such until they press the button.

Under the circumstances they face, the Israeli armed forces do an exemplary job of avoiding civilian casualties. While they are not perfect, and there are always some rotten eggs in any army, to compare them to the terrorists of Hamas is completely irresponsible and factually incorrect.
Unfortunately, when the world community sees two sides fighting over something that go to such desperate lengths to win and yet dig themselves even further down the rabbit hole, it has but two options to solve the problem.

First is the stop the madness and just negotiate some semblance of peace -- by force if necessary. That requires international troops, aid and money. Unfortunately, that also requires international will. See: Bosnia.

The second option is to just kill everyone on both sides and be done with it.

Since option two really doesn't count, the world needs to get some balls about a peace process that involves sticks for both sides, not just carrots.

[akhhorus]

Unfortunately, when the world community sees two sides fighting over something that go to such desperate lengths to win and yet dig themselves even further down the rabbit hole, it has but two options to solve the problem.

First is the stop the madness and just negotiate some semblance of peace -- by force if necessary. That requires international troops, aid and money. Unfortunately, that also requires international will. See: Bosnia.

The second option is to just kill everyone on both sides and be done with it.

Since option two really doesn't count, the world needs to get some balls about a peace process that involves sticks for both sides, not just carrots.

Agreed, but the problem is Hamas. Israel and Fatah are co-existing quite well on one side of the country. Fatah cracks down on their extremists, and Israel is moving settlers out and giving the Palestinians there more autonomy and freedoms. Hamas has no interest in dealing with Israel. They want a final confrontation. If Israel wanted to be cagey(and Bibi isn't that at all), they would give Fatah limited independence in the West Bank and try to split the Palestinians.

[Skins7ny]

Unfortunately, when the world community sees two sides fighting over something that go to such desperate lengths to win and yet dig themselves even further down the rabbit hole, it has but two options to solve the problem.

First is the stop the madness and just negotiate some semblance of peace -- by force if necessary. That requires international troops, aid and money. Unfortunately, that also requires international will. See: Bosnia.

The second option is to just kill everyone on both sides and be done with it.

Since option two really doesn't count, the world needs to get some balls about a peace process that involves sticks for both sides, not just carrots.

The world cannot impose a peace process on people who are not ready for peace. Usually, the only time when peace gets imposed is after a war with a clear winner and a clear loser. Otherwise, the conditions have to be ripe, and they are far from ripe at this time.

Bill Clinton tried to "impose" peace in the region. The Israelis offered Arafat a deal with very favorable terms. Arafat said no. No one in the Arab world jumped in and encouraged Arafat to take the deal. In fact the Arab world discouraged the deal, even though it would have given the Palestinians an independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital, which is supposedly what they was after. This proved to me and a lot of others who were hopeful for peace that Arafat would not take any deal because that would involve giving up his (and the larger Arab world's) goal of getting rid of Israel and replacing it wholly with a Palestinian state.

The bottom line is that the Arab world has yet to accept the existence of Israel, and no peace will take place until that happens. Israel cannot make peace with 1/2 of a people, especially one represented by as weak a figure as Abbas. The minute he signs a deal with Israel, Hamas will be knocking on his door and seeking to push him and his Fatah party out of office, such as they were able to do easily in Gaza. This will result in either (a) a civil war among the Palestinians or (b) Capitulation by Fatah and the Gazafication of the West Bank. Neither option is attractive. However, the Palestinians as a people have to decide if they want to be goverened by Hamas and become an Islamic thugocracy a la Iran, or by Fatah and be a secular democracy, a la Turkey. This problem is further compounded by the fact that Fatah is very weak, corrupt and disorganized, and has no established or popular leader to guide them to statehood.

[akhhorus]

The world cannot impose a peace process on people who are not ready for peace. Usually, the only time when peace gets imposed is after a war with a clear winner and a clear loser. Otherwise, the conditions have to be ripe, and they are far from ripe at this time.

Bill Clinton tried to "impose" peace in the region. The Israelis offered Arafat a deal with very favorable terms. Arafat said no. No one in the Arab world jumped in and encouraged Arafat to take the deal. In fact the Arab world discouraged the deal, even though it would have given the Palestinians an independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital, which is supposedly what they was after. This proved to me and a lot of others who were hopeful for peace that Arafat would not take any deal because that would involve giving up his (and the larger Arab world's) goal of getting rid of Israel and replacing it wholly with a Palestinian state.

It didn't help that Barak changed his terms at the last minute and wanted all the land in the west bank with the best water sources. Arafat was on the edge about taking the deal and that didn't help.

The bottom line is that the Arab world has yet to accept the existence of Israel, and no peace will take place until that happens.

Not true. The Arab world is clearly sick of this conflict(Iran is not part of the Arab world btw). The Syrians are trying to work out their own deal with Israeli regarding the Golan Heights(in exchange for disavowing Hamas). Jordan and Egypt have cut deals with Israel already and the Saudis are trying to forge a peace. There isn't much connection between the Arab world and the palestinians.

Israel cannot make peace with 1/2 of a people, especially one represented by as weak a figure as Abbas. The minute he signs a deal with Israel, Hamas will be knocking on his door and seeking to push him and his Fatah party out of office, such as they were able to do easily in Gaza. This will result in either (a) a civil war among the Palestinians or (b) Capitulation by Fatah and the Gazafication of the West Bank. Neither option is attractive. However, the Palestinians as a people have to decide if they want to be goverened by Hamas and become an Islamic thugocracy a la Iran, or by Fatah and be a secular democracy, a la Turkey. This problem is further compounded by the fact that Fatah is very weak, corrupt and disorganized, and has no established or popular leader to guide them to statehood.

Abbas already has a deal with Israel, and Hamas can't push him out in the West Bank(they would have long ago) because Israel is arresting Hamas members for Fatah there. Fatah can't push Hamas out of Gaza. And your characterizations of Hamas as build along Iranian lines and Fatah as a "secular democracy" are not based in reality.


None of this has anything to do with the issue in this thread btw.

[BigCountry]

The world cannot impose a peace process on people who are not ready for peace. Usually, the only time when peace gets imposed is after a war with a clear winner and a clear loser. Otherwise, the conditions have to be ripe, and they are far from ripe at this time.

Bill Clinton tried to "impose" peace in the region. The Israelis offered Arafat a deal with very favorable terms. Arafat said no. No one in the Arab world jumped in and encouraged Arafat to take the deal. In fact the Arab world discouraged the deal, even though it would have given the Palestinians an independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital, which is supposedly what they was after. This proved to me and a lot of others who were hopeful for peace that Arafat would not take any deal because that would involve giving up his (and the larger Arab world's) goal of getting rid of Israel and replacing it wholly with a Palestinian state.

The bottom line is that the Arab world has yet to accept the existence of Israel, and no peace will take place until that happens. Israel cannot make peace with 1/2 of a people, especially one represented by as weak a figure as Abbas. The minute he signs a deal with Israel, Hamas will be knocking on his door and seeking to push him and his Fatah party out of office, such as they were able to do easily in Gaza. This will result in either (a) a civil war among the Palestinians or (b) Capitulation by Fatah and the Gazafication of the West Bank. Neither option is attractive. However, the Palestinians as a people have to decide if they want to be goverened by Hamas and become an Islamic thugocracy a la Iran, or by Fatah and be a secular democracy, a la Turkey. This problem is further compounded by the fact that Fatah is very weak, corrupt and disorganized, and has no established or popular leader to guide them to statehood.

Post Rabin Israel is a completely different monster. Sharon not only undid everything that Rabin did but set everything back about 20 years. Sharon isn't in power anymore but to me this is still his Israel, and Sharon's Israel also is not peaceful.

[Skins7ny]

[QUOTE]It didn't help that Barak changed his terms at the last minute and wanted all the land in the west bank with the best water sources. Arafat was on the edge about taking the deal and that didn't help.
I have not heard this. Do you have a source for this?
The point is that Arafat shouldn't have been on the edge about taking the deal. If he was sincere about wanting peace within the confines of a 2-state solution, he would have jumped at the deal, whether Israel controlled his water or not. No one thought the Israelis would offer East Jerusalem as part of the package. If he had, things would (potentially) be very different right now. I am sure you are familiar with Abba Eban's (no hawk) famous quotation, "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". Never was in more apt than in the last days of the Clinton administration.

Not true. The Arab world is clearly sick of this conflict(Iran is not part of the Arab world btw). The Syrians are trying to work out their own deal with Israeli regarding the Golan Heights(in exchange for disavowing Hamas). Jordan and Egypt have cut deals with Israel already and the Saudis are trying to forge a peace. There isn't much connection between the Arab world and the palestinians.
I am very aware that Iran is not an Arab country, thank you.
Which is a very good thing for Israel. However, your blanket statement that the Arab world is sick of the conflict is highly debateable. Syria was caught trying to build nuclear weapons and refuses to disavow Hamas. Egypt has an extremely cold peace with Israel and has allowed Iran to rearm Hamas through its border. The Saudi's have offered a peace on terms highly favorable to the Arab world. Israel to her credit has stated that the Arab League position is a basis for discussions.
However, it still seems as though the Arabs keep the Palestinian issue alive as a diversion for their own populations.
Abbas already has a deal with Israel, and Hamas can't push him out in the West Bank(they would have long ago) because Israel is arresting Hamas members for Fatah there. Fatah can't push Hamas out of Gaza. And your characterizations of Hamas as build along Iranian lines and Fatah as a "secular democracy" are not based in reality. I hope you are right about Abbas being unpushable out of the West Bank. However, Hezbollah has had no problem getting rid of politicians it doesn't like in Lebanon, and Hamas has definitely been learning tactics from Hezbollah. And Hamas is built as a terrorist organization, but is playing a version of democracy to the extent it suits them, then abandoning democratic pretension when it suits them. Not quite the same as Iran, but remember how the fundamentalists there started out and seized power.
Post Rabin Israel is a completely different monster. Sharon not only undid everything that Rabin did but set everything back about 20 years. Sharon isn't in power anymore but to me this is still his Israel, and Sharon's Israel also is not peaceful.
I think the overwhelming majority of Israelis want peace and are willing to sacrifice greatly for peace. They have proven that already with the risks that they have taken. However, I think most of Israeli society believes that peace is not an option right now because the Palestinians are not able and/or ready to offer peace. Therefore, the Israelis must try to obtain peace, or as close as they can get to it, unilaterally. That means building the barrier to prevent terrorist attackers from infiltrating into Israel from Palestinian villages and cities. It means going into Gaza to try to halt the rocket fire raining down on southern Israel. It means working with Abbas to try to keep the peace in the West Bank. It should also mean getting the Palestinian economy up and running in the West Bank, if possible.

