Israeli Ambassador

[venom_il]

@ leftism - "We regularly see live pictures of Palestinian children throwing rocks at tanks who then retaliate with machine guns"

and I regularly see pictures of UK soldiers murdering little boys

see? playing the game of spewing out unfounded lies is fun !

This is the biggest crap Ive ever heard. If we wanted to kill Palestinians, there would be millions dead by now you dolt. the amount of special confirmations you need to get just to open fire even with rubber bullets is ridiculous. not only a tank would never open fire against a target throwing rocks at it (when visibility is good and it can determine there is no threat ), there have been cases of terrorists standing in front of a tank with ANTI TANK missiles and the tank couldn't open fire before it was fired at

i mean, this is just absurd. the only reason a tank is there in the first place is because it's the only way to have our soldiers there, protected, WITHOUT the need to hurt civilians. if we wanted to hurt them, we'd just send in regular soldiers and retaliate at everything claiming we didn't have a choice.. and then you'd tell us to send tanks in

the so called pictures you are referring to only work to convince people of your intelligence, you see a picture of a tank near a boy throwing rocks at it, and you assume the tank immediately shot him after that.. or something, i don't even know how your mind works

dropping massive bombs in highly populated areas? that only happened once when an arch-terrorist was on the verge of committing/planning/authorizing a mega-terrorist hit, he was a ticking bomb hiding amogst civilians for his protection and we were left with no choice

and your ignorance in the matter is just astounding. US tanks ? tanks ?? have you ever even heard of the merkava, the undisputed best tank in the world invented, planned and built solely in Israel ?

i actually think the US gets as much technology from as as we do from them, if not more.. not that it changes the fact the we are highly dependable on them and owe them a LOT by any means but get your facts straight

yes, it's actually very easy to compare the Nazi's to the Palestinians. the only difference between them is that they don't have the means to destroy every Jewish person in the world. but they are easily as cruel as the Nazis, very easily. have you ever seen pictures of the ramalla lynch? have you ever heard of the tortures undergone by our captives when they were kidnapped, as opposed to the sanitary, regular prisons their captives are held at here? do you have any idea what happens to you if you miss a turn and get into Palestinian land ? or does your unbiased BBC only show anti-Israeli pictures? but let's forget that for a second. you seem to try and justify you bombardment of innocent civilians in the fact they were supposedly Nazis. so, you are saying all Germans were Nazis? even the civilians you bombed ? interesting, I'm sure Germans who read this thread will have something to say about that. also, please tell me how bombing civilians had anything to do with military consideration you so willingly bring up ? those bombings, if anything, only hurt your military efforts because instead of bombing proper targets, you were bombing civilians. and let me remind you that the Nazi's had an army with clear uniforms and they fought by the rules of the game, evil as they were. so if civilians were killed you know they were targeted by you because there was a clear distinction made by the Nazi's between the army and civilians. the Palestinian terrorists however don't have uniforms and pose as civilians, they launch missiles from populated buildings, open fire from within crowds, sacrifice their own people for their own cause (like killing their own people in cold blood to increase body count in their side and make Israel look bad) and more. in that regard the Nazi's were actually better than the Palestinians

RE the US and the veto well of course they wouldn't veto each and every single resolution.. would that make any sense to you?

If I supported the war in Iraq, the last reason id have for doing so would be the UN

and here's the punch line

and accusing them of being anti-semitic

have i REMOTELY accused ANYONE of being anti-Semitic? let's review my post.. oh, just like i thought, NO. If anything, I only accused you of having double standards and being dumb, but I now add SHAMELESS LIAR to that list

@Rat Faced - whoever talked UK, Germany or France ?!? fact is, 73 (OK, 72 labia sometimes abstains, probably trying to please the US or something) are automatically against us.. some democracy

@1234 - you baffle me. let me ask you something, does your country have nuclear weapons? do you know what nuclear weapons are used for? that's right, pure intimidation. it's obvious to any dimwit we're not going to use them because even if we wanted to, which no one here does, we'd be banned by the entire world and wouldn't stand a week. but perhaps, when your country is on the brink of total annihilation and destruction you use them as a last resort. so you think that Israel is the most dangerous country in the world because you fear a scenario where Arab countries attack Israel, nearly destroy completely and as a last result a nuclear attack might be launched ? let's forget the fact that you're comparing '73 to today which is beyond absurd (no wiseasses this is not a contradiction to the Nazi analogy because the former was about principal and the current one is about the current situation in which Arab countries don't really have a chance to defeat Israel, albeit they could severely hurt it)- why go that far at such a non existing scenario and not look at north Korea, for example, who might use those weapons not for self defense ? or how about Pakistan which is prone to use them against India?

Israel started the 67 war, the invasions of Lebanon and the occupation of Palestinian land. It is an oppressive regime that has shown itself willing to countenance nuclear first strike.

god, i shouldve known you'd be so ignorant as to mention that war. i just can't take it any more, how f**ing brainwashed can you be ?!?!?!

