Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
Israel Offered Peace Deal By 22-Nation Arab League
africa.reuters.com — "The Arab world, by the Arab peace initiative, has crossed the Rubicon from hostility and has extended the hand of peace to Israel, and we await the Israelis picking up our hand and joining us in what inevitably will be beneficial for Israel and for the Arab world."
Albionshores- 883 diggs
- digg it
- yflicker, on 01/22/2008, -43/+39lol....I've heard this one before
- meshman, on 01/22/2008, -22/+17Yeah, this will last all of a day at most before somebody stars lobbing bombs again. Wash, rinse, repeat.
When the entire region is one large glass parking lot, then there will be peace there.- kc9fjc, on 01/22/2008, -18/+13And i will tell you who always lobbs over the bombs first, The Palestinans, More specifically the Palestinans in the Gaza Strip. We must understand that if Mexico was always attacking us with missiles, we would have to respond, just as Israel has had to respond the Palestinans
- diggduggjoe, on 01/22/2008, -5/+20Aggression is not always shown with bombs. Israel is not completely innocent. There is plenty of blame to hang on everyone, including the US with our selling arms into the region.
- mightydavefish, on 01/22/2008, -4/+8Way to show you don't pay attention.
Yeah, give a pass to one side of the conflict, that's not moronic or anything.- yonoz, on 01/22/2008, -10/+4Portraying it as a two-sided conflict is not moronic either?
- GreatSunJester, on 01/22/2008, -4/+1It is not mainly the Palestinians starting things by lobbing bombs... it IS non-Palestinian militants doing it. They absolutely do not want Palestine to be a country and they do not want peace with Israel. It is just a very convenient battlefield to keep going for political gain.
The last thing Iran/Syria/Egypt (the fanatical parts) could handle would be the Palastinians fighting back against the foreign nationals and acting like they owned their own country. - caferrell, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1Would we blockade Mexico and keep it without food, water and electricity?
- kc9fjc, on 01/22/2008, -18/+13And i will tell you who always lobbs over the bombs first, The Palestinans, More specifically the Palestinans in the Gaza Strip. We must understand that if Mexico was always attacking us with missiles, we would have to respond, just as Israel has had to respond the Palestinans
- Bodhinature, on 01/22/2008, -6/+9Yes. It will be rejected by Israel, our (the US) client state.
- elint6, on 01/22/2008, -6/+3Have you really? This is the first time I've heard Arab nations are willing to even recognize Israel's sovereignty, let alone extend the olive branch.
- Kizilbash, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2Then you should pay more attention because it is an old plan. Israel has rejected it before.
- meshman, on 01/22/2008, -22/+17Yeah, this will last all of a day at most before somebody stars lobbing bombs again. Wash, rinse, repeat.
- Albionshores, on 01/22/2008, -24/+105In recent news:
John Bolton pushes the argument for Israel to strike Iran http://tinyurl.com/yr4hld , the IAEA says Iran is conforming with its arms inspectors under the signed Nuclear Proliferation Treaty http://tinyurl.com/27m8rz ,
Russia says it will use pre-emptive nukes to prevent US hegemony
http://tinyurl.com/yw697s ,
former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter laughs at the claim Iran is anywhere near developing nuclear weapons http://tinyurl.com/yssh7z http://tinyurl.com/25hagy but warns Americans of the consequences of falling the Administration's policy push (see thread),
Arab leaders say the problem is not with Iran but with militancy http://tinyurl.com/2djb7v ,
and the World economies honk about an impending collapse of the US economy http://tinyurl.com/27jdxa
......oh and in case you missed it JOHN BOLTON IS PUSHING FOR WAR BY ARGUING A CASE FOR AN ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN at the same time as when a peace deal is being offered http://tinyurl.com/yr4hld
Just seems to me that in the words of Robert Plant, "there are two paths you can go by"
Still time to change the road we're on? Makes you wonder...- sherrife, on 01/22/2008, -11/+45They will choose the path that leads to the most immediate profit. Human lives are not a factor in their economic calculus, and our will is not even on their radar.
Such is capitalism.- Albionshores, on 01/22/2008, -8/+12Agreed.
- yonoz, on 01/22/2008, -8/+1Who are "they"?
- yonoz, on 01/22/2008, -9/+1digg - ask an honest question, get dugg down.
- sherrife, on 01/22/2008, -0/+10Yea right. You're a committed Zionist and have been totally anti-Palestinian and anti-peace in any number of discussions on this issue you deceptive *****.
"They" are our corporate bosses, the ruling class coalition of corporate execs and politicians. Be they Arab, Israeli, American, whatever, these are the people that run our world.
- pyronik, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2"most immediate profit"... how does anyone profit if Russia launches a pre-emptive war as you point out? Whats the point of money if your not around to spend it? or moreover who cares if the world is over?... I mean if these evil corporate bastards are smart and coldly calculating I guess we are suppose to buy they don't care about their own lives... cause thats what you are saying
- swrostmore, on 01/22/2008, -5/+35Blaming the warfare in the middle-east on "capitalism" is like blaming Stalin's purges on "communism." The ideology isn't the problem, the problem is world leaders with a complete lack of morality.
- OMGIAMTHEMAN, on 01/22/2008, -3/+4both capitalism and communism are methods that attempt to secure overall welfare. Both methods hope to be moral, but don't let themselves get bogged down with it. Blaming immoral consequences on methods that overlook moral considerations in the first place seems entirely appropriate to me
- mightydavefish, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4What about capitalism has anything to do with morals?
- OMGIAMTHEMAN, on 01/22/2008, -3/+4both capitalism and communism are methods that attempt to secure overall welfare. Both methods hope to be moral, but don't let themselves get bogged down with it. Blaming immoral consequences on methods that overlook moral considerations in the first place seems entirely appropriate to me
- punkorambo, on 01/22/2008, -3/+10FYI: Iran is not part of the Arab League and would have no part in this peace deal.
- Sithlrd, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4But it would pressure them to back the hell down. Pressure form their own peers no less.
- elint6, on 01/22/2008, -3/+2Iranians are not even ARABS. Iranian ruled by Shi'ia clerics /= Sunni leadership of Saudi Arabia and many prominent Arab leagues. You guys remind me of this local gathering that said "Stop the war on the Arab world: save the Palestinians." I went there and prompty pointed out that Palestinians are not ARABS, and they were dumbfounded. ***** idiots.
- TheCasablancan, on 01/23/2008, -0/+4You've reminded me of a joke I heard from an Iranian Comedian. Hey said "You know some people think Iranians are Arabs. It's such an angry word ARAB. You say it gruffly and roughly. It sounds angry like they want to fight. But no, we Iranians are Persians. We say it much more nicely. Persians. We are like a big kitty cat. No I'm not Arab, I'm Puuuuuurrsians."
...Thought I'd lighten the mood. - Jerky1312, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2"We are Persian, like the cat...Meowwww!"
-Maz Jabroni
- TheCasablancan, on 01/23/2008, -0/+4You've reminded me of a joke I heard from an Iranian Comedian. Hey said "You know some people think Iranians are Arabs. It's such an angry word ARAB. You say it gruffly and roughly. It sounds angry like they want to fight. But no, we Iranians are Persians. We say it much more nicely. Persians. We are like a big kitty cat. No I'm not Arab, I'm Puuuuuurrsians."
- Albionshores, on 01/23/2008, -2/+1Everybody knows Iranians consider themselves Persian. You're missing the point.
- elint6, on 01/22/2008, -3/+2Iranians are not even ARABS. Iranian ruled by Shi'ia clerics /= Sunni leadership of Saudi Arabia and many prominent Arab leagues. You guys remind me of this local gathering that said "Stop the war on the Arab world: save the Palestinians." I went there and prompty pointed out that Palestinians are not ARABS, and they were dumbfounded. ***** idiots.
- Sithlrd, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4But it would pressure them to back the hell down. Pressure form their own peers no less.
- freedomkeeper, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3You might want to know that Iran is not Arab, it's persian. Of course, it doesn't help your argument, so you might not.