[shally]

Agreed, but the problem is Hamas. Israel and Fatah are co-existing quite well on one side of the country. Fatah cracks down on their extremists, and Israel is moving settlers out and giving the Palestinians there more autonomy and freedoms. Hamas has no interest in dealing with Israel. They want a final confrontation. If Israel wanted to be cagey(and Bibi isn't that at all), they would give Fatah limited independence in the West Bank and try to split the Palestinians.

+1.. they need to play a far more subtle game than they are playing

the real problem Israel has is dealing with their own settlers.. as long as they are able to stifle any deal by asserting their "divine" rights, nothing good will happen

[akhhorus]

I have not heard this. Do you have a source for this?
The point is that Arafat shouldn't have been on the edge about taking the deal. If he was sincere about wanting peace within the confines of a 2-state solution, he would have jumped at the deal, whether Israel controlled his water or not. No one thought the Israelis would offer East Jerusalem as part of the package. If he had, things would (potentially) be very different right now. I am sure you are familiar with Abba Eban's (no hawk) famous quotation, "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". Never was in more apt than in the last days of the Clinton administration.


Barak packaged an offer that Arafat couldn't take. Not saying that Arafat isn't to blame for a lot of the Palestinian problems, but your characterization is off.

I am very aware that Iran is not an Arab country, thank you.

Just making sure you don't delve into that hair split.

Which is a very good thing for Israel. However, your blanket statement that the Arab world is sick of the conflict is highly debateable. Syria was caught trying to build nuclear weapons and refuses to disavow Hamas. Egypt has an extremely cold peace with Israel and has allowed Iran to rearm Hamas through its border. The Saudi's have offered a peace on terms highly favorable to the Arab world. Israel to her credit has stated that the Arab League position is a basis for discussions.
However, it still seems as though the Arabs keep the Palestinian issue alive as a diversion for their own populations.

And yet, no Arab country actually actively supports Palestine. As for your points:
1-Syria still is talking peace with Israel.
2-Egypt doesn't want Hamas to re-arm and certainly isn't involved with that even tacitly.
3-Saudi Arabia's peace offer is along the lines that Barak offered to Arafat.
4-The Arab world is fine with under the table deals with Israel and nothing but rhetoric for the Palestinians. Best of both worlds for them.

I hope you are right about Abbas being unpushable out of the West Bank. However, Hezbollah has had no problem getting rid of politicians it doesn't like in Lebanon, and Hamas has definitely been learning tactics from Hezbollah. And Hamas is built as a terrorist organization, but is playing a version of democracy to the extent it suits them, then abandoning democratic pretension when it suits them. Not quite the same as Iran, but remember how the fundamentalists there started out and seized power.

Much different situations. Hezbollah has a base in southern Lebanon with Syria pushing for them on the rest of Lebanon. Hamas doesn't have much infrastructure in the West Bank(thanks to Israel and Fatah working together).

I think the overwhelming majority of Israelis want peace and are willing to sacrifice greatly for peace. They have proven that already with the risks that they have taken. However, I think most of Israeli society believes that peace is not an option right now because the Palestinians are not able and/or ready to offer peace.

:lol1:

And they voted for the most hard line Israeli government ever.

Therefore, the Israelis must try to obtain peace, or as close as they can get to it, unilaterally. That means building the barrier to prevent terrorist attackers from infiltrating into Israel from Palestinian villages and cities. It means going into Gaza to try to halt the rocket fire raining down on southern Israel. It means working with Abbas to try to keep the peace in the West Bank. It should also mean getting the Palestinian economy up and running in the West Bank, if possible.

How many excursions into Gaza do they have to do? Banging their heads into that wall won't solve anything.

[shally]

problem for any israeli government is that if they dont respond to rocket attacks they will be tossed out on their ear immediately...

[BigCountry]

Barak packaged an offer that Arafat couldn't take. Not saying that Arafat isn't to blame for a lot of the Palestinian problems, but your characterization is off.



Just making sure you don't delve into that hair split.



And yet, no Arab country actually actively supports Palestine. As for your points:
1-Syria still is talking peace with Israel.
2-Egypt doesn't want Hamas to re-arm and certainly isn't involved with that even tacitly.
3-Saudi Arabia's peace offer is along the lines that Barak offered to Arafat.
4-The Arab world is fine with under the table deals with Israel and nothing but rhetoric for the Palestinians. Best of both worlds for them.



Much different situations. Hezbollah has a base in southern Lebanon with Syria pushing for them on the rest of Lebanon. Hamas doesn't have much infrastructure in the West Bank(thanks to Israel and Fatah working together).



:lol1:

And they voted for the most hard line Israeli government ever.



How many excursions into Gaza do they have to do? Banging their heads into that wall won't solve anything.

I was going to say the same thing. Even the L.A times compared the new government to the likes of Lepen (sp?) and Hyder, and the LA times criticizing Israel is like your mother calling you ugly. Netanyahu is bad enough, but Liberman could go hunting with Dick Cheney and come back alone.

[akhhorus]

I was going to say the same thing. Even the L.A times compared the new government to the likes of Lepen (sp?) and Hyder, and the LA times criticizing Israel is like your mother calling you ugly. Netanyahu is bad enough, but Liberman could go hunting with Dick Cheney and come back alone.

Yeah, but their government starts out on thin ice. They didn't really "win" the election, so when they make their first major screw up, they'll probably be out on their ear with Kadima back in power.

[BurgundyNGold]

The world cannot impose a peace process on people who are not ready for peace. Usually, the only time when peace gets imposed is after a war with a clear winner and a clear loser. Otherwise, the conditions have to be ripe, and they are far from ripe at this time.
The international community has a solid recent history of doing just that, provided the international will is there to make it happen over the long haul. The mistake is thinking that there is anything more than a rabid minority on both sides who do not want peace.

Bill Clinton tried to "impose" peace in the region. The Israelis offered Arafat a deal with very favorable terms. Arafat said no. No one in the Arab world jumped in and encouraged Arafat to take the deal. In fact the Arab world discouraged the deal, even though it would have given the Palestinians an independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital, which is supposedly what they was after. This proved to me and a lot of others who were hopeful for peace that Arafat would not take any deal because that would involve giving up his (and the larger Arab world's) goal of getting rid of Israel and replacing it wholly with a Palestinian state.
The Clinton effort was not an international effort. And I think you mischaracterize the "favorable" perspective of the deal offered Arafat while Israel continued (and continues) to build new settlements in areas that were supposed to be granted back to the Palestinians.

The bottom line is that the Arab world has yet to accept the existence of Israel, and no peace will take place until that happens. Israel cannot make peace with 1/2 of a people, especially one represented by as weak a figure as Abbas. The minute he signs a deal with Israel, Hamas will be knocking on his door and seeking to push him and his Fatah party out of office, such as they were able to do easily in Gaza. This will result in either (a) a civil war among the Palestinians or (b) Capitulation by Fatah and the Gazafication of the West Bank. Neither option is attractive. However, the Palestinians as a people have to decide if they want to be goverened by Hamas and become an Islamic thugocracy a la Iran, or by Fatah and be a secular democracy, a la Turkey. This problem is further compounded by the fact that Fatah is very weak, corrupt and disorganized, and has no established or popular leader to guide them to statehood.
The problem is Hamas. The Palestinians, sick of little advancement of the peace process swept Hamas into office. The Israelis, in response, swept hardliners of their own into office. Save for the situation that Akh is suggesting with Fatah, this situation is going to get worse for Hamas and Gaza before it gets any better.

[Skins7ny]

I was going to say the same thing. Even the L.A times compared the new government to the likes of Lepen (sp?) and Hyder, and the LA times criticizing Israel is like your mother calling you ugly. Netanyahu is bad enough, but Liberman could go hunting with Dick Cheney and come back alone.
Please tell me you are joking. The LA Times is infamous for its consistent one-sided Israel-bashing. They have been cited time and again by CAMERA and I believe were even the target of a boycott by outraged Times readers. If that is where you have been getting your news from, your anti-Israel bias is quite understandable. The Washington Post is also terribly biased against Israel.
Barak packaged an offer that Arafat couldn't take. Not saying that Arafat isn't to blame for a lot of the Palestinian problems, but your characterization is off.
That is funny. Just about everyone involved in the negotiations, with perhaps Aaron David Miller the only notable exception, has said the opposite. Including President Clinton. Who I hope you'll admit knows the facts better than you do.

Just making sure you don't delve into that hair split.
Thanks for watching out for me.