During the spring of 1967, the anti-Israel tirades increased in rallies and radio addresses throughout the Middle East. No leader was more inflamed in his rhetoric than Nasser. His threats turned to actions on May 15 when he ordered the United Nations peacekeeping troops out of the Sinai Peninsula. It was becoming evident what was about to take place.

Soon after the UN departure, Nasser ordered a blockade of the Strait of Tiran with these ominous words, "The Strait of Tiran is part of our territorial waters. No Israeli ship will ever navigate it again." This blockade cut off Israel’s southern access to the Red Sea and beyond.

It was, by any possible definition, an "act of war." We wonder how the United States would respond if Canada suddenly blockaded the Saint Lawrence Seaway to all United States shipping!

Nasser and other Arab leaders continued their drum-beating. Consider the following quotation, an example of many that could be cited. "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy, which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear—to wipe Israel off the map" (President Aref of Iraq, May 31, 1967).

By May 31, Egypt had moved 100,000 troops, 1,000 tanks, and 500 heavy guns into the Sinai. By June 4, Israel was outnumbered by Arab forces three to one on its borders. In light of these pressures, who would be surprised if Israel finally decided to defend itself?

we started the war. right. offensive regime and all
and tell me something.. even if we did start that war, which we didn't, ther'e still the small matter of 4 other wars launched against us (one of which the day our country was created, when we didn't even have an army), that's 4 to 1 on the aggressiveness balance, I'd say.. I wonder how even before you knew the 67 war wasn't started by us (which you now do) you'd come to the conclusion our regime is aggressive. "first strike nuke" is just too big of a joke to even be addressed.

forgive me if i ignore the rest of your post, but like i said, the sheer amount of blatant lies makes it a little hard. i trust this little example i gave here of your credibility would be sufficient. as a general response to most of your ridiculous claims, consider the fact that over 1000 Israeli civilians were killed as a result of terrorism in addition to countless soldiers. if we were "playing it safe" like you're so sure we are, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would be dead, and very few Israelis. your logic is failing badly.

only one last thing - regarding "mass murder of civilians" - i see your reading comprehension is lacking as well. I only said that when YOUR civilians are bombarded, IN THE SOLE PURPOSE of stopping the killing in your side, no one can blame you if you bomb the other side.. not that it's fun and good to do but it might be the only way to stop the murder of your civilians under some circumstances.. you want to take the moral highground, great, but just don't try to confront facts and make stupid comparisons like comparing the nazi's or palestinians to the IRA. also, i see your friend lefty disagrees with you on that subject.. interesting, perhaps that action wasn't as condemned as you try to make it appear.. but we'll let the two of you sort it out
P.S. it doesn't really matter what i think about bombing civilians, what matters is reality, in which Israel has never done so

okay i can't help myself, I was browsing your assortment of lies, I'm sorry, post, and my eyes fell upon this

Get out of the occupied land and the killing will end

no, actually, we get out of the "occupied" (It's actually liberated, the land is historically ours to begin with) and the killing will start. the defence wall might stop terrorists, but not tanks. do you have any idea how vulnerable Israel is without some of the liberated territories? do you know what would happen if we didn't have those territories in 73? we'd be destroyed, that's what. we're not willing to take that risk again and therefore we build the wall on a "security route", every inch for the sole purpose of Israel's defense and nothing else

And lastly the bit about "Jewish" terrorism is possibly the most absurd of all, before 48 Arab pilgrims of Jewess were a thing of the norm, the latter were barely defending themselves against the pilgrims, let alone terrorize the Arabs :helpsmile:


btw lynx i call BULLSHIT on your "tv report". did it even fire *at* the alleged harmless kid? did you actually see the kid hurt ? did you have perfect visibility to know there weren't any palestinians firing at the tank behind that kid or possibly AT the kid? (which is exactly what happened in the case of the dead boy a few years ago -the entire world flamed Israel until he turned out to have died from terrorist fire)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes@2 February 2004 - 22:31
Hate has no boundaries and even less credibility.

Hate also has problems with the quote function, elementary as it is.

[Billy_Dean]

The more l listen to this shit, the less l want to comment.

@ Hobbes and j2, how have you been? Long time no see.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@3 February 2004 - 03:57
The more l listen to this shit, the less l want to comment. 

@ Hobbes and j2, how have you been?  Long time no see. 

I feel the same.

The rhetoric has taken a turn for the even worse.

Kinda hit and miss, here, Billy.

How's you?

[putty]

I'm sorry in advance for cutting this short and you will believe what you want to believe about so WTF... I know that others on the board feel that you ain't doing too hot here.

1) Your water info source. You seem to take great pride in this article but some folks might take a closer look at both the article and who wrote it.