- Albionshores, on 01/22/2008, -3/+6Of course Israel joining a 22 Arab state changes the state of play. It stablises the region and puts Persian Iran in a different scenario. Not that people are buying into any of the Iranian TerrorSpam.
- sa7ouri, on 01/23/2008, -1/+4True, but Iran is perceived as a threat by its Arab neighbours, mainly those in the Gulf region. Iran currently occupies a few oil-rich islands in the Gulf that are part of the UAE, and has been for years. It is many times stronger than other Arab countries, and much more populous.
All the weapons going to Saudi Arabia aren't, and have never been, aimed at Israel. They're aimed at Iran. - Albionshores, on 01/23/2008, -1/+2Are you sure about that or is that just what US administration media has been telling you. Iran has never invaded any of its neighbours and the arab states themselves are sayign something much different. They don't consider Iran a threat. They consider US interventionism is creating militancy and THAT is their real threat.
http://tinyurl.com/2djb7v
- sa7ouri, on 01/23/2008, -1/+4True, but Iran is perceived as a threat by its Arab neighbours, mainly those in the Gulf region. Iran currently occupies a few oil-rich islands in the Gulf that are part of the UAE, and has been for years. It is many times stronger than other Arab countries, and much more populous.
- Albionshores, on 01/22/2008, -3/+6Of course Israel joining a 22 Arab state changes the state of play. It stablises the region and puts Persian Iran in a different scenario. Not that people are buying into any of the Iranian TerrorSpam.
- courtjester555, on 01/22/2008, -2/+6I think the real issue here is that John Bolton is a dbag, as seen here and here on The Daily Show:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/21/jon-stewa ...
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?vide ... AND http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?vide ... - OCSmoke, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2Awesome post, Albionshores. Thanks for the links.
- sherrife, on 01/22/2008, -11/+45They will choose the path that leads to the most immediate profit. Human lives are not a factor in their economic calculus, and our will is not even on their radar.
- sherrife, on 01/22/2008, -37/+69It's highly symbolic that the Arab leaders are signalling their willingness to do business with Israel on the very same day it commits another atrocity against the Palestinians in Gaza.
Clearly the elites in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world have very little concern for the plight of the Palestinian people, and these small issues (if they exist) can be brushed away by the possibility of collaborating to create massive profits. This just shows that the conflict is not a racial or religious one. It is about class, and the working-class Palestinians are the ones who are suffering from this international tragedy.
Palestinians don't need peace, just like black Africans in apartheid South Africa didn't need peace. They need equality.- noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -22/+11"It's highly symbolic that the Arab leaders are signalling their willingness to do business with Israel on the very same day it commits another atrocity against the Palestinians in Gaza."
It's like extending your hand to the man who's raping your child... I can't imagine how this isn't a 22 nation declaration of outright war.- Tanktunker, on 01/22/2008, -7/+7Because they tried that and lost.
- sherrife, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3It's because the Arab and Iranian (Persia ended a long time ago) elites care just as little for the Palestinian people as Bush, Cheney, Clinton and co. care about the Americans.
- valkyries, on 01/22/2008, -7/+21willingness to do business with Israel on the very same day it commits another atrocity against the Palestinians in Gaza.
after Israel opened the border for small amounts of medicine/fuel, Israel got 11 rockets in return....- kc9fjc, on 01/22/2008, -8/+5I can fully agree with this, in fact if we look to the fact that those same Arab nations are the ones that attacked Israel multiple times and then lost. But even after they lose and lose land themselves, they claim it is still theirs. So if Israel is to give back all the land then we should give back the entire western United States to the Native Americans. Israel should not accept this offer because it only puts the Arabs in a better position to attack Israel. I have lived in Israel and the Palestinians are always attacking and are not here to make peace. Israel has offered peace many times before then the Arabs refuse the offer and attack Israel. The Arabs are clearly not offering peace but instead another fake offer by themselves to take back land they lost after an agressive war that the Arabs started. Therefore I say Israel Reject this because it is Not what Israel and the people of Israel Want.
- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -5/+6Cause - effect.
Essentially what Israel has done, is akin to killing both parents and then throwing yourself on the mercy of the court because you're an orphan.
Much like what will be happening with the States. You start a campaign that engenders hatred of you, and when you are finally attacked - claim that you did nothing, you were attacked because they hate your freedoms, or your right to exist - and never, ever, let the discussion move around to causes - if it does claim anti-semetism, or Anti-Americanism....
Sad that people haven't figured it out yet.
Problem
Reaction
Solution - dibbler, on 01/22/2008, -3/+4One ig difference: the Israeli occupation happened after it had signed up to the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter.
- yonoz, on 01/22/2008, -3/+5@W2a - the hatred towards Israel started long before it was even established.
@dibbler - there's nothing in the Geneva Conventions that prohibits occupation.
- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -5/+6Cause - effect.
- GreatSunJester, on 01/22/2008, -1/+5Your point is the one people either miss or ignore more often than not. Oddly, when there is a peace or cease-fire declared bombs seem to magically drop into Israel, yet people whine and cry when Israel responds.
- bdbr, on 01/23/2008, -2/+1I guess many Diggers find it perfectly acceptable that some Palestinians shoot rockets into Israeli neighborhoods (though I doubt they'd be fine with someone shooting rockets into THEIR neighborhood).
One basic (and serious) problem is that some Palestinians really DON'T want peace. All the other Palestinians suffer for it.- chrisjj, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1I for one would much prefer a few amateur rockets fired into my neighborhood than being completely and forcibly expelled from my neighborhood and denied my citizenship of my country. Not that either case is good but the Israelis have caused a much greater human suffering than the Palestinians ever have. It's time the Israelis recognized their violent history, the wrongs they have done, and humbly make amends, just as the USA has with the privileges granted to the Native Americans.
- kc9fjc, on 01/22/2008, -8/+5I can fully agree with this, in fact if we look to the fact that those same Arab nations are the ones that attacked Israel multiple times and then lost. But even after they lose and lose land themselves, they claim it is still theirs. So if Israel is to give back all the land then we should give back the entire western United States to the Native Americans. Israel should not accept this offer because it only puts the Arabs in a better position to attack Israel. I have lived in Israel and the Palestinians are always attacking and are not here to make peace. Israel has offered peace many times before then the Arabs refuse the offer and attack Israel. The Arabs are clearly not offering peace but instead another fake offer by themselves to take back land they lost after an agressive war that the Arabs started. Therefore I say Israel Reject this because it is Not what Israel and the people of Israel Want.
- yahushua, on 01/22/2008, -10/+7Seems to me it is 10x more reprehensible that the Saudis and Jordanians wont help the palistinians, but Israel (who they have vowed to destroy) is expected to bend over backward to help them.
- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -6/+9I think you might be missing something....
- skiddles, on 01/22/2008, -5/+3I agree with yahushua. Israel did not take land from the Palestinians. They captured land from Lebanon Syria Egypt Saudi Arabia. Each of these nations should/could have evacuated their citizens but chose not to. It would be like America giving sovereignty of California over to Mexico but leaving Californians blowing in the wind, denying them their US citizenship. Almost all Palestinian lands are contiguous with other nations that once claimed the land as their own. Why have they not offered citizenship to these people. Why is it Israel's responsibility to create an economy for those that wish to destroy them?
- sa7ouri, on 01/23/2008, -0/+3> Israel did not take land from the Palestinians.
Really? What about Jerusalem, Nazareth, Jaffa, Haifa, Beer Sheba and the hundreds of little towns that were destroyed in 1948? And don't give me that stupid argument that there was never and independent Palestine.
> They captured land from Lebanon Syria Egypt Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia? Maybe you meant Jordan?
> It would be like America giving sovereignty of California over to Mexico but leaving Californians blowing in the wind,
Bad analogy. Arabs didn't give away Palestine. Palestine was stolen.
> Almost all Palestinian lands are contiguous with other nations that once claimed the land as their own. Why have they not offered citizenship to these people.
And why doesn't the US give citizenships to poor mexicans along its border? Or vice versa? I don't understand your logic.