And yet, no Arab country actually actively supports Palestine. As for your points:
1-Syria still is talking peace with Israel.
2-Egypt doesn't want Hamas to re-arm and certainly isn't involved with that even tacitly.
3-Saudi Arabia's peace offer is along the lines that Barak offered to Arafat.
4-The Arab world is fine with under the table deals with Israel and nothing but rhetoric for the Palestinians. Best of both worlds for them.
Arab countrys have pledged billions of dollars to Palestine (i.e., the Palestinian Authority) over the years and actually delivered on some of the money. I agree with your 4th point that they want to keep the Palestinian issue afloat for external and internal political reasons. That is why the Palestinians are still living in so-called "refugee camps" 61 years after they became "refugees".

:lol1:

And they voted for the most hard line Israeli government ever. Circular argument. There were other reasons why the Israelis voted for Netanyahu rather than Livni or Barak. That doesn't make the majority of Israelis anti-peace. By the same logic, the Palestinians' vote of Hamas into power does not mean that all Palestinians want war with Israel. There were other issues at play as well.

I would bet my house that if Netanyahu were guaranteed a real peace with the Palestinians (meaning no attacks from any Palestinian source or proxy and full bilateral relations) in exchange for an independent Palestinian state and the return of West Bank land currently inhabited by Jewish Israelis, he would do it. Problem is, no one has a crystal ball and no one has trust in Abbas or any other Palestinian's ability to deliver peace. Israel is being asked to offer concrete benefits like land and freedom of movement into/across Israel (carrying with it tangible security risks for Israel's population) in exchange for words - promises of peace. People in Israel know that no peace can be delivered because Hamas can and will torpedo (literally) any such agreement, which is contrary to their interests. The election of Netanyahu is in part a realization of that fact, and the people of Israel, living under constant threat, believe he is best-suited to deal with these issues. I am not about to criticize their choice from the relative safety and comfort of my Maryland living room.

[akhhorus]

Please tell me you are joking. The LA Times is infamous for its consistent one-sided Israel-bashing. They have been cited time and again by CAMERA and I believe were even the target of a boycott by outraged Times readers. If that is where you have been getting your news from, your anti-Israel bias is quite understandable. The Washington Post is also terribly biased against Israel.

BC is israeli. And CAMERA appears to be some ultra pro-israeli lobbyist group(I'll bet serious cash they get money from directly from the Israeli government).

That is funny. Just about everyone involved in the negotiations, with perhaps Aaron David Miller the only notable exception, has said the opposite. Including President Clinton. Who I hope you'll admit knows the facts better than you do.


LMAO. So if Bubba and a writer say that Monica Lewinsky was just trying to clean a coffee stain off his pants, you'd take it at face value? Its well known that Barak made the offer to Arafat so he'd reject it(No Israeli PM is going to hand over the Western Wall to anyone) and by the time he made him a serious offer(after the Camp David meetings), Arafat couldn't take any deal thanks to Sharon starting the 2nd Intifada. If you need a link to satisfy your hairsplitting, here you go:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2064500


Thanks for watching out for me.


I'm watching out for the thread.

Arab countrys have pledged billions of dollars to Palestine (i.e., the Palestinian Authority) over the years and actually delivered on some of the money. I agree with your 4th point that they want to keep the Palestinian issue afloat for external and internal political reasons. That is why the Palestinians are still living in so-called "refugee camps" 61 years after they became "refugees".


Pledging billions of dollars(and they rarely deliver on that cash) is a far step from what you've tried to claim. The vast majority of Arab countries are sick of palestinians, and won't lift a finger to help them(and want to do business with Israel).

Circular argument. There were other reasons why the Israelis voted for Netanyahu rather than Livni or Barak. That doesn't make the majority of Israelis anti-peace. By the same logic, the Palestinians' vote of Hamas into power does not mean that all Palestinians want war with Israel. There were other issues at play as well.


If the Israeli electorate was truly as interested in peace as you claim, they wouldn't have voted for Lieberman and his party into 3rd place, they would have split their votes between Kadima/Likud and Barak would have been third.

And Palestinians voted for Hamas because they were the only real functioning government in Gaza at the time of the vote.

I would bet my house that if Netanyahu were guaranteed a real peace with the Palestinians (meaning no attacks from any Palestinian source or proxy and full bilateral relations) in exchange for West Bank land, he would do it. Problem is, no one has a crystal ball and no one has trust in Abbas or any other Palestinian's ability to deliver peace. Israel is being asked to offer concrete benefits like land and freedom of movement into/across Israel (carrying with it tangible security risks for Israel's population) in exchange for words - promises of peace.

Bibi won't take any peace. His coalition will fall apart.

People in Israel know that no peace can be delivered because Hamas can and will torpedo (literally) any such agreement, which is contrary to their interests. The election of Netanyahu is in part a realization of that fact, and the people of Israel, living under constant threat, believe he is best-suited to deal with these issues. I am not about to criticize their choice from the relative safety and comfort of my Maryland living room.

So, I can't draw any conclusions of what the Israelis want from how the they voted, but you can? Hypocrite.

[Skins7ny]

BC is israeli. And CAMERA appears to be some ultra pro-israeli lobbyist group(I'll bet serious cash they get money from directly from the Israeli government).



LMAO. So if Bubba and a writer say that Monica Lewinsky was just trying to clean a coffee stain off his pants, you'd take it at face value? Its well known that Barak made the offer to Arafat so he'd reject it(No Israeli PM is going to hand over the Western Wall to anyone) and by the time he made him a serious offer(after the Camp David meetings), Arafat couldn't take any deal thanks to Sharon starting the 2nd Intifada. If you need a link to satisfy your hairsplitting, here you go:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2064500




I'm watching out for the thread.



Pledging billions of dollars(and they rarely deliver on that cash) is a far step from what you've tried to claim. The vast majority of Arab countries are sick of palestinians, and won't lift a finger to help them(and want to do business with Israel).


If the Israeli electorate was truly as interested in peace as you claim, they wouldn't have voted for Lieberman and his party into 3rd place, they would have split their votes between Kadima/Likud and Barak would have been third.

And Palestinians voted for Hamas because they were the only real functioning government in Gaza at the time of the vote.



Bibi won't take any peace. His coalition will fall apart.



So, I can't draw any conclusions of what the Israelis want from how the they voted, but you can? Hypocrite.

(1) You would probably lose that bet.
(2) You are not understanding my post. Israelis want peace. They just have no confidence that it is going to happen, due to problems on the Palestinian side that you yourself acknowledge ("the problem is Hamas"). So are you arguing here just for the sake of arguing?
(3) It is NOT well-known. In fact, common knowledge is directly the opposite. If you don't believe Bill Clinton, ask Dennis Ross-he also was there, and he was not getting any sexual favors from any interns.
And wait, you say that Arab countries WANT to do business with Israel?
Then I guess the Arab boycott that has been in place since 1948 is just a figment of everyone's imagination?
Actually, is is I whom is looking out for this thread (which I suspect no one else is reading) Your posts are full of misstatements.
(4) Netanyahu acceded to US requests to return the biblical city of Hebron to Palestinian control. In exchange for what, I don't remember. He also negotiated with Arafat. If he was willing to negotiate with Arafat, he will be willing to negotiate with Abbas.
(5) You are of course entitled to draw conclusions. But yours are wrong and mine are rightl. Pointing that out does not make me a hypocrite.

[akhhorus]

(1) You would probably lose that bet.

Probably not. AIPAC and the Israeli government do that a lot(to be fair, a lot of countries do the exact same thing with lobbyist groups in the US).

(2) You are not understanding my post. Israelis want peace. They just have no confidence that it is going to happen, due to problems on the Palestinian side that you yourself acknowledge ("the problem is Hamas"). So are you arguing here just for the sake of arguing?

No, I understood your rantings. You want to claim that the Israeli people ultimately would like a peace deal, yet they just voted in a pretty anti-negotiation government.

(3) It is NOT well-known. In fact, common knowledge is directly the opposite. If you don't believe Bill Clinton, ask Dennis Ross-he also was there, and he was not getting any sexual favors from any interns.

Its well known for anyone who isn't just trying to push an agenda :)

And wait, you say that Arab countries WANT to do business with Israel?
Then I guess the Arab boycott that has been in place since 1948 is just a figment of everyone's imagination?

The arab boycott that no one actually follows through on. Jordan, Kuwait, Tunesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and some of the gulf states do business with Israel(they don't publicize it obviously).

Actually, is is I whom is looking out for this thread (which I suspect no one else is reading) Your posts are full of misstatements.

Hilarious. You're clearly making stuff up, and you accuse me of misstatements.

(4) Netanyahu acceded to US requests to return the biblical city of Hebron to Palestinian control. In exchange for what, I don't remember. He also negotiated with Arafat. If he was willing to negotiate with Arafat, he will be willing to negotiate with Abbas.

He ran on a platform of no negotiations. His foreign minister(who's in a position to sabotage EVERY potential contact between Israel and any Palestinian entities) doesn't believe Israel should do anything except exterminate the Palestinians. Yet you think this government will negotiate? LMAO.

(5) You are of course entitled to draw conclusions. But yours are wrong and mine are rightl. Pointing that out does not make me a hypocrite.

No, you said I couldn't draw conclusions from the Israeli election results(paraphrase) since there could be other reasons they were voted in. Then you promptly tried to draw conclusions based on the election. It's pretty clear you're intellectually bankrupt as a poster here, but it would be nice if you didn't make it so obvious lol.