You're using this info you took from a website that is run by a single person who (from a simple scan of his columns) bases his writings on

The Association of Arab-American University Graduates,
- www.palestinehistory.com,
- Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (not quite what it sounds like - it's an Arab-backed magazine),
- Noam Chomsky,
- http://www.geocities.com/roundtable_...onistplan.html,
- and a book entitled Israel’s Sacred Terrorism.

Not exactly sources for unbiased material, huh?

The water article that you posted does not quote UN documents as you state, but rather quotes:

Palestinian Sharif Elmusa,
- MEI (Middle East Institute) which is a site that hosts columns written by Palestinians and Israelis, meaning that simply quoting MEI, 10 September 93 [No. 458] p. 18.) does not make it fact.
- a book entitled "Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with a Militant Israel", - The Journal of Palestine Studies.

Simply because you can cut & paste columns from websites that use pro Palestinian/Arab sources, it does not make it fact. If I were to post columns written by settlers, I'd expect it to be met similar disdain.

2) As I've actually shown you, the supposed land restriction argument is not valid. The Israeli govt owns roughly 79% of the country's land, available to both Arabs & Jews for long term lease. Another ~14% is owned by the JNF, an agency that with a few exceptions indeed leases only to Jews. The rest of the land is open for sale to anyone.

So, Arabs are legally entitled to ~84% of the land. If you want to read more on it, I won't bother plagiarizing (passing off the writing of someone else as your own. exactly what you did, btw), but just post this link. You'll notice that this author has legitimate sources, not www.settlersaregreat.com or www.palestiniansarebad.com.

http://www.meforum.org/article/370

The High Court case decision that I linked you to specified that the Israeli govt cannot exchange land with the JNF as it knows that land given to the JNF will be primarily leased to Jews only. Blocking your ears and saying that it's not true will not make it so.

3) Next time you mention apartheid, I'd like a link that shows that Blacks had full voting rights in South Africa, as Arabs do in Israel. I'd like a link that shows how Blacks made up ~10% of the SA parliament, as Arabs do in Israeli parliament.

A link to either fact will be accepted.

4)

Show me where these Druse and Bedouin have access to land barred to Isreali's.

You've mispoken here, since Druze, Bedouins and other Arabs in Israel are Israelis.

- http://www.jewishsightseeing.com/israel/da...t_al_karmil.htm

- Ein el-Asad (village built by the govt for Druze)

One thing though, this land had better have decent water supplies and not be a ghetto or an empty patch of the Sinai desert.

Druze are known to live in the north, many in the Golan on hilltops. I've visited them. Perhaps you should too.

Druze are Arabs who serve in the Israeli draft and although Bedouins are not drafted, many volunteer for the Iisraeli army.

5)

Isreal siezed the land that was meant to be the palestinian state in the original UN 2 state solution. The palestinians would love to have been given their own country.

Not even you believe this. The Palestinians along with the rest of the Arab nations rejected the same 2 state solution that they now say they will accept. The same one that was also rejected at the Khartoum Conference in 1967 just a couple months after Israel won the WB, Golan, Gaza.

The Arab states' response to Israeli immediate offerings of land for peace:

No Peace. No Recognition. No Negotiations. How sweet.

Here's a nice link where you can read all about it:

http://www.google.com/search?q=khartoum%20conference

6)

The US was attacked, as I said, because the IDF has Made in USA on it

My oh my. So you believe that Israel brought on 9/11. This in contrast to Al Qaeda themselves who for years drew complaints that they don't pay enough attention to the Palestinian cause. This in contrast to bin Laden himself saying that his goal was to drive the US "occupation" forces out of holy Muslim Saudi land.

Tsk tsk. You. Will. Believe. Anything.

7)

Are you sure you don't mean Isreali terrorism predates occupation

Are you aware of the Hebron riots? Safed riots? Arab massacres date back to 1920. In a few days in 1929 over 130 Jewish civilians were killed.

8) 1967 war. Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone adopted at the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958. Look it up. Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran to Israeli cargo. They then demanded that the UN Emergency Force in Sinai leave. After they did leave without any argument, Israel acted. If that's offensive in your world so be it.

You may want to look up who opened the Israel-Jordan front in that war. If you do look it up, you won't use it in an argument.

9) Palestinian children

http://www.operationsick.com/articles/2000...urkidsalone.asp

Let our kids alone, Arafat!

By Matthew Kalman, USA TODAY, Friday, Dec 8, 2000

In a rare letter of protest sent this week to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, a Palestinian women's group demanded that the Palestinian Authority stop using children as cannon fodder.
"Our children are being sent into the streets to face heavily armed Israeli soldiers," said the letter from the Tulkarm Women's Union -- a local branch of the Palestinian Women's Union, a trade-union group that promotes the status of women in the Palestinian Authority.

"The Palestinian Authority must put an end to this phenomenon. We urge you to issue instructions to your police force to stop sending innocent children to their death."