Palestinians lived in Palestine for at least 1000 years. Europeans (who happen to be jewish, but that is irrelevant) came and stole their land away. Why should they just relocate? Why shouldn't they fight for it?
> Why is it Israel's responsibility to create an economy for those that wish to destroy them?
Maybe because it screwed it up by destroying and stealing their farmland, confining them in small areas and completely cutting them off from the rest of the world?
To understand the situation, try looking at it from the other side's point of view.
- sa7ouri, on 01/23/2008, -0/+3> Israel did not take land from the Palestinians.
- skiddles, on 01/22/2008, -5/+3I agree with yahushua. Israel did not take land from the Palestinians. They captured land from Lebanon Syria Egypt Saudi Arabia. Each of these nations should/could have evacuated their citizens but chose not to. It would be like America giving sovereignty of California over to Mexico but leaving Californians blowing in the wind, denying them their US citizenship. Almost all Palestinian lands are contiguous with other nations that once claimed the land as their own. Why have they not offered citizenship to these people. Why is it Israel's responsibility to create an economy for those that wish to destroy them?
- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -6/+9I think you might be missing something....
- raybury, on 01/22/2008, -13/+9What atrocity? Continuing to provide two-thirds of Gaza's electricity (which Hamas shuts off its one generator for show)?
- scoottie, on 01/22/2008, -5/+3Both sides have done wrong in this conflict, but there is no reason for Israel to sign this if Hamas is still in power and they keep shooting rockets at Israel. The Palestinians elected Hamas now they need to face that decision. At the same time Israel is self righteous and arrogant and need to work with the other countries in that area and also stop killing innocent people or they are no better then Hamas
- elint6, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2Arabs have historically never given a ***** about Palestinians. It's just that with Israel becoming a country, they had a common "enemy." There is a saying in those parts of the world: Me against my brother; my brother and I against my cousins; my brother, my cousins and I against the world.
- ManoWar, on 01/23/2008, -1/+2shhh don't talk about history pre 1970 you will ruin the fun hehe
- sa7ouri, on 01/23/2008, -0/+4Equality will come with peace. Palestinians have nothing to lose, and everything to gain from a comprehensive peace treaty.
Many Palestinians are very well educated, but living abroad. The harsh reality of the situation in Palestine is keeping them away. If there is peace, then many will rush back.
I sure hope this initiative gains enough momentum to succeed. I visited Palestine and Israel in 1994, and it was fantastic. People from both sides were really eager to end the bloodshed and get on with their lives. It lasted until Rabin was assassinated and ***** Netanyahu ruined everything. - buckrogers1965, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2Maybe they think by normalizing relations and creating trade and cultural exchanges that they can have more of an influence over the policies of the region than they do today. And so would Israel. Win win.
- noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -22/+11"It's highly symbolic that the Arab leaders are signalling their willingness to do business with Israel on the very same day it commits another atrocity against the Palestinians in Gaza."
- Zecchetti, on 01/22/2008, -43/+47They extend the hand of peace despite the fact that Israel has been established on stolen land. Yes, you may have heard this before too many times by now but the fact still remains. It is this fact that is the sole cause for conflict and instability in that area in the first place. Claiming that a certain group of people used to live there 2000 years ago is insufficient. You simply cannot expel a population of people and claim their land and resources and hope for peace.
- fadeout, on 01/22/2008, -16/+33"You simply cannot expel a population of people and claim their land and resources and hope for peace."
Uh, America?- Zecchetti, on 01/22/2008, -11/+26That doesn't justify it mate
- ambrosious, on 01/22/2008, -6/+13You're right, we should give all the land back to the Indians.
/sarcasm
No ***** it doesn't justify it, but that doesn't mean Israel doesn't exist. It's more important to look at what can be done to help the people on both sides, given the reality of the situation today.- buckrogers1965, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2We should give them back a good portion of it, and pay them reparations as well.
- ambrosious, on 01/22/2008, -6/+13You're right, we should give all the land back to the Indians.
- noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -5/+14Not exactly, America was only peaceful after we killed off the resistance.
- ApokalypseNow, on 01/22/2008, -1/+7Peace through superior firepower - the victors write the history books.
- Phrag, on 01/22/2008, -2/+9Since when has America ever been peaceful? Not fighting wars on your own soil is not the same as being peaceful.
- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -2/+7Some say it still isn't really. We have native people here in Ontario taking over an entire subdivision and refuse to move. There are still legal claims, and land claims. What happened in America is sad, but as one of my more hated persons said "I think it is enough to be just in your own time.". We simply can not undo the mistakes of the past. All that happens then is we create new victims.
In order for peace in the future to have a chance, everyone on all sides have to agree to a new "starting position", Not sure if that is ever possible though.- yonoz, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3Then would you agree the Palestinians should agree to this new "starting position"?
- buckrogers1965, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1No.
- yonoz, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3Then would you agree the Palestinians should agree to this new "starting position"?
- freedomkeeper, on 01/22/2008, -5/+6Uh, America...uh, China (Tibet), uh...Russia (Soviet Union), uh, who was in Jerusalem thousands of years before arab invaders?
- sherrife, on 01/22/2008, -5/+5So these are all relevant historical examples of disgusting occupations, great. Now do you support those states in those actions? Because most rational people don't.
The "arab invaders" thing is a total load of *****, so I'm not even going to address that. - The3rdMan, on 01/22/2008, -7/+2Hey Sherrife - you and your kind would be taken more seriously if you concentrated on giving land back to the Aborigines of Australia, the native americans, the tibetans....not to mention the Kurds and non-muslims of Darfur. But you don't....and keep rationalizing why you don't. All these peoples have greater claim to land than the so-called Palestinians. Why do you concentrate on this sole issue? Especially when the other side is anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-semitic, anti-christian, anti-secular....anti pretty much everything not Muslim. So keep rationalizing why you concentrate on the Israelis and keep being a stupid western mouthpiece for terrorists. Hypocritical idiot.
- sherrife, on 01/23/2008, -1/+5You have no idea what we socialists do. We're going to a protest this saturday on the anniversary of the invasion of Australia in support of Indigenous rights (Aborigines is a ***** racist term, but you wouldn't know, since you don't actually follow the resistance movement at all).
We're going to a protest next weekend against homophobia and pro-gay pride.
We go to every ***** left-wing rally that is organised in Melbourne.
Me and my kind. Who the ***** are you to say that we don't fight for rights of oppressed peoples everywhere? You're totally incorrect, and in fact, you're the one who probably does nothing for those groups you mentioned. - The3rdMan, on 01/23/2008, -4/+2Sheriffe - Too ***** funny - you are Australian. What a hypocritical ***** you are. You have no business commenting on anything abut Israel until you give your own land back to an Aborigine family and leave Australia. Wow some people, LIKE YOU, are total ***** idiots. Looked at your profile - I don't see any submissions regarding Australia or Tibetans or Kurds.....or Islamic extremism and homosexuals or women....interesting. I wonder why that is??? Keep rationalizing your hypocrisy.....or could it be anti-semitism?
- sherrife, on 01/23/2008, -1/+5Dude, I don't think in terms of cultural/ethnic groups, but just so you know there are any number of jewish people in the socialist organisation I'm a member of, not that I need to dignify that attack with a response.
I've only submitted 6 articles or so, I'm sorry that I haven't been more active, but obviously 6 articles are not going to represent my entire world-view. Another rubbish attack.
Also, we have no intention of kicking every Jewish person out of Israel. We wouldn't kick a single person out, so my decision to live in Australia is hardly hypocritical. We support the creation of one secular state that is open to everyone and anyone. It's very simple.
Here in Australia the issues surrounding the invasion are complex as well, but we already HAVE a secular, all-embracing state, so we're one step ahead of you! The reasons Indigenous Australians still suffer so much institutional racism are diverse; if you want a serious discussion on that I'll try to find you an article. What do you say? - The3rdMan, on 01/23/2008, -3/+1blah blah blah ....keep rationalizing
- sherrife, on 01/23/2008, -1/+5You have no idea what we socialists do. We're going to a protest this saturday on the anniversary of the invasion of Australia in support of Indigenous rights (Aborigines is a ***** racist term, but you wouldn't know, since you don't actually follow the resistance movement at all).