[Skins7ny]

He ran on a platform of no negotiations. His foreign minister(who's in a position to sabotage EVERY potential contact between Israel and any Palestinian entities) doesn't believe Israel should do anything except exterminate the Palestinians. Yet you think this government will negotiate? LMAO.
Whoa. That is an extremely serious accusation you are throwing out at the guy. Do you have any factual basis for this, or are you just trying so hard to win your argument that you will accuse an Israeli official (who hasn't taken office yet) of genocide?

My understanding is that the guy you are talking about has proposed a loyalty oath for ALL citizens of Israel. It is not something I agree with, but then again I am not living in a country in a technical state of war with its neighbors in which part of its population (i.e. a significant chunk of its Arab population, including some members of Israel's parliament)openly roots for the other side. Those who refuse to swear the oath would maintain the right to live in the state and would not be deported, but they would lose their right to vote in Israeli elections. I definitely do not agree with it, but for a country concerned about its very survival with a percentage of its citizens openly supporting the enemy during wartime, I cannot say that it is so far out of left (or right) field.

And before you equate a loyalty oath with genocide, and get on some type of moral high horse, remind yourself what we did to our citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII? We placed them in internment camps for the duration of the war. We did not give them the opportunity to utter a meaningless loyalty oath.

No, you said I couldn't draw conclusions from the Israeli election results(paraphrase) since there could be other reasons they were voted in. Then you promptly tried to draw conclusions based on the election. It's pretty clear you're intellectually bankrupt as a poster here, but it would be nice if you didn't make it so obvious lol.
*Yawn* I know you would like it if I would stop posting since I am one of the only people on the site who calls you on your BS. But I am not going anywhere.

And it is hilarious that you call me intellectually bankrupt when all you do when you are called out is to attack people personally and call them names. That is the sign of an intellectually bankrupt poster.

[akhhorus]

Whoa. That is an extremely serious accusation you are throwing out at the guy. Do you have any factual basis for this, or are you just trying so hard to win your argument that you will accuse an Israeli official (who hasn't taken office yet) of genocide?

My understanding is that the guy you are talking about has proposed a loyalty oath for ALL citizens of Israel. It is not something I agree with, but then again I am not living in a country in a technical state of war with its neighbors in which part of its population (i.e. a significant chunk of its Arab population, including some members of Israel's parliament)openly roots for the other side. Those who refuse to swear the oath would maintain the right to live in the state and would not be deported, but they would lose their right to vote in Israeli elections. I definitely do not agree with it, but for a country concerned about its very survival with a percentage of its citizens openly supporting the enemy during wartime, I cannot say that it is so far out of left (or right) field.

And before you equate a loyalty oath with genocide, and get on some type of moral high horse, remind yourself what we did to our citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII? We placed them in internment camps for the duration of the war. We did not give them the opportunity to utter a meaningless loyalty oath.


I know about his loyalty oath nonsense(and I never equated that to genocide). He's made comments about how he thinks solving the "problem" involves killing off groups of Palestinians in the hundreds, committing acts of terrorism in Palestinian cities and killing Palestinian leadership without restraints. Not specifically genocide, but he's not someone I would think would be open for any constructive talks(and why would the Palestinians listen to him?).

Him and Bibi's government might be academic: word in Israel is that Lieberman is going down on corruption charges soon.

*Yawn* I know you would like it if I would stop posting since I am one of the only people on the site who calls you on your BS. But I am not going anywhere.


Stop overestimating your worth. You have to yet to point out any mistakes of mine except minor flubs(which I corrected). You only lash out at me when I call you on your crap and you're unable to reply. its sort of like a suspect on the witness stand and he takes the 5th amendment only on certain things. You know where the guy is guilty. When you decide to try and make me the issue, you clearly show where you've run out of your BS.

And it is hilarious that you call me intellectually bankrupt when all you do when you are called out is to attack people personally and call them names. That is the sign of an intellectually bankrupt poster.

Its hilarious that you lash with your usual false attacks in a post where you avoid discussion on most of my points just so you can lash out at me lol. I pointed out your inconsistency, and you can't respond except to try and make me the issue. Shocker.

[BigCountry]

Whoa. That is an extremely serious accusation you are throwing out at the guy. Do you have any factual basis for this, or are you just trying so hard to win your argument that you will accuse an Israeli official (who hasn't taken office yet) of genocide?

My understanding is that the guy you are talking about has proposed a loyalty oath for ALL citizens of Israel. It is not something I agree with, but then again I am not living in a country in a technical state of war with its neighbors in which part of its population (i.e. a significant chunk of its Arab population, including some members of Israel's parliament)openly roots for the other side. Those who refuse to swear the oath would maintain the right to live in the state and would not be deported, but they would lose their right to vote in Israeli elections. I definitely do not agree with it, but for a country concerned about its very survival with a percentage of its citizens openly supporting the enemy during wartime, I cannot say that it is so far out of left (or right) field.

And before you equate a loyalty oath with genocide, and get on some type of moral high horse, remind yourself what we did to our citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII? We placed them in internment camps for the duration of the war. We did not give them the opportunity to utter a meaningless loyalty oath.


*Yawn* I know you would like it if I would stop posting since I am one of the only people on the site who calls you on your BS. But I am not going anywhere.

And it is hilarious that you call me intellectually bankrupt when all you do when you are called out is to attack people personally and call them names. That is the sign of an intellectually bankrupt poster.

Serious but true. He used to belong to a party called "Moledet", or birth right, and those were their views.

BTW no main stream American media outlet is truly moderate and they all generally reside on the side of the westernized nation in a conflict, but Israel has recently sunk to such depth that even they cannot defend them anymore.

If you care for a different perspective not just on the current state of the conflict but on how it started you'll se it's not as simple as Israel fighting against terrorists. Israel's hands are not clean and as a matter of fact, they got pretty dirty. I love my country and I'm proud of the fact that my people made a home for themselves, and even more proud that my own flesh and blood fought to make it happen, but I can understand that the Palestinian people have suffered and most of them never deserved it. I found a couple of articles that talk about that different perspective. I know the source will turn you off, but remember the beauty of being here is that we have the freedom and the common sense to look at things from different perspectives. Scratch that one of the articles weren't free..

http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2331

[shally]

Serious but true. He used to belong to a party called "Moledet", or birth right, and those were their views.

BTW no main stream American media outlet is truly moderate and they all generally reside on the side of the westernized nation in a conflict, but Israel has recently sunk to such depth that even they cannot defend them anymore.

If you care for a different perspective not just on the current state of the conflict but on how it started you'll se it's not as simple as Israel fighting against terrorists. Israel's hands are not clean and as a matter of fact, they got pretty dirty. I love my country and I'm proud of the fact that my people made a home for themselves, and even more proud that my own flesh and blood fought to make it happen, but I can understand that the Palestinian people have suffered and most of them never deserved it. I found a couple of articles that talk about that different perspective. I know the source will turn you off, but remember the beauty of being here is that we have the freedom and the common sense to look at things from different perspectives. Scratch that one of the articles weren't free..

http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2331


all you say is true, but the arab nations themselves have used the palestinians as pawns and abused them whenever they have had the chance.. when it comes down to it, it is not in the interests of the saudis, and other reactionary arab nations to have israel and the palestinians living in peace.. it provides a diversion for their own people to have someone more wretched than themselves to support.

the day the palestinians have freedom and their own nation, with a democratically elected government and calm relations with israel, will be the day that the other despotic arab governments will have to start answering to their own people.. the ruling autocrats dont want that

[BigCountry]

SkinsKY as much respect as I have for the fact that you know your way around middle-eastern politics and more people should take the interest you do in it, I can promise you you're not the only one who knows what he's talking about. My Dad wrote the NLR article I posted and other then him I get what I know from pretty famous middle-eastern scollars who may not sure your opinion but will never be accused of not knowing anything. I'm not trying to brag and I'm not even disagreeing with what you're saying but there is a much different side to this story and I'm not pulling any of it out of my rear end.

[BigCountry]

all you say is true, but the arab nations themselves have used the palestinians as pawns and abused them whenever they have had the chance.. when it comes down to it, it is not in the interests of the saudis, and other reactionary arab nations to have israel and the palestinians living in peace.. it provides a diversion for their own people to have someone more wretched than themselves to support.

the day the palestinians have freedom and their own nation, with a democratically elected government and calm relations with israel, will be the day that the other despotic arab governments will have to start answering to their own people.. the ruling autocrats dont want that

All they can really do is resist those who occupy them. Once again, if it were not for the founding of Israel or even the fact that Jews began to migrate their in the first place I probably wouldn't have been born but to be objective, what the other Arab nations did to the Palestinians is a trip to Disneyland compared to what we did.

[shally]

All they can really do is resist those who occupy them. Once again, if it were not for the founding of Israel or even the fact that Jews began to migrate their in the first place I probably wouldn't have been born but to be objective, what the other Arab nations did to the Palestinians is a trip to Disneyland compared to what we did.

not true.. what the jordanians did to the palestinians lead directly to "black september".. it was the worst kind of ethnic cleansing and merciless killing.. they feared an uprising and decimated them..

neither are the syrians any friends of the palestinians either

i am not saying the israeli's have clean hands, and things have deteriorated a lot inthe last 40 years.. but.. if there were no israel, there STILL would be no palestine.. it would be carved up into spheres of influence the same way china was by the europeans powers, and the palestinians would be supressed minorities under the various ruling states with fewer rights by far then they have under israeli rule.. name another democracy in the middle east ( i am waiting on iraq to see how that turns out)

[Skins7ny]

SkinsKY as much respect as I have for the fact that you know your way around middle-eastern politics and more people should take the interest you do in it, I can promise you you're not the only one who knows what he's talking about. My Dad wrote the NLR article I posted and other then him I get what I know from pretty famous middle-eastern scollars who may not sure your opinion but will never be accused of not knowing anything. I'm not trying to brag and I'm not even disagreeing with what you're saying but there is a much different side to this story and I'm not pulling any of it out of my rear end.
Big Country, I assume this is directed at me, since SkinsKY hasn't posted on this thread and my name is similar. BC, I have my own perspective on matters involving Israel and the security of Jewish people generally, and I have family living in Israel. I don't think anybody who knows anything about the middle east questions that the Palestinians have suffered greatly. I disagree strongly with your position that their only alternative is "resistance" as they have defined it (blowing up school buses, waging guerilla warfare, etc.). There are many competing versions of history about the founding of the modern state of Israel, and I am sure you are aware of all of them. However, the bottom line is that Jews always have lived in the biblical land of Israel, despite periodic pogroms by the occupying powers and Arab residents. The Jewish claim to the land is both historical and practical, as there always has been a Jewish presence in the land. The fundamental problem always has been that the Arabs have failed to acknowledge this fact and utterly refused to share the land. This was the case when the Arab world rejected the U.N.'s partition plan in 1947-48, and it is still true (to a lesser degree) today.