The letter adds weight to complaints from parents who are beginning to speak out despite what they say has been two months of intimidation by armed gunmen loyal to Arafat.

"We don't want to send our sons to the front line, but they are being taken by the Palestinian Authority," says Aisheh, 43, a mother of six in the West Bank city of Tulkarm. She says she decided to speak out after her 17-year-old son was hit in the head by a rubber bullet last week. He suffered a concussion.

Like other protesting parents, Aisheh declines to allow her full name to be published for fear of reprisals. A nurse from Gaza who spoke out on Palestinian TV against sending children to the flash points was condemned in the Palestinian media as a traitor. Other individuals who refuse to allow their names to be published say they have been threatened by armed Fatah officials for discouraging their children from participating in the clashes.

Israel has faced international criticism for the deaths of at least 38 children under the age of 17 in more than two months of conflict in which nearly 300 people have died. Nearly 1,000 children have been injured. The Palestinians consider anyone under the age of 17 a child. But children just entering their teens -- and some even younger -- have been injured in the region's worst violence in nearly a decade.

Despite their parents' objections, many Palestinian children appear eager to fight the Israelis and even become martyrs for the Palestinian cause: an independent state.

An Israeli human rights group this week charged that Israeli soldiers routinely open fire on unarmed Palestinian demonstrators. But the group, B'Tselem -- created in 1989, according to its Web site, to "change Israeli policy" to protect Palestinians -- also said the Palestinian leadership was making little effort to keep children and gunmen away from potentially violent confrontations.

Bassam Abu Sharif, a special adviser to Arafat, has accused Israeli troops of "cold-blooded killing." He denies Israeli accusations that the Palestinian Authority has placed children at the front of demonstrations to act as human shields for armed gunmen.

"We don't send children -- nobody can send children -- and we don't hide behind children," Abu Sharif says. "The kids in the demonstrations were there because they were out of school. We love our children the same way other human beings love their children."

Israeli army chiefs point out that not all the children killed in the recent clashes have been innocent bystanders. They say their snipers have orders to shoot anyone shooting or throwing Molotov cocktails at them, but some of the attackers have been as young as 12.

The most famous casualty of the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict was Mohammed Al-Dourra, a 12-year-old boy shot dead on the second day of fighting as he took cover in his father's arms during a gun battle in the Gaza Strip. His last moments were caught on camera by a French TV crew and broadcast around the world.

Abu Sharif says Palestinian police are trying to dissuade children from taking part in clashes with Israeli soldiers. He adds: "These kids are on the streets. For them, banners and demonstrations are a festival."

But Aisheh says the militia of Arafat's Fatah movement and the Palestinian security forces provide transportation and encouragement to children eager to answer the call to combat Israel's continued presence on Arab land.

"When school finishes, Palestinian Authority security cars go around collecting children from the streets and sending them to the killing fields," she says. "This is very serious because they are children and they are unarmed."

Palestinian Authority TV broadcasts constant images of children carrying weapons and staging mock attacks on Israelis.

Over the summer, children as young as 12 were trained in the use of Kalshnikov rifles and other weapons at special camps by Fatah officials.

Ramahan Sahadi Abed Rabbah, 13, was asked by the official Palestinian Authority newspaper why he participated in clashes with soldiers. "My purpose is not to be wounded, but something more sublime -- martyrdom," he replied.

"As the number of those killed rises, the Palestinian media extol and exalt not only those killed, but also their willingness to die as martyrs for Allah, emphasizing that dying a martyr's death was the realization of their hopes," says Itamar Marcus, director of the Palestinian Media Watch monitoring group.

Palestinian Authority TV and newspapers also have come under fire, accused of encouraging children to throw stones and Molotov cocktails at armed Israeli troops.

Aisheh's husband, Abdelghani, says intimidation has kept parents from speaking out.

"No one here dares to say publicly that he is against sending his own children to the front line," he says. "Some parents who have tried to protest have been condemned as fifth columnists (traitors) and threatened."

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=17707

As captured on an Israeli video documentary produced in 1998, a "Sesame Street"-like children's program called the "Children's Club" -- complete with puppet shows, songs, Mickey Mouse and other characters -- focused on inculcating intense hatred of Jews and a passion for engaging in and celebrating violence against them in a perpetual "jihad" until the day the Israeli flags come down from above "Palestinian land" and the Palestinian flag is raised.

During the show, which features children aged 4-10, one young boy sings, "When I wander into Jerusalem, I will become a suicide bomber." Afterward, other children stand to call for "Jihad! Holy war to the end against the Zionist enemy."

This is what Palestinian children learn about Jews in dayschool:

http://www.edume.org/reports/1/report.htm

Jews and Israelis are:
Cunning
Deceitful
Treacherous
Disloyal
Wild animals
Jewish aggressors
Robbers
Locust
Thief
Enemy
Thieving conquerors
Thieving enemy
Enemy of prophets and believers


Israel and Israeli characteristics include:


A provocation to the Arab world
A racist Jewish administration
Zionist enemy
Oppressors
Occupied Palestine
Israeli danger
Zionist entity
Zionist greed
Zionist occupation

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10) UN Resolutions.