- sherrife, on 01/22/2008, -5/+5So these are all relevant historical examples of disgusting occupations, great. Now do you support those states in those actions? Because most rational people don't.
- Zecchetti, on 01/22/2008, -11/+26That doesn't justify it mate
- commernie, on 01/22/2008, -25/+37I find it so frustrating that very few people know how it all really started. People defending Israel usually use the words "conflict" and "peace process", as if all this was just some war between two countries. It's not. It's about colonialism and imperialism. Zionists started settling in Palestine disregarding the 700,000 people who already lived there. When the Palestinians tried to protect their land, they got slaughtered. How they got so many people go believe that Israel is just defending themselves against terrorism I'll never know.
- znicket, on 01/22/2008, -25/+16Go back and read some more. This is an extremely naive and, frankly, stupid view of what actually happened.
- Punjabi4Lyfe, on 01/22/2008, -10/+17The Zionists and their exploitation of the Holocaust is how they did it. But you know what? It still even amazes me.
- yonoz, on 01/22/2008, -12/+8How's about you stop rewriting history, commernie?
- rhabd0mancer, on 01/22/2008, -13/+20Exactly. The Israeli squatter camps need to be shut down before any lasting peace can be obtained.
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -13/+12when israel did this, those lands were used as launching grounds for rocket attacks. So you believe the Israeli's should just roll over and die?
- sa7ouri, on 01/23/2008, -0/+8and when peace was within reach, an israeli shot and killed his own prime minister to stop it.
now, who doesn't want peace? - bdbr, on 01/23/2008, -2/+2Who doesn't want peace? Just a few individuals. Like the Palestinians shooting rockets into Israel.
Because of those few individuals, many people suffer.
- sa7ouri, on 01/23/2008, -0/+8and when peace was within reach, an israeli shot and killed his own prime minister to stop it.
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -13/+12when israel did this, those lands were used as launching grounds for rocket attacks. So you believe the Israeli's should just roll over and die?
- bullcutter, on 01/22/2008, -10/+16The Palestinians stole the land from the Romans. Guess who _they_ stole it from.
- Seemefearme, on 01/22/2008, -8/+10*Gasp* The Jews!
- scorchedearth, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4No idiot. It was the Mamluk sultanate who occupied the land until the Ottoman Empire took over.
- sherrife, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3Yea, and the state of modern Germany was forged in wars between Prussia and it's neighbouring states only a few decades ago.
What a great idea! Let's go back and give the victims of every war in the past 2000 years their land back...- The3rdMan, on 01/22/2008, -1/+6Why not? giving back land only applies to Jews?
- sherrife, on 01/23/2008, -1/+3Dude, it was a ridiculous idea I was posing as a suggestion to show how stupid the argument is that since the Palestinians 'stole' the land from the Romans (who presumably had stolen it from the Jews) 2000 YEARS AGO we should support Israel's actions today.
- The3rdMan, on 01/23/2008, -1/+2And why is it a ridiculous idea? Don't Aborigines still exist? Germans were displaced from parts of the czech republic after WWI....why aren't you going after the Czech Republic? Oh thats right...its because you are a hypocrite who gets together with his smelly friends and riff on your trendy politics until the spliffs run out. Keep being a mouth piece for terrorists.
- The3rdMan, on 01/22/2008, -1/+6Why not? giving back land only applies to Jews?
- urik88, on 01/22/2008, -16/+16Why people mysteriously always forget about the part that half of Israel was given to the Jews by England, and approved by a vote in the UN, and that the Arab countries asked the Palestinians to leaven their homes so the slaughter of the Jews would be easier?
Israel wasn't stolen, it was given by England.
The Palestinians weren't kicked out, they willingly left.
The Arabs lost the 1948 war, thus Israel gaining control over some parts.- MrErr, on 01/22/2008, -5/+7It is a myth that the Arabs were asked to leave the land.
- mrrogerj, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0You are foolish and ignorant to say such a thing when there are too many sources that confirm it, many of them arabic ............A Myth? Oh BTW, there are many more sources than just the ones listed below.
ON APRIL 23, 1948 Jamal Husseini, acting chairman of the Palestine ArabHigher Committee (AHC), told the UN Security Council: "The Arabs did notwant to submit to a truce ... They preferred to abandon their homes,belongings and everything they possessed."
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1948, the Beirut Daily Telegraph quoted Emil Ghory, secretary of the AHC, as saying: "The fact that there are those refugees isthe direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposingpartition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously..."
ON JUNE 8, 1951, Habib Issa, secretary-general of the Arab League, wrote in the New York Lebanese daily al-Hoda that in 1948, Azzam Pasha, then League secretary, had "assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade ... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property, and to stay temporarily in neighbouring fraternal states."
IN THE MARCH 1976 issue of Falastin a-Thaura, then the official journal of the Beirut-based PLO, Mahmud Abbas ("Abu Mazen"), PLO spokesman, wrote: "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live."
ON APRIL 9, 1953, the Jordanian daily al-Urdun quoted a refugee, Yunes Ahmed Assad, formerly of Deir Yassin, as saying: "For the flight and fall of the other villages, it is our leaders who are responsible, because of the dissemination of rumours exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... they instilled fear and terror into the hearts of the Arabs of Palestine until they fled, leaving their homes and property to the enemy."
ANOTHER refugee told the Jordanian daily a-Difaa on September 6, 1954: "The Arab governments told us, 'Get out so that we can get in.' So we got out, but they did not get in."
THE JORDANIAN daily Falastin wrote on February 19, 1949: "The Arab states... encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies."
ON OCTOBER 2, 1948, the London Economist reported, in an eyewitness account of the flight of Haifa's Arabs: "There is little doubt that the most potent of the factors [in the flight] were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive urging all Arabs in Haifa to quit ... And it was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."
THE PRIME Minister of Syria in 1948, Khaled al-Azem, in his memoirs, published in 1973, listed what he thought were the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948: " ... the fifth factor was the call by the Arab governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and leave for the bordering Arab countries ... We brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees bycalling on them and pleading with them to leave their land."
- mrrogerj, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0You are foolish and ignorant to say such a thing when there are too many sources that confirm it, many of them arabic ............A Myth? Oh BTW, there are many more sources than just the ones listed below.
- MrErr, on 01/22/2008, -5/+7It is a myth that the Arabs were asked to leave the land.
- valkyries, on 01/22/2008, -12/+15Israel has been established on stolen land, Thanks to the United Nations.
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -15/+10What about the land stolen from Arab Jews who were forced out of the surrounding countries. Unlike Israel, which allowed Arabs to stay, Arab Jews were kicked out.
- DLHOUOKUSA, on 01/22/2008, -11/+7I can't believe you get dug down for the truth. I dug you up. I thought we had a smarter crowd here at digg.
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -10/+7If the facts don't fit in with there propaganda they digg you down. It stopped bothering me a while ago.
- MrErr, on 01/22/2008, -8/+9Jews were not forced out. They left on their own. Even now Jews are not being forced out off Iran, but crazy evangelicals here in USA want them to move out off Iran.
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -5/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Ar ...
- hadees, on 01/22/2008, -9/+6That is total *****. The Jews in Arab lands were defiantly forced out. I am willing to admit that some of the Palestinians were also forced out. The fact you can say the Palestinians were forced out but the Jews left willingly is a shining beacon of your bias.
- zombies187, on 01/23/2008, -0/+7hadees, there are tens of thousands of jews in iran right now.
- DLHOUOKUSA, on 01/22/2008, -11/+7I can't believe you get dug down for the truth. I dug you up. I thought we had a smarter crowd here at digg.
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -15/+10What about the land stolen from Arab Jews who were forced out of the surrounding countries. Unlike Israel, which allowed Arabs to stay, Arab Jews were kicked out.