Has Israel made mistakes? Of course. Israel is run by human beings, who are not perfect. Also, there is no textbook on how to deal with the challenges she has faced. I would venture a guess that Israel has handled the situation it has been in far better than we in the U.S. would have if presented with a similar situation.

Regardless, I and millions of other Jews and non-Jewish supporters of Israel long for the day when there will be peace with the Palestinians (and all of Israel's neighbors), who will live in their own state side-by-side with Israel, in peace and brotherhood. The potential the region has for technology, tourism, etc. is immense. I would love to have Israeli children not be required to enter the military, and for Israel to be able to devote more of its budget to its other needs rather than spending so much on defense. I would love to be able to go/send my children to Israel without fear of, G-d forbid, their bus getting blown up (although the Security Wall has alleviated a lot of that problem). I also would love to have Palestinian children grow up to be happy and productive members of a vibrant society and not know from war.

Given the actual reality of the Middle East, this utopia seems very far away. In the meantime, I think the world (including Israelis and American Jews) should not be holding Israel to a moral standard that is impossible to meet and in any even is far in excess of what any other government or society would be expected to meet.

[akhhorus]

Big Country, I assume this is directed at me, since SkinsKY hasn't posted on this thread and my name is similar. BC, I have my own perspective on matters involving Israel and the security of Jewish people generally, and I have family living in Israel. I don't think anybody who knows anything about the middle east questions that the Palestinians have suffered greatly. I disagree strongly with your position that their only alternative is "resistance" as they have defined it (blowing up school buses, waging guerilla warfare, etc.). There are many competing versions of history about the founding of the modern state of Israel, and I am sure you are aware of all of them. However, the bottom line is that Jews always have lived in the biblical land of Israel, despite periodic pogroms by the occupying powers and Arab residents. The Jewish claim to the land is both historical and practical, as there always has been a Jewish presence in the land. The fundamental problem always has been that the Arabs have failed to acknowledge this fact and utterly refused to share the land. This was the case when the Arab world rejected the U.N.'s partition plan in 1947-48, and it is still true (to a lesser degree) today.

Your history is really bad here. Yes, the jews did live in the Levant for a long time, but they slew the original inhabitants to get the land(they weren't Palestinians, the Palestinians are probably the tribe of Israel that was taken to Babylon based on some dna evidence). They also left "Israel" for centuries after the Romans expelled them, and when they came back they were concentrated in a series of small communities spread from Jerusalem to Saudi Arabia(and in Turkey after the Ottomans invited them). As a matter of fact, there is no "jewish" historical claim on what we know know as Israel. It wasn't until the 19th century did the Jews start moving back to "israel" in any serious numbers(the Crusades and Malmuk campaigns really drained the Jewish populations in the levant thanks to slaughter and explusion).

Given the actual reality of the Middle East, this utopia seems very far away. In the meantime, I think the world (including Israelis and American Jews) should not be holding Israel to a moral standard that is impossible to meet and in any even is far in excess of what any other government or society would be expected to meet.

Criticizing them for actively targeting civilians or having morally reprehensible shirts for military units isn't that. Its basic decency, and the Israelis should have some, otherwise they have zero moral high ground.

[BigCountry]

Big Country, I assume this is directed at me, since SkinsKY hasn't posted on this thread and my name is similar. BC, I have my own perspective on matters involving Israel and the security of Jewish people generally, and I have family living in Israel. I don't think anybody who knows anything about the middle east questions that the Palestinians have suffered greatly. I disagree strongly with your position that their only alternative is "resistance" as they have defined it (blowing up school buses, waging guerilla warfare, etc.). There are many competing versions of history about the founding of the modern state of Israel, and I am sure you are aware of all of them. However, the bottom line is that Jews always have lived in the biblical land of Israel, despite periodic pogroms by the occupying powers and Arab residents. The Jewish claim to the land is both historical and practical, as there always has been a Jewish presence in the land. The fundamental problem always has been that the Arabs have failed to acknowledge this fact and utterly refused to share the land. This was the case when the Arab world rejected the U.N.'s partition plan in 1947-48, and it is still true (to a lesser degree) today.

Has Israel made mistakes? Of course. Israel is run by human beings, who are not perfect. Also, there is no textbook on how to deal with the challenges she has faced. I would venture a guess that Israel has handled the situation it has been in far better than we in the U.S. would have if presented with a similar situation.

Regardless, I and millions of other Jews and non-Jewish supporters of Israel long for the day when there will be peace with the Palestinians (and all of Israel's neighbors), who will live in their own state side-by-side with Israel, in peace and brotherhood. The potential the region has for technology, tourism, etc. is immense. I would love to have Israeli children not be required to enter the military, and for Israel to be able to devote more of its budget to its other needs rather than spending so much on defense. I would love to be able to go/send my children to Israel without fear of, G-d forbid, their bus getting blown up (although the Security Wall has alleviated a lot of that problem). I also would love to have Palestinian children grow up to be happy and productive members of a vibrant society and not know from war.

Given the actual reality of the Middle East, this utopia seems very far away. In the meantime, I think the world (including Israelis and American Jews) should not be holding Israel to a moral standard that is impossible to meet and in any even is far in excess of what any other government or society would be expected to meet.

It was actually a typo I forgot there was also a SkinsKY but the one thing we have to remember about all that is biblical claims are nice but I don't think the people getting thrown out of their houses and off their lands in 47-48 referred to the old testament. As for the occupation, violence breeds violence and just like I expect and am pleased when Israel responds militarily to a terrorist attack, the Palestinians will respond to an attack on their civilians, and that's the problem. The occupation has created such a dark state of things over there that now there isn't even a prospect of resolution. We have both been lucky enough to spend our entire lives in free democratic state, and I have no clue what it is like to live in an occupied territory and belong to a conquered people. Hamas can all burn but it is the people who have been disregarded not just by their conquerors, but by their own body of government that have my sympathy. Yes, they were voted in but you can't judge a peoples in such a state of turmoil. Ask post WWI Germany.

[shally]

It was actually a typo I forgot there was also a SkinsKY but the one thing we have to remember about all that is biblical claims are nice but I don't think the people getting thrown out of their houses and off their lands in 47-48 referred to the old testament. As for the occupation, violence breeds violence and just like I expect and am pleased when Israel responds militarily to a terrorist attack, the Palestinians will respond to an attack on their civilians, and that's the problem. The occupation has created such a dark state of things over there that now there isn't even a prospect of resolution. We have both been lucky enough to spend our entire lives in free democratic state, and I have no clue what it is like to live in an occupied territory and belong to a conquered people. Hamas can all burn but it is the people who have been disregarded not just by their conquerors, but by their own body of government that have my sympathy. Yes, they were voted in but you can't judge a peoples in such a state of turmoil. Ask post WWI Germany.

sadly, a people bear the responsibility and the repercussions for their leadership.. just as many innocent germans suffered terribly for the crimes of the nazis, the country as a whole bore the scars of what happened. until the more moderate palestinians, and arabs as a whole, step forward and suppress their own crazies, this cycle of hate and violence will never end..

the israeli's are not innocent, but absent entities such as hamas and hezbollah, i truly believe the palestinians would have their own state by now..

[RedskinsDave]

Wow.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/uc/20090325/lpo090325.gif

[shally]

Wow.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/uc/20090325/lpo090325.gif

goes to prove, Israel has few, if any, friends when it comes down to it..

[Skins7ny]

goes to prove, Israel has few, if any, friends when it comes down to it..

I've seen lots worse than this, but it is usually in the Arab or European press. Where was this cartoon printed? Who is the author?

The reality is that Jewish people have learned the very hard way not to rely on the good will of other people or nations for our own self - protection. Other countries are constantly telling Israel what to do, and it is usually at odds with what those countries do. The world is very hypocritical as to what Jews do. Which is why Israel often finds itself acting alone (as with the assault on Sadam Hussein's nuclear reactor, which was condemned worldwide). Although it often still goes along with what the United States wants (e.g., not retaliating during the first Iraq war when Iraq was raining scuds on Tel Aviv).

[shally]

I've seen lots worse than this, but it is usually in the Arab or European press. Where was this cartoon printed? Who is the author?

The reality is that Jewish people have learned the very hard way not to rely on the good will of other people or nations for our own self - protection. Other countries are constantly telling Israel what to do, and it is usually at odds with what those countries do. The world is very hypocritical as to what Jews do. Which is why Israel often finds itself acting alone (as with the assault on Sadam Hussein's nuclear reactor, which was condemned worldwide). Although it often still goes along with what the United States wants (e.g., not retaliating during the first Iraq war when Iraq was raining scuds on Tel Aviv).

looked like oliphant.. who is a widely syndicated cartoonist

you just have to wonder what the response of the US government would be if there was a constant rain of missiles from inside mexico landing in
southern california-- especially with a new rocket that could hit san diego international airport.. and that this was not a one time event, but constant
over months.
how patient would the citizens of california be ?