Until the Arab states comply with 242, it's a moot point. It calls for peace & recognition of all countries in the region and for Israel to withdraw "from territories". I'm pretty sre that you know why this wording was selected after a very very long debate. It was purposely meant not to state "all the territories". It does not state what is to come first but just that negotiations should offer a final settlement. If you don't want to believe it, here's a good site to look it up at: www.google.com.

Good night.

[venom_il]

btw 1234 it's funny how you neglected to mention the soviet plane that landed in Alexandria, Egypt, carrying nuclear weapons in the same war, you f***ing demagogue. and that was well after it was clear Israel wasn't going to use nukes and no existential danger was present for the Egyptians (there would be never such danger from Israel who never was and never will be on the offensive) so if Egypt has access to nukes as well.. and Israel is the dangerous one.. you must reckon Egypt is a more peaceful country than Israel :helpsmile:

and here's a little question for you - the UK has nukes, right ? if you were invaded simultaneously by all neighbor countries that didn't have nukes and face total annihilation, would you *consider* using nukes as a last resort - ultimate contingency?

thought so

and let me just repeat the fact that that was 30 years ago and any comparison to the military balance and firearms to be used today is a joke at best

[1234]

1234 - you baffle me. let me ask you something, does your country have nuclear weapons? do you know what nuclear weapons are used for? that's right, pure intimidation

My country has nukes, but has never threatened first strike. It has also never armed it's delivery systems and blackmailed the world to help it.

  it's obvious to any dimwit we're not going to use them because even if we wanted to, which no one here does, we'd be banned by the entire world and wouldn't stand a week.

Dayan wanted to use them, but was only overruled by Meier who preferred blackmail. Others have also stated they would use a pre emptive first strike if needed.

why go that far at such a non existing scenario and not look at north Korea, for example, who might use those weapons not for self defense ? or how about Pakistan which is prone to use them against India?

Both of those countries are signatories to the NPT, so there is at least some monitoring of the threat. Isreal refuses to sign up to monitoring, aided by US silence, while the US is extremely vocal about other countries non disclosure.

we started the war. right.

Yep, right.

ther'e still the small matter of 4 other wars launched against us

None were launched by the palestinians. The palestinians have had people fighting over their land for centuries but no one ever really consults them.

4 to 1 on the aggressiveness balance

You've forgotton a few, Lebanon for example. A few times actually.

I wonder how even before you knew the 67 war wasn't started by us (which you now do) you'd come to the conclusion our regime is aggressive

Isreal launched the first strikes. Understand? No matter how much you deny it, Isreal attacked first. An attack on most of the arab airfields to be precise. The occupation, Lebanon, and Isreali treatment of palestinians is more than enough proof of an agressive regime. The latest land grab is just another symptom.

consider the fact that over 1000 Israeli civilians were killed as a result of terrorism in addition to countless soldiers.

4500 Palestinians have died, while 480 Isreali's died in the same period. That includes Isreali soldiers.

I only said that when YOUR civilians are bombarded, IN THE SOLE PURPOSE of stopping the killing in your side, no one can blame you if you bomb the other side

So you are saying the UK should have bombed Dublin and Belfast? Lets be clear about this. You are saying we should bomb heavily populated civilain areas in an attempt to kill a handul of terrorists?

not that it's fun and good to do but it might be the only way to stop the murder of your civilians under some circumstances

Ok so we see that you do agree with killing any number of innocent civilians in an attempt to kill one man. The real way to stop the killing is to withdraw to 67 boundaries and comply with UN resolutions - both sides.

like comparing the nazi's or palestinians to the IRA

I didn't compare the Nazi's to the palestinians. I compared human rights abuses, freedom movements, and related terrorism. The palestinians are akin to the French Resistance and the IDF to the Germans.

  i see your friend lefty disagrees with you on that subject  interesting, perhaps that action wasn't as condemned as you try to make it appear.. but we'll let the two of you sort it out

Where does Leftism support Harris? Can't say I can see that anywhere in his posts. Also he is not my "friend" and he is welcome to disagree with me on any matter he has a difference of opinion with me. At least he might steer clear of the random insults of the Zionists. He does live down the road from me though, lot of geordies on here it seems

it doesn't really matter what i think about bombing civilians, what matters is reality, in which Israel has never done so

The entire weight of filmed evidence available at any news outlet (except perhaps censored Isreali ones) proves you wrong.