- slvrbullet87, on 01/22/2008, -4/+11Your right when the romans and the arabs took israel from the jews in 400ad they should have to give the land back.
- DLHOUOKUSA, on 01/22/2008, -4/+4No, however they should have expected a fight for it and since they lost they need to pack it up and move on. They took the land by force and lost it the same way.
- sherrife, on 01/23/2008, -1/+3They're still fighting. Sorry :)
- DLHOUOKUSA, on 01/22/2008, -4/+4No, however they should have expected a fight for it and since they lost they need to pack it up and move on. They took the land by force and lost it the same way.
- hmmmok, on 01/22/2008, -8/+5>>It is this fact that is the sole cause for conflict and instability in that area in the first place
Nope, ur wrong. The main cause of conflict is the establishment of a non-Islamic state in this region. Sorry.- sherrife, on 01/22/2008, -3/+4Uh, what about Lebanon? And Syria's regime is also very anti-Islamist.
- The3rdMan, on 01/23/2008, -4/+2 Tool. Take your trendy politics and shove the up your smelly marxist ass
- hmmmok, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Yes Lebanon early on was ruled by Christians. How did that turn out ?
- sherrife, on 01/22/2008, -3/+4Uh, what about Lebanon? And Syria's regime is also very anti-Islamist.
- fadeout, on 01/22/2008, -16/+33"You simply cannot expel a population of people and claim their land and resources and hope for peace."
- znicket, on 01/22/2008, -7/+24So the Saudis are extending a peace branch. That is truly good news and while there will be no immediate effect the signal has been sent out to the arab nations that peace is _possible_. That might reduce some of the pressure on Israel and this offer may be the starting point for real negotiations.
But I'm not holding my breath.- MrErr, on 01/22/2008, -1/+6This really was an old request made years ago. Then Israel had not responded to it. Not sure if anything is different now.
- evilpoptart, on 01/22/2008, -14/+15this is good news, but the rockets still fly and as long as they israel will retaliate. vicious cycle.
- pintomp3, on 01/22/2008, -14/+11perhaps the rockets flying are the retaliation.
- cheesejaguar, on 01/22/2008, -8/+14No, definitely not.
- weeFred, on 01/22/2008, -8/+10For Israel pulling out of Gaza?
- pintomp3, on 01/22/2008, -9/+9for occupation and apartheid in the first place. for imprisoning thousands without trials. for bulldozing houses and firing rockets on families.
- weeFred, on 01/22/2008, -5/+7Land that thousands of them fought and died for when they were surprise attacked by 5 neighbouring states? If you don't want to lose land, don't attack another country. Apartheid? You must mean the roadblocks and searches, they're in place to stop the movement of weapons that would be used against civilians. They bulldoze and rocket houses that gunmen use as positions to launch attacks.
Who has the most to lose from peace in the region? Without constant fighting the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Aqsa etc would have no power at all, That is why it is them that try their hardest to ensure the fighting continues. - Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -5/+3silliness. Who would get mad at that? It isn't like they are real people - at least not chosen by God.... Sickos.
But seriously, you can't get too angry at Israel. I agree their response was excessive, but you can't just keep trying to hurt a country before they decide to try and hurt you back. Israel is NOT going anywhere. That is just a fact. Peace can be made, but only when both sides feel at least semi-safe. - yonoz, on 01/22/2008, -5/+1W2a, I believe you're much more awake than most of the posters here.
- weeFred, on 01/22/2008, -5/+7Land that thousands of them fought and died for when they were surprise attacked by 5 neighbouring states? If you don't want to lose land, don't attack another country. Apartheid? You must mean the roadblocks and searches, they're in place to stop the movement of weapons that would be used against civilians. They bulldoze and rocket houses that gunmen use as positions to launch attacks.
- pintomp3, on 01/22/2008, -9/+9for occupation and apartheid in the first place. for imprisoning thousands without trials. for bulldozing houses and firing rockets on families.
- Kizilbash, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Yep, definitely. Occupation is violence.
- poidh, on 01/22/2008, -9/+12Except that Israel doesn't really retaliate. When was the last time that Israel sent over some unguided missiles to target Palestinian civilians? (They didn't).
- pintomp3, on 01/22/2008, -7/+12killing civilians is better if you have guided missiles? more palestinians have been killed by israel than isralis by palestinians. israel has also illegally used cluster bombs leaving tens of thousands of bomblets in civilians areas.
- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -7/+5Gee wouldn't that be a war crime?
- yonoz, on 01/22/2008, -8/+3Say what you like about civilian casualties, it's not retaliation - the IDF works systematically to reduce the threat to Israelis.
- poidh, on 01/22/2008, -4/+2How many times has Israel sent guided missiles to kill Palestinian civilians? (Never).
- weeFred, on 01/22/2008, -4/+7Exactly and thats why these militant groups should stop hiding amongst civilians.
- scorchedearth, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3Three days ago, a whole family was killed on a cart that was being pulled by livestock.
- foopirata, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3"Later in the day, another air strike aimed at a car carrying a rocket-launching squad instead killed at least one militant from Islamic Jihad as well as a woman, Mariam Arrahil, 55, and her son Muhammad, 22, who were riding in a donkey cart nearby, said hospital officials in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya. Army officials said they were checking reports that civilians had been hit." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 ...
The car was targeted. Hamas admits it was a "militant" car. We regret the loss of any civilian. Perhaps the car with rockets on it shouldn't be near civilians.- noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3Perhaps the military should learn restraint. I'm sure the car would have opened up the distance between it an the donkey cartin a matter of seconds.
- foopirata, on 01/22/2008, -3/+4And perhaps it would have entered a heavily populated area. You weren't there and I bet you don't have operational experience in LIC and/or MOUT to be able to offer that opinion.
- noahhoward, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1I know enough about Israels tactics to know that civilians are not normally any concern of the military. This is the group that shells fields because rockets had been fired from there in the past, this is the group that calls innocent Palestinians and tells them they have 10 minutes to evacuate their house before it is shelled so Hamas has one less place to hide, this is the same groups that committed countless attrocities against the CIVILIAN population when militants kidnapped one soldier.
There was ZERO reason to attack a target while deliberately putting civilians at risk. If you're going to cause collateral switch tactics to be more precise. - scorchedearth, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2The Israelis love killing innocent civilians. That is the barbarism they are encouraged to exhibit.
- foopirata, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3"Later in the day, another air strike aimed at a car carrying a rocket-launching squad instead killed at least one militant from Islamic Jihad as well as a woman, Mariam Arrahil, 55, and her son Muhammad, 22, who were riding in a donkey cart nearby, said hospital officials in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya. Army officials said they were checking reports that civilians had been hit." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 ...
- buckrogers1965, on 01/23/2008, -1/+2They used cluster bombs on entire villages. The bomblets are still blowing kids arms and legs off.
- pintomp3, on 01/22/2008, -7/+12killing civilians is better if you have guided missiles? more palestinians have been killed by israel than isralis by palestinians. israel has also illegally used cluster bombs leaving tens of thousands of bomblets in civilians areas.
- noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -8/+12Maybe, but the rockets wouldn't be flying i the first place if israel wasn't sitting on the homes of thousands of palestinians.
- yonoz, on 01/22/2008, -8/+3And that, boys and girls, is how you justify attacks on civilians. Let's hear it for Noah Howard!
- noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -3/+5But it is justified when Israel bombs houses and blockades ports over a handful of militants, right? The IDF is simply working systematically to reduce the threat to Israelis?
- yonoz, on 01/22/2008, -8/+3And that, boys and girls, is how you justify attacks on civilians. Let's hear it for Noah Howard!
- OMGIAMTHEMAN, on 01/22/2008, -6/+9aren't the rockets retaliation to Israeli atrocities? people like you content with labeling one side as the aggressor and one side as the retaliator are a huge obstacle to peace.
- yonoz, on 01/22/2008, -6/+1No, people like you content with attacks directed at innocent civilians are a huge obstacle to peace.
- omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 01/22/2008, -4/+6cut the American money out of the equation, for the love of god! peace is ***** possible if they stop letting the middle Americans obsessed with the Holy Land dictate our foreign policy!!!
- sjpeters79, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1True it's a vicious cycle but unlike what the media states, Israel does not retaliate, it attacks. Retaliation is defined as 'action taken in return for an injury or offense' (google). If we consider the original cause of the conflict being the forced creation of the state of Israel and expulsion/ oppression of the original inhabitatants, then we can see Israel is an occupational force and can not really retaliate when it's on the soil of a foriegn nation. It can only attack. Retaliation is a result of the attack by the occupational forces.
- pintomp3, on 01/22/2008, -14/+11perhaps the rockets flying are the retaliation.
- supermanred, on 01/22/2008, -20/+10...and in other news:
The jews reply : ***** off!
This is not news. - elister, on 01/22/2008, -7/+10And should Edward Olmert accept this deal, he'll be rewarded with a shiny new COMA!
- Tanktunker, on 01/22/2008, -4/+6If Sharon were to be offered this deal he'd probably have replied by eating Prince Turki al-Faisal and his staff.
- Albionshores, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3That sounds rude.
- blackjack75, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2That sounds realistic. If pictures are any indication he already had eaten some of their predecessors.
- Tanktunker, on 01/22/2008, -4/+6If Sharon were to be offered this deal he'd probably have replied by eating Prince Turki al-Faisal and his staff.
- poidh, on 01/22/2008, -18/+26It's yet another thread catering to the teen angst and confusion of an impressionable 17 year old Digger. Israel is bad, black is white, and so on.
Seriously though, if the Arab Muslims want peace with Israel, they'll have to take out of the Qur'an and Hadiths all the passages promoting hatred of Jews.- NATED066, on 01/22/2008, -11/+21And now we watch as anyone who says anything good about the Jews gets dugg down, and how anyone who makes a racist comment about them gets dugg up.
Can we try and be a bit more tolerant of ALL nationalities here people?- yonoz, on 01/22/2008, -4/+4I think digg is good at exposing the underlying reasoning for a lot of people: racism, nationalism and a whole lot of plain stupidity.
- sherrife, on 01/23/2008, -0/+4/irony
For those of you who don't know. He's a rabid anti-peace, anti-palestinian, zionist. Check his profile.
- sherrife, on 01/23/2008, -0/+4/irony
- Kizilbash, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2Uh huh. And how is this not a racist comment about 'Arab Muslims'?
- yonoz, on 01/22/2008, -4/+4I think digg is good at exposing the underlying reasoning for a lot of people: racism, nationalism and a whole lot of plain stupidity.
- MrErr, on 01/22/2008, -10/+7And if the muslims took out off the Quran all the passages of the hatred of Jews will the Jews take out off the talmud all the passages of hatred towards the gentiles?
- foopirata, on 01/22/2008, -3/+5Can you point to a single genuine one?
- MrErr, on 01/22/2008, -4/+5Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."
- poidh, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3Those Jews must really hate us gentiles, because the're suicide bombing us all the ti... wait a second.
- blackjack75, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3Just read the first testament.. we share this one entirely with the jews. And boy, is it full of *****.
- frogstomp19, on 01/23/2008, -1/+0Right, and we all know the second is 100% accurate. /sarcasm
By the way, I logged in just to digg you down. :D
- frogstomp19, on 01/23/2008, -1/+0Right, and we all know the second is 100% accurate. /sarcasm
- foopirata, on 01/22/2008, -3/+5Can you point to a single genuine one?
- Albionshores, on 01/22/2008, -7/+6It isn't negative about Israel. It is negative about the US' John Bolton pushing Israel. In fact it empowers Israel; as I said in the second post of the thread. There are two paths opening up here; peace and war.
In that sense if you wish to claim Israeli prominence; it is Israel that gets to choose. The US have no support for attacking Iran at home they need someone to take the first step for them before they can get involved. John Bolton says as much.
Israel's choice: peace or war. Personally I'm cheering Israel and her moderates all the way. Peace baby! - mardukvmbc, on 01/22/2008, -5/+4... all well and good but to my knowledge there's none there. There's plenty of references to the "people of the book" referring to Jews and Christians, but nothing too derogatory, unless you count taxation. (From what I recall, Islamic nations are supposed to tax non-Muslims at a higher rate or something).
I'm not Muslim but have read the Koran and the Hadiths.- poidh, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4I don't think you have read the Qur'an and Hadiths, otherwise you would have seen these verses. There are dozens and dozens, if not hundreds, of them.
- strayangel, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1Huh? In Islam, Christians and Jews are people of the book. Jesus and Moses are considered prophets and respected. I grew up in a Muslim family and that is what I was taught.
- poidh, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1Did they tell you that "People of the Book" are to be ruled over as subjugated people and that their wealth and property is to be taken? I bet they didn't.
- strayangel, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1Huh? In Islam, Christians and Jews are people of the book. Jesus and Moses are considered prophets and respected. I grew up in a Muslim family and that is what I was taught.
- poidh, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4I don't think you have read the Qur'an and Hadiths, otherwise you would have seen these verses. There are dozens and dozens, if not hundreds, of them.
- waif69, on 01/22/2008, -5/+6As long as the Palestinians teach their children that Israel is land of the future Palestine, there will be no peace.
- elint6, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3I want to digg you up twice.
- Kizilbash, on 01/23/2008, -1/+3You mean they should stick to referring to it as their former homeland and acquiesce in the robbery?
- poidh, on 01/23/2008, -2/+1Keep repeating that and you might just start to believe it. Oh you already have, and you do.
- Humptydank, on 01/22/2008, -2/+5Uhmm, before we set the moral high ground too high, let's keep in mind that it was the Christian Bible that laid the groundwork for a thousand years of Jewish persecution at the hands of Christians. The only plausible reason Christians could hate Muslims for hating the Jews is because they're trying to muscle in on our gig.
No one sits down at this table with clean hands, so why don't we start in the here-and-now and maybe just practice saying some things out loud that sound peaceful, and see how they sound?- poidh, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1Yes. Let's compare Christianity as it was 2000 years ago with Islam as it is now. Because it will make lots of sense to do so. No, really it will.
In LaLa land.
- poidh, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1Yes. Let's compare Christianity as it was 2000 years ago with Islam as it is now. Because it will make lots of sense to do so. No, really it will.
- Kizilbash, on 01/23/2008, -1/+3You mean as opposed to the paragon of tolerance that is the Bible?
Deuteronomy 13:13-15
'If you hear that in one of the towns, there are men who are telling people to go and worship other gods, it is your duty to look into the matter and examine it.'
Deuteronomy 13:15-16
'If it is proved and confirmed, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword.'
Deuteronomy 13:16
'You must lay the town under the curse of destruction, the town and everything in it.'
Deuteronomy 13:1
'If a prophet arises among you offering some sign or wonder...'
Deuteronomy 13:3-4
'Do not listen to that prophet's words. Yahweh your God is testing you to find out if you love him with all your heart and soul.'
Deuteronomy 13:6
'That prophet must be put to death. You must banish this evil from among you.'
Deuteronomy 13:6-8
'If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him.'
Deuteronomy 13:8-9
'You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow.'
Deuteronomy 13:9-10
'Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death.'- poidh, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1I suppose if the Bible is so intolerant then that will explain why Christians are so into stoning people to death and the like. Which they aren't. So I suppose that answers you, in a nutshell.
- NATED066, on 01/22/2008, -11/+21And now we watch as anyone who says anything good about the Jews gets dugg down, and how anyone who makes a racist comment about them gets dugg up.
- ValVedRaY, on 01/22/2008, -27/+7The Arabs will not settle for peace until the illegal existence of Israel continues.
- bullcutter, on 01/22/2008, -2/+7apparently.
- yonoz, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3Try to form coherent sentences.
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -12/+47Hamas is not part of the Arab league. Hamas is not offering peace. As part of this deal the Arab League wants Israel to leave land without Israel having any hopes or assurances that the daily rocket firings and terrorist bombing will stop. This is a purely public relations move without a real offer.