[BigCountry]

looked like oliphant.. who is a widely syndicated cartoonist

you just have to wonder what the response of the US government would be if there was a constant rain of missiles from inside mexico landing in
southern california-- especially with a new rocket that could hit san diego international airport.. and that this was not a one time event, but constant
over months.
how patient would the citizens of california be ?

There's no chance that would happen as Mexico is a free nation, it's people are granted citizenship and everything that comes with it. Until we know what it's like to live on forcefully occupied land, how can we judge their feelings against Israel? I'm not condoning violence, but do I understand why they dislike Israel? Hell yeah. They're living in a land their people had been living in for generations and have just a much a right to it as the Jewish population, yet they are not even given citizenship status or anything that comes with it.

[akhhorus]

looked like oliphant.. who is a widely syndicated cartoonist

you just have to wonder what the response of the US government would be if there was a constant rain of missiles from inside mexico landing in
southern california-- especially with a new rocket that could hit san diego international airport.. and that this was not a one time event, but constant
over months.
how patient would the citizens of california be ?

If the US couldn't displace the mexicans firing the missiles through force, we would be in a similar situation. Thats why Hamas has this card to play: Israel can't push out an entrenched guerrilla force from a heavily urban population(Gaza is the most crowded area on earth)--and they don't have the political will to do so after the Lebanon war. The solution for Israel, imo, is to help us develop our unguided rounds defense shield(laser based). That takes Hamas' biggest card off the table.

And it was Oliphant who drew that.

[shally]

There's no chance that would happen as Mexico is a free nation, it's people are granted citizenship and everything that comes with it. Until we know what it's like to live on forcefully occupied land, how can we judge their feelings against Israel? I'm not condoning violence, but do I understand why they dislike Israel? Hell yeah. They're living in a land their people had been living in for generations and have just a much a right to it as the Jewish population, yet they are not even given citizenship status or anything that comes with it.

then Canada... those yolts live in a despotism, dont they ??

my point was simply that REGARDLESS of the type of government, the US simply wouldnt tolerate that kind of homicidal barrage constantly killing or maiming our citizens-- or God Forbid, knocking down one of our commercial jets, which is exactly what Hamas hopes to be able to do eventually

[shally]

If the US couldn't displace the mexicans firing the missiles through force, we would be in a similar situation. Thats why Hamas has this card to play: Israel can't push out an entrenched guerrilla force from a heavily urban population(Gaza is the most crowded area on earth)--and they don't have the political will to do so after the Lebanon war. The solution for Israel, imo, is to help us develop our unguided rounds defense shield(laser based). That takes Hamas' biggest card off the table.

And it was Oliphant who drew that.

we might actually be drifting towards a vaguely similar situation inthe southwest.. the mexican drug cartels are now boldly crossing the border and engaging in some frightful home invasions and other violent crimes.

to be sure, they are NOT an elected group, but the legitimate government is either poweless to control them, or in some cases, may actually be in league with them and corrupted by them

there are already calls for the US government to do whatever is necessary to put a stop to this, even though they are based in foreign territory.
again, many many differences inthe situations, but i will be interested in seeing what they US does to stop this assault upon our citizens

and, yes, if technology can provide an answer for the Israeli's, that is the ideal answer but i think it is not so easy

[akhhorus]

then Canada... those yolts live in a despotism, dont they ??

my point was simply that REGARDLESS of the type of government, the US simply wouldnt tolerate that kind of homicidal barrage constantly killing or maiming our citizens-- or God Forbid, knocking down one of our commercial jets, which is exactly what Hamas hopes to be able to do eventually

Agreed, but Hamas knows Israel can't exactly do much about it. Gaza is about 1.4 million people in 300ish square miles. Its impossible to roll in and destroy Hamas currently.

[shally]

Agreed, but Hamas knows Israel can't exactly do much about it. Gaza is about 1.4 million people in 300ish square miles. Its impossible to roll in and destroy Hamas currently.

and with Voelker and others indicating the need to engage Hamas-- or at least their more moderate politicians-- i dont think Israel has any more military options left.. their best hope is to reach an accomodation with Fatah that allows the west bank to become peaceful and independent under their own government.. seeing that happen would marginalize Hamas the way no military action could

[akhhorus]

and with Voelker and others indicating the need to engage Hamas-- or at least their more moderate politicians-- i dont think Israel has any more military options left.. their best hope is to reach an accomodation with Fatah that allows the west bank to become peaceful and independent under their own government.. seeing that happen would marginalize Hamas the way no military action could

Agreed 100%. Thats the only way you'll get Hamas out: get Gazans pissed that the West Bank has it better. I think Israel should recognize the West Bank as having some sovereignty to that end. Fatah's held up their end of the bargin.

[shally]

Agreed 100%. Thats the only way you'll get Hamas out: get Gazans pissed that the West Bank has it better. I think Israel should recognize the West Bank as having some sovereignty to that end. Fatah's held up their end of the bargin.

it would be absolutely HUGE on their part, with very little chance of attacks or negative response

clearing away a few illegal settlements would also do a world of PR good for the government and perhaps jumpstart the overall peace process.

[akhhorus]

it would be absolutely HUGE on their part, with very little chance of attacks or negative response

clearing away a few illegal settlements would also do a world of PR good for the government and perhaps jumpstart the overall peace process.

Yeah...only Bibi's done the opposite. Negotiated to build new settlements in the West Bank. Idiot.

[shally]

Yeah...only Bibi's done the opposite. Negotiated to build new settlements in the West Bank. Idiot.

a country suffers for it's leadership.. it isnt only on one side, sadly....

[akhhorus]

a country suffers for it's leadership.. it isnt only on one side, sadly....

The story of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict: the only people who want to keep it going are the leaders. Personally, I think Arafat had a side deal with Sharon so he could get rich building the houses Sharon ordered destroyed during the 2nd Intifada lmao.

[shally]

The story of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict: the only people who want to keep it going are the leaders. Personally, I think Arafat had a side deal with Sharon so he could get rich building the houses Sharon ordered destroyed during the 2nd Intifada lmao.


if the rumors were true, Sharon also probably sent him some tainted "meat"

[Skins7ny]

There's no chance that would happen as Mexico is a free nation, it's people are granted citizenship and everything that comes with it. Until we know what it's like to live on forcefully occupied land, how can we judge their feelings against Israel? I'm not condoning violence, but do I understand why they dislike Israel? Hell yeah. They're living in a land their people had been living in for generations and have just a much a right to it as the Jewish population, yet they are not even given citizenship status or anything that comes with it.
*Answer me this: Why didn't the Palestinians rise up and conduct intifadahs against their occupiers when their occupiers were the Egyptians? Or when their occupiers were the Jordanians? Many people across the globe have been displaced by war or by political changes, and they don't strap bombs to themselves and blow up mothers and children at the mall.
Everybody makes excuses for the Palestinians' behavior. How about earning a state (after all, the Palestinians have only been a recognized national group for about 45-50 years now-there were no "Palestinians" before 1964) by building national institutions and an independent economy? How about taking the billions of dollars in aid that the PA has been given since its formation and using it on infrastructure and development instead of using it to smuggle in arms (as Arafat was caught doing in the early days of the Bush II administration)? The Palestinians had every opportunity to do that before the intifada started. They lived better under Israeli rule than they do in any other country in the Middle East. Until the first intifada, they hade more rights, more opportunity and more freedom than any of their brethren across the Arab world.

And now that Israel has done what the world wanted and pulled out of Gaza (which I agree with, BTW), are the Palestinians building an autonomous authority which could act as a stepping stone to birthing an autonomous state? No, instead of importing brick and mortar, they are importing missles and arms. And Israel is facing attack from a territory that they gave up, after kicking their settlers out (with no civil war and no bloodshed, I might add, despite the reputations of the settlers as crazy fanatics), being told that this would promote peace. Despite the fact that Israel kicked all the Jews out of Gaza, and it is illegal for a Jew to be there!

*And technically, the West Bank and Gaza strip are both disputed, not occupied territories. The term "occupied" has been used so much that it has become accepted as true. It is not.

If the US couldn't displace the mexicans firing the missiles through force, we would be in a similar situation. Thats why Hamas has this card to play: Israel can't push out an entrenched guerrilla force from a heavily urban population(Gaza is the most crowded area on earth)--and they don't have the political will to do so after the Lebanon war. The solution for Israel, imo, is to help us develop our unguided rounds defense shield(laser based). That takes Hamas' biggest card off the table.

And it was Oliphant who drew that.
It looked like an Oliphant, but I didn't want to slander if since I wasn't sure. No surprise. Oliphant has a long history of animosity and bias towards Israel.

BTW, you've fallen victim to the myth that Gaza is the most densely populated place on earth. That is another lie that has been repeated so often in the media that it has become fact. It is not.
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=is+gaza+strip+the+most+densely+populated+pla ce+on+earth&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=7&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spectator.co.uk%2Fstephenpollar d%2F631851%2Fgaza-is-not-too-crowded.thtml

[akhhorus]

*Answer me this: Why didn't the Palestinians rise up and conduct intifadahs against their occupiers when their occupiers were the Egyptians? Or when their occupiers were the Jordanians? Many people across the globe have been displaced by war or by political changes, and they don't strap bombs to themselves and blow up mothers and children at the mall.