It's actually liberated, the land is historically ours to begin with

Historically yours? How? Most of the Jewish citizens of Isreal are immigrants to the area. The palestinians have been there for centuries, along with Jews, christians, orthodox, you name it. Oh wait, you mean your imaginary friend said you could have it don't you? Keep the fantasies to yourself, they have no place affecting the lives of people who don't believe them.

the defence wall might stop terrorists, but not tanks

You do realise that Sharon has presided over the greatest loss of Isreali life in recent memory? The more you oppress the palestinians, the greater their greivances and the more they volounteer to join the terrorists. Btw, where are the palestinians hiding these tanks? Don't you think they would be using modern weapons if they had them rather than blowing themselves to bits for the chance to take a few of you with them?

do you have any idea how vulnerable Israel is without some of the liberated territories?

Eh? How does this square with your previous statement -

the current situation in which Arab countries don't really have a chance to defeat Israel

Isreal has WMD's, it's not in danger from anyone but itself.

And lastly the bit about "Jewish" terrorism is possibly the most absurd of all, before 48 Arab pilgrims of Jewess were a thing of the norm, the latter were barely defending themselves against the pilgrims, let alone terrorize the Arabs 

You've never heard of Stern, Lehi or Irgun then? How about the King David Hotel? Lord Moyne maybe? Please read up on those groups and their actions before you expose your ignorance further.

You're using this info you took from a website that is run by a single person who (from a simple scan of his columns) bases his writings on

Bzzt wrong. Try again.

Not exactly sources for unbiased material, huh?

No idea, never been to any of those sites.

The water article that you posted does not quote UN documents as you state

I said the site I took it from quoted UN documents, govt papers, etc. Where did I say this was a UN document? The site has a large library of information from all kinds of sources. Keep looking, you might find it someday.

Oh and you still haven't worked out who the original authors are yet, and it's not Elmusa. He is referencing earlier works.

Simply because you can cut & paste columns from websites that use pro Palestinian/Arab sources, it does not make it fact

You haven't contradicted any of those facts.

As I've actually shown you, the supposed land restriction argument is not valid

No you haven't. You just keep saying it and hoping we will all believe you. I showed court case and cabinet results, with relavent quotes. You have shown nothing.

passing off the writing of someone else as your own. exactly what you did, btw

Can you see a little © at the bottom of my posts? Nope, neither do I. Plagarism is claiming something to be your own work, where did I claim that? You are looking like a fool disregarding content in favour of irrelavent and childish behaviour. I repeat, we are not in school here. There are no extra marks for rewording text. My posts are a mixture of original text and sections from other sites that say what I want to say without me having to bother typing it.

The High Court case decision that I linked you to specified that the Israeli govt cannot exchange land with the JNF as it knows that land given to the JNF will be primarily leased to Jews only

No, it stated that non jews could not live in Katzir. Here is a link for you. My interpretation fits in much better with facts on the ground and statements in the public domain from Isreali cabinet members than yours.

Next time you mention apartheid, I'd like a link that shows that Blacks had full voting rights in South Africa, as Arabs do in Israel. 

Apartheid is not soley exclusion from the vote. Blacks in the south of the US technically had the vote before the civil rights movement, but lived in an apartheid country.

I'd like a link that shows how Blacks made up ~10% of the SA parliament, as Arabs do in Israeli parliament.

Shame arabs are 20% of the population though isn't it?

Again, apartheid is not soley based on possession of the vote. This is the actual definition. You will note that Isreal breaches many of those Articles.

You've mispoken here, since Druze, Bedouins and other Arabs in Israel are Israelis.

I know some arabs are Isreali's, 20% to be exact. I said show me land they have that Isreali's of all creeds cannot live on. Not a refusal of a grant, but outright bar to entry.

The link I provided earlier also adresses the Bedouin and Negev inhabitants and Isreal's plans for them. Same plan as for all the palestinians - squeeze them into a smaller and smaller area while cutting off their water access arable land.

Not even you believe this. The Palestinians along with the rest of the Arab nations rejected the same 2 state solution that they now say they will accept

No one ever asked the palestinians, somehow they keep getting lumped into Nasser's and others plans. Egypt is not the palestinians. Neither is Syria or any other country.

The Arab states' response to Israeli immediate offerings of land for peace:

No Peace. No Recognition. No Negotiations. How sweet

Isreal did not offer all the occupied land back and crucially refused to allow palestinians thrown off their own land to return. That is, and indeed should be, unacceptable and the palestinians have UN resolutions supporting their case.

Since then Isreal has never offered a full return of the land or the right of return. The arab states however have all recognised Isreals right to exist. The PLO is even trying to pursuade it's followers to drop the right of return too, a bitter price to pay as I am sure any Jew would agree. I mean, zionists believe Isreal is all about the right of return yes?