Hamas has never stated that they will stop killing Israeli's if Israel leaves what they consider their land. When Israel forcibly removed it's citizens from the westbank, the areas were used as firing platforms for rockets. A lot of the remaining territory from the pre-1967 borders are areas used by Palestinians to attack Israelis at that time. Children on their way to school were sniped from the golan heights ... why would Israel give this land back when Hamas has shown themselves to be savages.
Notice that Israel kept it's end of the bargain with Egypt and only went into Lebanon when their border was crossed first.- crombenevolant, on 01/22/2008, -4/+11You can take that a step further, because in Hamas view all of Israel is what they consider their land. They have made it very clear that any deal short of giving them all of Israel and all of the Jews leaving would be unacceptable. The PLO/PLA is also of the same view. In order for a peace accord to have meaning it has to include all of the Palestinian factions.
- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -3/+6How did HAMAS start anyway?
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -4/+4strawman much?
- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -5/+3How about an answer? Unless you don't know?
- foopirata, on 01/22/2008, -4/+4Oh you going to go into the shpiel of Hamas as a counter-force against Fatah ?
How passe.- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -4/+3Nope - a just asking questions. I wonder why the usual suspects get so antsy over questions.
What do you do when you don't know an answer? Pretend to know it?
Clearly. - PA42, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3@waiting
The "usual suspects" get antsy because we've heard a million excuses justifying terrorism and your question sounded like you were waiting to justify Hamas' terror.
When I don't know the answer I research it. I have watched you and Foop argue a million times and foop is generally knowledgeable and factually correct. - foopirata, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3Oh, I'm sorry, Waiting2awake. I wasn't aware you were looking for information.
But let me give you a shortcut (that's how much I appreciate you quest for factual info):
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamashistory.htm
Hamas means zeal. It is an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawima al-Islamiyya, Islamic Resistance Movement/ It was created as the armed wing of the religious revivalist Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimin) in Gaza, in 1987 or 1988. The Hamas Charter is virulently anti-Semitic and uncompromising in its goal of riding Palestine of the Jews.
Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, established in 1946 in Gaza. The Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood was a quiescent force whose main goal was a reorientation of Palestinian society to religion. The Brotherhood had relatitvely little to do with the fight against Israel or later in opposition to the occupation, though individual members were active in arms smuggling during the Israeli War of Independence. However, one group initiated by former members of the brotherhood, Hizb ut Tahrir, formed in the West Bank, later evolved into an international Islamist organization.
After 1967, the main front organization of the brotherhood was Ahmad Yassin 's Mujama‘ (established 1973), a welfare charity (clinics, kindergartens, education), that was encouraged by Israeli civilian administration in Gaza to apply for registered charity status in 1978 and was indirectly funded by Israel as a means of dividing Palestinian society. It collected funds from from local zakat collections, Gulf Islamic organizations (often via Jordan), and expatriate Palestinians. Due to its identification of secular forces in Palestinian society as the main opponent, there was considerable tension with PLO, which climaxed in January 1980 when Islamist activists attacked Red Crescent Society offices and attempted to march on the home of its Director, Haydar ‘Abd al-Shafi. Its main base was the Islamic University of Gaza, founded after Sadat closed Egyptian universities to Gazans due to Palestinian protest at Camp David. Sheikh Awwad's preexisting religious college, the only higher education institution in Gaza, was transformed into a University, ,However, with tensions over IUG's basic policy, Mujama‘ encouraged Israeli authorities to dismiss their opponents in the committee in February of 1981, resulting in subsequent Islamisation of IUG policy and staff including the obligation on women to wear the hijab and thobe and separate entrances for men and women), and enforced by violence and ostracization of dissenters. Tacit complicity from both university and Israeli authorities allowed Mujama‘ to keep a weapons cache to use against secularists. By the mid 1980s, it was was the largest university in occupied territories with 4,500 students, and student elections were won handily by Mujama‘.
[...]
Hamas was formed about February 1988 to allow participation of the brotherhood in the first Intifada. The founding leaders of Hamas were: Ahmad Yassin, ‘Abd al-Fattah Dukhan, Muhammed Shama’, Ibrahim al-Yazuri, Issa al-Najjar, Salah Shehadeh (from Bayt Hanun) and ‘Abd al-Aziz Rantisi. Dr. Mahmud Zahar is also usually listed as one of the original leader. Other leaders include: Sheikh Khalil Qawqa, Isa al-Ashar, Musa Abu Marzuq, Ibrahim Ghusha, Khalid Mish’al.
[...]
Hamas shunned the Oslo peace process and joined the wider rejectionist alliance which managed to gain considerable support (over 20% of Palestinians support Hamas and Islamic Jihad despite PNA pressure). The first Hamas suicide bombing in opposition to the Oslo accords was conducted in 1993.
[...]
That should give you enough information, including the "Israeli angle" of it, in the interest of transparency.
- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -4/+3Nope - a just asking questions. I wonder why the usual suspects get so antsy over questions.
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -5/+2it's an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood with a charter demanding the destruction of Israel. you have not responded to anything relevant to this thread.
- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3Most questions are not responses. Thank you for your response. BTW - I note it also wasn't a question.
- yonoz, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4Cut the boy some slack. As PA42 wrote, Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, established at the beginning of the first Intifada.
- freedomkeeper, on 01/22/2008, -1/+0Well, you see. There was this camel hurder that REALLY liked his camels...
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -4/+4strawman much?
- Barbarino, on 01/22/2008, -5/+9Facts and common sense have no place here on digg. Please edit your post. You are making way too much sense.
- Kizilbash, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2There were no facts in that statement. Israel did not remove any (illegal) settlements from the West Bank and rockets were never fired from the WB. The Golan Heights are Syrian territory, no Palestinians ever sniped from there, nor were there any schools there to snipe at and anyway Hamas was founded around 1987/88.
- MrErr, on 01/22/2008, -2/+7Neither does Israel give any commitment that if all the rockets or terrorism stops that it will end the occupation.
The peace proposal goes to the bottom of the problem which is the land. Rockets are only a symptom.- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3That is incorrect. At the 2000 Camp David Summit this was offered, Arafat turned it down. Although the palestinians may not have received all that they believe was theirs, they were offered all except for land which had previously been used to stage sniper fire and terrorist attacks.
- MrErr, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4The devil is in the details. Arafat was offered most of the land, but the settlements would remain and roads leading to the settlements would be Israeli only roads. The Palestinains would still not have control over their borders and they could not have any army. Ever since that failed proposal, world leaders have been talking of a "viable" palestinian state because what Arafat was offered was not a viable state.
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2Considering the attacks by Hamas, that seems like a fair deal until the palestinians can prove themselves not to attack Israel. Especially since Israel would have been giving up most of the land and the palestinians would get there own state.
- MrErr, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4The devil is in the details. Arafat was offered most of the land, but the settlements would remain and roads leading to the settlements would be Israeli only roads. The Palestinains would still not have control over their borders and they could not have any army. Ever since that failed proposal, world leaders have been talking of a "viable" palestinian state because what Arafat was offered was not a viable state.
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3That is incorrect. At the 2000 Camp David Summit this was offered, Arafat turned it down. Although the palestinians may not have received all that they believe was theirs, they were offered all except for land which had previously been used to stage sniper fire and terrorist attacks.
- Albionshores, on 01/22/2008, -4/+5To address the Hamas issue, Hamas has already stated that it would have been willing to attend Annapolis. However in signing a 22state agreement they would be empowering moderatism and not militancy which is exactly what they have been doing. When Olmert announced that peace was dependent on three parties not the invited two Hamas were celebrating in the streets and more than a few 'We told you so's were handed out by international bodies who warned that the peace talks had been ham stringed by not inviting everyone and by removing things from the table.
Militant support for Hamas would dry up, people would no longer be marginalised. Funding would also dry up and you would usher in a cultural reform, in the words of the Saudi prince, Israel would cease to be considered outsiders.
If Hamas were to continue with such a clear gesture by Israel towards peace they would alienate themselves and receive the sort of universal international condemnation Israel has been receiving over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli administration.