Actually they did. The Palestinians and the Jordanians have been fighting longer than they've been fighting the Jews. And the jews did it in Israel when the british ruled it.

Everybody makes excuses for the Palestinians' behavior. How about earning a state (after all, the Palestinians have only been a recognized national group for about 45-50 years now-there were no "Palestinians" before 1964) by building national institutions and an independent economy? How about taking the billions of dollars in aid that the PA has been given since its formation and using it on infrastructure and development instead of using it to smuggle in arms (as Arafat was caught doing in the early days of the Bush II administration)? The Palestinians had every opportunity to do that before the intifada started. They lived better under Israeli rule than they do in any other country in the Middle East. Until the first intifada, they hade more rights, more opportunity and more freedom than any of their brethren across the Arab world.


So, the Palestinians should be "thankful" to be part of a state where the leadership doesn't want them to have any vote or participation in the civil society outside of taking up space? The Palestinians' behavior has been awful through all this, but the Israeli behavior/policies have been as bad.

*And technically, the West Bank and Gaza strip are both disputed, not occupied territories. The term "occupied" has been used so much that it has become accepted as true. It is not.

BTW, you've fallen victim to the myth that Gaza is the most densely populated place on earth. That is another lie that has been repeated so often in the media that it has become fact. It is not.
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=is+gaza+strip+the+most+densely+populated+pla ce+on+earth&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=7&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spectator.co.uk%2Fstephenpollar d%2F631851%2Fgaza-is-not-too-crowded.thtml

This doesn't change my point. Its still 1.4 million people in a heavily urbanized area. No military will find conquest too successful.

[shally]

Actually they did. The Palestinians and the Jordanians have been fighting longer than they've been fighting the Jews. And the jews did it in Israel when the british ruled it.



So, the Palestinians should be "thankful" to be part of a state where the leadership doesn't want them to have any vote or participation in the civil society outside of taking up space? The Palestinians' behavior has been awful through all this, but the Israeli behavior/policies have been as bad.



This doesn't change my point. Its still 1.4 million people in a heavily urbanized area. No military will find conquest too successful.

not without extreme collateral damage and insensitivity to public relations.. plus, Hamas uses civilians deliberately to create havoc

[akhhorus]

not without extreme collateral damage and insensitivity to public relations.. plus, Hamas uses civilians deliberately to create havoc

I don't know if they can even do it even if they had the political will to do so. It took basically a whole Marine Expeditionary Unit+2-3 divisions of Iraqi troops to clear out Fallujah of insurgents, and Gaza is a much bigger hornet's nest.

[BigCountry]

*Answer me this: Why didn't the Palestinians rise up and conduct intifadahs against their occupiers when their occupiers were the Egyptians? Or when their occupiers were the Jordanians? Many people across the globe have been displaced by war or by political changes, and they don't strap bombs to themselves and blow up mothers and children at the mall.
Everybody makes excuses for the Palestinians' behavior. How about earning a state (after all, the Palestinians have only been a recognized national group for about 45-50 years now-there were no "Palestinians" before 1964) by building national institutions and an independent economy? How about taking the billions of dollars in aid that the PA has been given since its formation and using it on infrastructure and development instead of using it to smuggle in arms (as Arafat was caught doing in the early days of the Bush II administration)? The Palestinians had every opportunity to do that before the intifada started. They lived better under Israeli rule than they do in any other country in the Middle East. Until the first intifada, they hade more rights, more opportunity and more freedom than any of their brethren across the Arab world.

And now that Israel has done what the world wanted and pulled out of Gaza (which I agree with, BTW), are the Palestinians building an autonomous authority which could act as a stepping stone to birthing an autonomous state? No, instead of importing brick and mortar, they are importing missles and arms. And Israel is facing attack from a territory that they gave up, after kicking their settlers out (with no civil war and no bloodshed, I might add, despite the reputations of the settlers as crazy fanatics), being told that this would promote peace. Despite the fact that Israel kicked all the Jews out of Gaza, and it is illegal for a Jew to be there!

*And technically, the West Bank and Gaza strip are both disputed, not occupied territories. The term "occupied" has been used so much that it has become accepted as true. It is not.


It looked like an Oliphant, but I didn't want to slander if since I wasn't sure. No surprise. Oliphant has a long history of animosity and bias towards Israel.

BTW, you've fallen victim to the myth that Gaza is the most densely populated place on earth. That is another lie that has been repeated so often in the media that it has become fact. It is not.
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=is+gaza+strip+the+most+densely+populated+pla ce+on+earth&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=7&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spectator.co.uk%2Fstephenpollar d%2F631851%2Fgaza-is-not-too-crowded.thtml

How is that any better then blowing up mothers and their children with f-16's? It was accidental? They used their woman and children as a shield? And you everyone makes excuses for Palestinians. You don't even attempt to see this thing from more then one perspective.

[shally]

I don't know if they can even do it even if they had the political will to do so. It took basically a whole Marine Expeditionary Unit+2-3 divisions of Iraqi troops to clear out Fallujah of insurgents, and Gaza is a much bigger hornet's nest.

send in the Russians...

[akhhorus]

send in the Russians...

I think the Israelis should take a page out of our book and just flood Gaza with armed drones. They have a new munition/missile which can kill a person, but not harm anyone around them(they fired it into a car and just hurt the people in the backseat without hurting those in the front). Use these technologies to hunt for Hamas' leadership.

[shally]

I think the Israelis should take a page out of our book and just flood Gaza with armed drones. They have a new munition/missile which can kill a person, but not harm anyone around them(they fired it into a car and just hurt the people in the backseat without hurting those in the front). Use these technologies to hunt for Hamas' leadership.
amazing.. i didnt think stuff like that existed... the bottom line is that anything that can be done remotely is an advantage for them.. but, civilian casualties are going to happen because of the way Hamas uses them..

the ultimate solution is political, as we have both said. but they still have to remove some of the more intransigent leadership

[Skins7ny]

Actually they did. The Palestinians and the Jordanians have been fighting longer than they've been fighting the Jews. And the jews did it in Israel when the british ruled it.
This is a dishonest or ignorant argument. The Palestinians (to the extent they even called themselves that - they were really just known as the Arab population of Israel/Palestine back then, lumped in with other Arab populations of the Middle East, no one talked about them as having a seperate national identity). They did not demand independence from Egypt or Jordan. There was no nationalistic movement, there was no outcry for "liberation from the occupiers" and there was certainly no intifadah against Egypt or Jordan. The PLO uprose against Jordan and tried to take over the country in 1969-70, AFTER Israel had obtained the West Bank and Gaza in the 1967 Six-Day War, which was started by the Arab world.

So, the Palestinians should be "thankful" to be part of a state where the leadership doesn't want them to have any vote or participation in the civil society outside of taking up space? The Palestinians' behavior has been awful through all this, but the Israeli behavior/policies have been as bad.
Israeli Arabs have full voting rights and enjoy freedoms and protections unheard of in Arab countries. Why do you think they all stay in Israel, living under a majority-Jewish government, instead of migrating to any one of the dozens or Arab states in the Middle East where they can be ruled by Arabs? Because they know that they have it better in Israel than in any one of those places. Why don't the Israeli Arabs migrate to the West Bank and help Abbas build the Palestinian State that they want so badly?

This doesn't change my point. Its still 1.4 million people in a heavily urbanized area. No military will find conquest too successful.
Calling Gaza "the most densely populated area in the world" is a handy catchphrase that is used to convey how awful the situation is for the Gazans and by implication, how evil Israel is. If it were not a useful shorthand, no one would use it. You used it for a reason. I hope that now that you have learned it is not true, you will stop using it.

For those reading this thread who get your news from the Washington Post, New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, etc., please know that the whole "most densely populated" canard is just one of a number of false impressions created by the biased reporting you have read on the subject. The PLO, Palestinian Authority and Hamas have suppressed information by threatening and intimidating journalists who post unfavorable stories or publish damaging photos (such as the post-9/11 photos of Palestinians celebrating in the streets) and by killing their own people who inform on the leadership. It is amazing to me when I read stories in the Washington Post and then go over to the Washington Times and see the same exact story reported in a totally different way. Each media outlet has their own biases on the subject, with the "liberal" ones tending to bias against Israel and the "conservative" ones tending to bias in Israel's favor. I have been reading the Washington Post for 21 years now, and in my experience their coverage is extremely slanted towards the Palestinians. For example, they run stories after every suicide bombing profiling the bomber with sensitive coverage of his/her relatives and sympathetic quotations about his upbringins and/or actions. They would run those constantly, Once every 2 years or so, they would run a story about an Israeli family whose son/daughter/wife/husband was killed or forcibly amputated by a Palestinian suicide bomber.
How is that any better then blowing up mothers and their children with f-16's? It was accidental? They used their woman and children as a shield? And you everyone makes excuses for Palestinians. You don't even attempt to see this thing from more then one perspective.

I get the Palestinian perspective every day in the Washington Post. That said, I feel for all the innocent Palestinians caught up in the conflict. They have been badly betrayed by their leaders, whom they have chosen very unwisely. I long for the day when no more Palestinians will be killed and all the suffering on both sides will end.

Howver, there is a moral difference between fighting in self-defense and fighting a war of agression. At least that is what all the liberals said about the Iraq war. Funny how the liberal position (and I consider myself a moderate with liberal political leanings, so I don't consider "liberal" to be a dirty word) changes depending on the situation, much like conservative positions do.

Israel would like nothing better than to stop having rockets raining down on it from Gaza, and to leave Gaza the hell alone. That is precisely why they got out of there. The world said, get out of Gaza and you will have peace. The Palestinians just want their own state. And instead of being left alone, they get attacked from Palestinian territory.