So you believe that Israel brought on 9/11. This in contrast to Al Qaeda themselves who for years drew complaints that they don't pay enough attention to the Palestinian cause. This in contrast to bin Laden himself saying that his goal was to drive the US "occupation" forces out of holy Muslim Saudi land

I mentioned the Saudi holy lands, and also pointed out that Al Qaida succeeded in it's aims. Bin Laden is a terrorist and will latch on to any Muslim grievance as cover for his jihad. Isreal's illegal occupation and WMD's (the resolutions against Isreal are almost exactly the same as the arguments used by the US to attack Iraq), while supported by the US, were the natural next step. So yes, US and Isreali foreign policy brought on 9/11. You do know who trained Bin Laden etc don't you? And who is connected to the Bush family via construction contracts and numerous joint funds? None of this is a surprise really from the family than made it's first mound of cash from IG Farben. As a jew I am sure you know who they were.

Are you aware of the Hebron riots? Safed riots? Arab massacres date back to 1920. In a few days in 1929 over 130 Jewish civilians were killed.

From the inquirey into the Hebron riots -

racial animosity on the part of the Arabs, consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future."


The Arabs feared economic domination by a group who appeared to the Arabs to have unlimited funding from abroad.


The Commission acknowledged the ambiguity of former British statements to both Arabs and Jews.

The arabs it seems saw the start of the path they are on now. Thrown off their own land by a group with unlimited funding from abroad. It does sound familiar doesn't it?

Of course I don't defend the killings, religion was as usual used to fan the flames of a difficult situation. In fact, just to make sure, I will explicitly condemn the killings just as I have all civilians that have died in the region. You don't seem to feel the need to condemn any amount of IDF slaughter though.

Speaking of terrorists again, no comment on Irgun and the rest then? Those were not random mobs killing for one day, they were terrorists who killed repeatedly for many years.

1967 war. Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone adopted at the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958. Look it up. Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran to Israeli cargo. They then demanded that the UN Emergency Force in Sinai leave. After they did leave without any argument, Israel acted. If that's offensive in your world so be it.

The UN didn't have the troops in Sinai to fight at that time. The UN relies on member nations to provide troops, it has no standing army. The UN then passed resolutions demanding free movement at sea to all nations and that Isreal return the land taken from various countries along with the land of the never-realised palestinian state. Isreal launched the first strike rather than wait for negotiations.

long cut and paste about children fighting

17 - 18 year olds serve in the IDF, and that's the occupying army never mind the resistance to said occupation. If I was 17 and a palestinian damn right I'd be there too. These people have grown up with nothing but Isreali oppression in every facet of their lives and are happy to fight against the occupier, the articles even states as such. Children under that age should not fight, but even in the french resistance (and many others) children younger than 10 were used as spies and had weapon training. Fighting for your lives against a nation with a vastly superior military (the palestinians hardly even merit the description "military" at all) that is apparently immune from international censure brings desperation. Hamas etc are indeed terrorists, but don't forget that the PLO is the democratically elected representatives of the palestinians. I agree with B'Tselem that the PLO should be more active in stopping stonings by children and other activities, but that does not excuse the IDF firing tank shells at people armed with sticks and stones.

Perhaps if the IDF did not destroy every attempt at a PLO security infrastructure they might be able to police their own areas effectively. Isreal always uses the excuse of the PLO's inability to control crowds etc to run in all guns blazing, but never mentions the fact that the IDF keeps blowing up police stations, communications centres and other important systems of an embryonic state. A state that Sharon and his ilk want to prevent at all costs.

Thing is though, most of the children killed were doing things like walking to school (a 6 year old girl), playing in schoolyards (8 year old boy), attending his brothers funeral (8 year old again iirc), the list goes on. There is never any evidence of the weapons the IDF always claims they have, and it takes the death of a foreigner to show how far the IDF will go in lying to protect it's soldiers when they kill civilians

Israel and Israeli characteristics include: ...

Shall I list what Kach and others print about the arabs? Extremists on both sides demonise each other with racial stereotypes. Add religion into the mix and you've got the mess we have now.

Until the Arab states comply with 242, it's a moot point. It calls for peace & recognition of all countries in the region and for Israel to withdraw "from territories".

Newsflash - arab states recognised Isreal's right to exist years ago. Still no sign of the IDF leaving though. The arabs have done their part, the world now waits for Isreal to leave the occupied areas and for the development of a palestinian state.

For years palestinians (and other arab nations) have said that a UN peacekeeping force could patrol the border areas of the newly created state and enforce order (and if you think the US wouldn't invade everyone in sight to help Isreal if they had that resolution in their favour you are clearly insane). Isreal has always refused the offer, just as it refuses to allow UN monitoring of it's occupation.