How do you propose the Israelis respond to the rockets coming from Gaza? Say thank you and send Hamas flowers?
And how do you propose the Israelis should avoid civilian casualties when Hamas is shooting at them from the grounds of hospitals, mosques and in people's homes? Do you expect Israeli soldiers to take the bullets and die in order to avoid civilian casulaties among "the enemy"? Can you name me one other military unit in the universe that is expected to die rather than avoid collateral damage?

Is there a reason besides anti-semitisim (and self-hating among Jewish people) that explains why Israel is held to a standard that no other nation on earth is held to?

[Skins7ny]

For those people reading this thread who sincerely
the truth about the conflict, I recommend that you bookmark
the following web sites, and check them periodically. They act
as a fact-checker for some of the biased reporting that is out there:

http://camera.org/

http://www.memri.org/

[akhhorus]

This is a dishonest or ignorant argument. The Palestinians (to the extent they even called themselves that - they were really just known as the Arab population of Israel/Palestine back then, lumped in with other Arab populations of the Middle East, no one talked about them as having a seperate national identity). They did not demand independence from Egypt or Jordan. There was no nationalistic movement, there was no outcry for "liberation from the occupiers" and there was certainly no intifadah against Egypt or Jordan. The PLO uprose against Jordan and tried to take over the country in 1969-70, AFTER Israel had obtained the West Bank and Gaza in the 1967 Six-Day War, which was started by the Arab world.


There are too many factual errors here to begin pointing them out. You really have no clue what you're talking about.

Israeli Arabs have full voting rights and enjoy freedoms and protections unheard of in Arab countries.

Not if the new government has a say.

Why do you think they all stay in Israel, living under a majority-Jewish government, instead of migrating to any one of the dozens or Arab states in the Middle East where they can be ruled by Arabs? Because they know that they have it better in Israel than in any one of those places. Why don't the Israeli Arabs migrate to the West Bank and help Abbas build the Palestinian State that they want so badly?


A lot have. A lot have come to the US. But the current Israeli government has as their 2nd biggest partner a political party bend on stripping all Israeli Arabs of their rights(and wants to expel them from the country)

Calling Gaza "the most densely populated area in the world" is a handy catchphrase that is used to convey how awful the situation is for the Gazans and by implication, how evil Israel is. If it were not a useful shorthand, no one would use it. You used it for a reason. I hope that now that you have learned it is not true, you will stop using it.

For those reading this thread who get your news from the Washington Post, New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, etc., please know that the whole "most densely populated" canard is just one of a number of false impressions created by the biased reporting you have read on the subject.

Whether or not its the most densely populated area on earth is irrelevant to the point. You obviously can't respond to my point.

Is there a reason besides anti-semitisim (and self-hating among Jewish people) that explains why Israel is held to a standard that no other nation on earth is held to?

Christ, you're reduced to this bull? Israel is held to the same standards about conduct that everyone else is(everyone else in the western world). Criticizing Israel isn't based on any hatred for the Jews(or self loathing). Its based on their behavior(which at times isn't justified). If you're reduced to trying to play the anti-semite card, then you're pathetic.

For those people reading this thread who sincerely
the truth about the conflict, I recommend that you bookmark
the following web sites, and check them periodically. They act
as a fact-checker for some of the biased reporting that is out there:

http://camera.org/

http://www.memri.org/

Both of those sites are clearly more biased than any media sources you're complaining about.

[BigCountry]

This is a dishonest or ignorant argument. The Palestinians (to the extent they even called themselves that - they were really just known as the Arab population of Israel/Palestine back then, lumped in with other Arab populations of the Middle East, no one talked about them as having a seperate national identity). They did not demand independence from Egypt or Jordan. There was no nationalistic movement, there was no outcry for "liberation from the occupiers" and there was certainly no intifadah against Egypt or Jordan. The PLO uprose against Jordan and tried to take over the country in 1969-70, AFTER Israel had obtained the West Bank and Gaza in the 1967 Six-Day War, which was started by the Arab world.


Israeli Arabs have full voting rights and enjoy freedoms and protections unheard of in Arab countries. Why do you think they all stay in Israel, living under a majority-Jewish government, instead of migrating to any one of the dozens or Arab states in the Middle East where they can be ruled by Arabs? Because they know that they have it better in Israel than in any one of those places. Why don't the Israeli Arabs migrate to the West Bank and help Abbas build the Palestinian State that they want so badly?

This doesn't change my point. Its still 1.4 million people in a heavily urbanized area. No military will find conquest too successful.
Calling Gaza "the most densely populated area in the world" is a handy catchphrase that is used to convey how awful the situation is for the Gazans and by implication, how evil Israel is. If it were not a useful shorthand, no one would use it. You used it for a reason. I hope that now that you have learned it is not true, you will stop using it.

For those reading this thread who get your news from the Washington Post, New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, etc., please know that the whole "most densely populated" canard is just one of a number of false impressions created by the biased reporting you have read on the subject. The PLO, Palestinian Authority and Hamas have suppressed information by threatening and intimidating journalists who post unfavorable stories or publish damaging photos (such as the post-9/11 photos of Palestinians celebrating in the streets) and by killing their own people who inform on the leadership. It is amazing to me when I read stories in the Washington Post and then go over to the Washington Times and see the same exact story reported in a totally different way. Each media outlet has their own biases on the subject, with the "liberal" ones tending to bias against Israel and the "conservative" ones tending to bias in Israel's favor. I have been reading the Washington Post for 21 years now, and in my experience their coverage is extremely slanted towards the Palestinians. For example, they run stories after every suicide bombing profiling the bomber with sensitive coverage of his/her relatives and sympathetic quotations about his upbringins and/or actions. They would run those constantly, Once every 2 years or so, they would run a story about an Israeli family whose son/daughter/wife/husband was killed or forcibly amputated by a Palestinian suicide bomber.


I get the Palestinian perspective every day in the Washington Post. That said, I feel for all the innocent Palestinians caught up in the conflict. They have been badly betrayed by their leaders, whom they have chosen very unwisely. I long for the day when no more Palestinians will be killed and all the suffering on both sides will end.

Howver, there is a moral difference between fighting in self-defense and fighting a war of agression. At least that is what all the liberals said about the Iraq war. Funny how the liberal position (and I consider myself a moderate with liberal political leanings, so I don't consider "liberal" to be a dirty word) changes depending on the situation, much like conservative positions do.

Israel would like nothing better than to stop having rockets raining down on it from Gaza, and to leave Gaza the hell alone. That is precisely why they got out of there. The world said, get out of Gaza and you will have peace. The Palestinians just want their own state. And instead of being left alone, they get attacked from Palestinian territory.

How do you propose the Israelis respond to the rockets coming from Gaza? Say thank you and send Hamas flowers?
And how do you propose the Israelis should avoid civilian casualties when Hamas is shooting at them from the grounds of hospitals, mosques and in people's homes? Do you expect Israeli soldiers to take the bullets and die in order to avoid civilian casulaties among "the enemy"? Can you name me one other military unit in the universe that is expected to die rather than avoid collateral damage?

Is there a reason besides anti-semitisim (and self-hating among Jewish people) that explains why Israel is held to a standard that no other nation on earth is held to?[/QUOTE]

I think the reason they didn't fight the Jordanians or anyone else for that matter is nobody else came and expelled hundreds of thousands of people from their home forcefully. Even the Brits, with all their faults, let them live more peacefully then we did, and that's my point. No occupation, nothing to resist. If Israel pulls out and lets them rot in their own land, saying you can't come to our country for any reason, I'd be very curious to see what they do. Countries like Iran who have more military power then Hamas aren't stupid enough to attack Israel so I don't think Hamas would, and if they can rebuild their own land, good for them, but this will place Israel in no danger.

[Skins7ny]

I think the reason they didn't fight the Jordanians or anyone else for that matter is nobody else came and expelled hundreds of thousands of people from their home forcefully. Even the Brits, with all their faults, let them live more peacefully then we did, and that's my point. No occupation, nothing to resist. If Israel pulls out and lets them rot in their own land, saying you can't come to our country for any reason, I'd be very curious to see what they do. Countries like Iran who have more military power then Hamas aren't stupid enough to attack Israel so I don't think Hamas would, and if they can rebuild their own land, good for them, but this will place Israel in no danger.
I am sorry, but that is complete and utter bull. The Israelis did not wantonly expel 100s of thousands of the Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. If they did, then why are both regions majority Palestinian today? Why were there only a tiny population of Jews living in Gaza among the 1.4 million Arabs when Israel withdrew from there?

The truth is that in 1947-1948 many Arabs of the area fled their homes, some because they were encouraged to do so by the Arab armies with a promise to return after the Arab expelled the Jews (who were expected to be easily routed by the Soviet-equipped Arab armies), some left voluntarily because they were worried about the fighting around them, and no doubt some were expelled by the Jewish Army during the fighting.
The vast majority of Arabs who left, departed of their own accord, betting on their brother Arab armys to liberate the land from the Jews and in utter rejection of the United Nations' Partition Plan.

By the way, 1,000s of Jews living in Arab countries were expelled from those countries during the 1948 and 1967 wars. You never hear anything about those refugees.

I do want to make it clear that I am not calling you or Akhhorus anti-semitic. I was referring in my previous post to people who reflexively and one-sidedly blame Israel for everything she does while holding Israel to a standard of behavior (or restraint) that no other nation on earth is held to. Sometimes it is just ignorance, and sometimes it is anti-semitism.

I sincerely hope that both peoples find a way to make peace. Too many people on both sides of the conflict have lost their lives already.