1234 it's funny how you neglected to mention the soviet plane that landed in Alexandria, Egypt, carrying nuclear weapons in the same war, you f***ing demagogue. and that was well after it was clear Israel wasn't going to use nukes and no existential danger was present for the Egyptians

It was a russian ship, not a plane. It was dispatched after Russia learned of Isreal's preparations for launch and stayed in port till November, unloaded. There are also strong doubts on whether the ship ever had a nuke on it at all, as the only evidence is on a level with Powells UN speech about Iraq's WMD and we know how that has turned out ...

there would be never such danger from Israel who never was and never will be on the offensive

Tell that to Lebanon (several times) and to the palestinians. The IDF launches aggressive wars regularly.

so if Egypt has access to nukes as well.. and Israel is the dangerous one.. you must reckon Egypt is a more peaceful country than Israel 

Egpyt never had access to nukes. Even if that ship did have a nuke on it, it was firmly in USSR control not Egyptian.

the UK has nukes, right ? if you were invaded simultaneously by all neighbor countries that didn't have nukes and face total annihilation, would you *consider* using nukes as a last resort - ultimate contingency?

Nope.

thought so

Heh, expecting me to say yes or something?

But of course Isreal has never faced total annihilation, if it had lost the war in 73 it would have had to return to 67 borders and the US would ensure it lost no more than that. The US would not allow it's client state to fall completely. Kissinger, with his usual brutal honesty, said that the US wanted Isreal to get a bloody nose but not to lose.

and let me just repeat the fact that that was 30 years ago and any comparison to the military balance and firearms to be used today is a joke at best 

You keep saying this, where did I say there was some form of balance? I was pointing out that Isreal has a history of having first use as part of its tactical doctrine, and has actually prepared to launch.

It seems both of you have stopped debating the contents of the earlier posts. Water rights, land rights, human shields, torture, oppression, apartheid - all these things still stand and you only make vague attempts at addressing them if you bother at all.

I guess just calling the gentiles stupid is more your style.

[putty]

I'm sooo enjoying this exercise in futility.

No matter how many actual facts taken from legitimate sources posted, these two will block their ears and repeat themselves, using sources that quote websites like www.palestinehistory.com and the The Association of Arab-American University Graduates as fact.

You will believe what you want to believe, that much is obvious.

The bottom line is that both the Israelis and Palestinians are there and neither is going anywhere. Israel will withdraw from just about all the territories. Polls have consistently shown that this is what the Israeli majority wants. The whole debate is how to do it.

Israel cannot and will not leave a vacuum of power in its place, ready for Hamas and the other terrorists to try and claim power. We all know that Arafat would not stand in their way, for fear of being killed himself.

Israel has tried since Oslo to take steps back but each time they have, terror attacks have originated from those areas bringing the IDF back in. Until Arafat learns that his Israeli-armed forces must take charge then nothing will happen.

After what happened in the past 3.5 years, it'll be a long while to get back to Taba. But it will happen and peace will come. Both sides might hate eachother for a generation or two but if there is a real peace then they'll forget why.

If England and France can have true peace and England and the US can have real peace then it'll happen there too. One day.

[putty]

There is so much BS in that post it's laughable.

I don't know why I bother to try and educate you. You ignore what you don't like, post from sites with biased sources, ignore that fact and say that you've never heard of them (hint: if you read something, look up the sources&#33, you state that all Arab states have recognized Israel (boy I'd love a link to that), blah blah.

Go compare how many blacks in parliament vs. the general population.. Go compare how many Asians in parliament vs. the general population. Hint: It is IMPOSSIBLE for a minority to be equally represented by their general polpulation %. I guess the US and UK and the rest of the world are apartheid too. BTW, Arabs make up 17% but what's 3% among friends?

Palestinian kids sent to the front line are 17-18? Funny, that not what the Mothers of Tulkarm say. But if true, why call them children?

Please post a link to say that 4500 dead. I'd like to see that.

Insulting gentiles? You'll notice that it's your side that has insulted religions. kosher crack whore.

Whatever dude, you're boring me.

[leftism]

Originally posted by leftism+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>@ leftism - "We regularly see live pictures of Palestinian children throwing rocks at tanks who then retaliate with machine guns"
<!--QuoteBegin-putty
and I regularly see pictures of UK soldiers murdering little boys

see? playing the game of spewing out unfounded lies is fun &#33;

[/b][/quote]

Indeed, you seem to get a lot of enjoyment out of it.

You remind me of the policeman in South Park.. "Nothing to see here&#33; Move along now, nothing to see here&#33;".

You will deny the images that millions of people see every day and then assert that everyone asides from yourself is brainwashed.

The thing that is particularly sad here is that you want, nay, you need to believe this shit so badly you&#39;ll argue that the sky is green and the grass is blue. Asides from grabbing your face, rubbing it in the grass and shouting "Its green&#33; Its green&#33;" there really isnt much room for debate with your policy of denying the obvious.

However in order to keep things nice and friendly I think I&#39;ll leave with you with a little &#39;joke&#39;.

What do you get in Israel if you kill a 10 year old Palestinian boy by snapping his spinal cord with a blow to the head from a pistol butt? 6 months community service&#33;&#33;&#33;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1129829.stm

My isnt that funny....

Have a nice day venom/putty, I sincerely hope you get what you deserve.