Furthermore, read the Qu'ran, you'd be using it for the first time against the militants instead of the militants twisting its message to recruit. A muslim is forbidden to attack anyone who downs arms and extends a hand in peace, up to now you've been playing into their hands by physically suppressing them - the Qu'ran is very vocal on what one should do then once all other avenues are exhausted - no surrender, even if it means death. It is a perversion that allows a twisted version of Islam to recruit suicide bombers and militants but it is easy to see where that perversion can be made. You'd be forcing the militants to rip their own tongue and tooth out.
Regarding your third and final point. Of course I can understand the trepidation and fear that comes with it handing over the Golan heights. Fear is not a reason to do it though and it is the right thing to do. Look at it this way. Since 1967 Israelis have never had a single year of peace without some uprising, without living with some element of fear. Whatever tactic is currently being used isn't working. Time to try something new.
Peace is not guaranteed, but if you refuse it whenever it shows itself you do guarantee war.- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3Albi:
To me it just seems like you want Israel to make a lot of concessions to facilitate an unlikely peace.
If I understand your premise, you think Israel should agree to peace unilaterally from Hamas, so that Muslims will be less likely to join. In the mean time Hamas is likely to keep attacking. This is akin to saying Israel should give Hamas everything they demand through terrorism in hopes that eventually the terrorism will stop. This is a bit far fetched considering Hamas demands the destruction of Israel.
Additionally, Israel should give up strategic land so that Hamas has better places to attack Israel from.
In Short: Israel should give in on everything with a slim hope and no guarantee of peace.
I believe that Hamas should stop attacking daily for any hope of peace.
What really makes me believe that you are disingenuous is you consistently submit anti-Israel stories without ever showing the other side of the story. If you are truly for peace and the down fall of Hamas, why do you propagate a position that is in favor of raising arms against Israel?- MrErr, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3The only people who think peace is unlikely are the ones who want to see conflict continue. We need a vision of peace where everyone is equal. Peace is possible even though getting there maybe difficult and painful and also humbling.
I think Israel should unilaterally withdraw from lands that do not belong to it, let the refugees back in and stop committing state terrorism and the Palestinians too should unilaterally lay down their arms.
You say Israel should not give up anything until the Arabs give up attacking them and the Arabs they will not stop attacking until Israel gives up the occupied lands. There is no end to a blame game.
What is needed is a fair distributing of the lands and that there be no more homeless Palestinians or jews and they both are treated equally.- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3so how much of that means the surrounding arab nations giving back the land that they stole from the jews at the same time the palestinians willfully left there land? How are those arab jews going to be protected in countries that are hostile? How can ISrael give back land used as sniper spots with an enemy publicly stating "death to Israel? You have over simplified it. Most of the pre-67 land is back in palestinians hands, it is only the high lands and very strategic points (safety not military) that Israel has always refused.
- MrErr, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3The only people who think peace is unlikely are the ones who want to see conflict continue. We need a vision of peace where everyone is equal. Peace is possible even though getting there maybe difficult and painful and also humbling.
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3Albi:
- Bodhinature, on 01/22/2008, -5/+2I'm sorry, but Hamas stated that it would renounce violence and join the international community as a governing body when they were elected to government posts. This was answered by further US supported bombings and kidnappings of Palestinians, support of an unelected opposition party (Fatah) and now marginalization in Gaza and eventual choking off. When will Israel renounce violence?
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -2/+4"'Im sorry, but Hamas stated that it would renounce violence and join the international community as a governing body when they were elected to government posts. "
Hamas is elected to government posts and they haven't renounced violence - foopirata, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3Can you show me where Hamass says so? My memory is a bit faulty.
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -2/+4"'Im sorry, but Hamas stated that it would renounce violence and join the international community as a governing body when they were elected to government posts. "
- Kizilbash, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1"When Israel forcibly removed it's citizens from the westbank, the areas were used as firing platforms for rockets." Oh? And when did this happen, pray tell? Once upon a time in a land far, far away?
"A lot of the remaining territory from the pre-1967 borders are areas used by Palestinians to attack Israelis at that time. Children on their way to school were sniped from the golan heights ... why would Israel give this land back when Hamas has shown themselves to be savages." Hamas was founded about 1987 so we can see where you get your facts: straight out of your ass. The Golan Heights was Syrian territory before 1967 (and as far as the international community is concerned still is). Before 1967 there was a large demilitarized zone, there is no way anyone could have sniped at anyone there. This whole thing never happened.
- crombenevolant, on 01/22/2008, -4/+11You can take that a step further, because in Hamas view all of Israel is what they consider their land. They have made it very clear that any deal short of giving them all of Israel and all of the Jews leaving would be unacceptable. The PLO/PLA is also of the same view. In order for a peace accord to have meaning it has to include all of the Palestinian factions.
- 49er, on 01/22/2008, -7/+13Clearly no one read the story. This was offered years ago. The same issues that existed then exist now. Both sides need to be a lot more flexible if peace is to be achieved.
- bullcutter, on 01/22/2008, -8/+9they should take it and then maybe we can stop having to provide them with more foreign aide than goes to all of Africa each year.
- freedomkeeper, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2How 'bout we cut financial aide to every country that spews anti-American dribble? That would take care of our deficit in one cut.
- hadees, on 01/22/2008, -10/+28So all they are offering is to think of the Israelis as "Arab Jews"? Well that didn't turn out so well for the 700,000 Arab Jews who were kicked out of Arab lands following 1948. Everyone wants to talk about the Palestinian refugees and what they will get but there will be no real peace unless all the refugees are compensated. The Arab Jews lost a lot. They had business and homes, unlike the Palestinians a lot of them had been fairly well off but had to leave everything behind due to hostile Arab states.
- MrErr, on 01/22/2008, -7/+4It is sad what happened to the Arab Jews. But again let us remember that it happened only after the Jews occupied the arab lands. For a real peace, let's not try shifting blame around, what is really needed is that both Arabs and Jews have equal access to the land and are treated equally.
- Goldbricker, on 01/22/2008, -3/+4Read your history. The Arabs and the Palestinians were the ones that rejected the U.N. partioning. They wanted the whole pie and thought they could take it. Unfortunately for them they were spanked for the first time by the Israeli army.
- MrErr, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3I think the UN had no right to give away someone else's land, if that really happened. The UN resolution was never fully implemented. part of the resolution was not only the partition but also that jews or Arabs were not to be driven from their homes.
So anyway, if the UN today gave all the land to the Arabs, would you accept it?- hadees, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3And yet I don't see you saying that Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, or any of the other states arbitrarily created are illegal. There was a large number of Jews who legally immigrated to the area and they deserved a state just like the ones that were created in the other areas. What you really have problems with is the fact the Jews came there but you can't blame them for that. They moved there first under the Ottoman Empire and then under the British.
- Goldbricker, on 01/23/2008, -2/+2Your response clearly shows that you have no idea what happened. Do some research and then you can have an opinion to share. You have a whole Internet. Use it. And try to filter our information provided with an agenda. There's at a minimum two sides to every story.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2Thanks for the common sense, this thread sorely needed it. Yeah, this conflict started because land was taken from one group and arbitrarily given to a different group.
I think the British divided up the countries so that tribal groups were split into multiple areas in order to destabilize the region and weaken it.
- MrErr, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3I think the UN had no right to give away someone else's land, if that really happened. The UN resolution was never fully implemented. part of the resolution was not only the partition but also that jews or Arabs were not to be driven from their homes.
- Goldbricker, on 01/22/2008, -3/+4Read your history. The Arabs and the Palestinians were the ones that rejected the U.N. partioning. They wanted the whole pie and thought they could take it. Unfortunately for them they were spanked for the first time by the Israeli army.
- MrErr, on 01/22/2008, -7/+4It is sad what happened to the Arab Jews. But again let us remember that it happened only after the Jews occupied the arab lands. For a real peace, let's not try shifting blame around, what is really needed is that both Arabs and Jews have equal access to the land and are treated equally.
- tsotha, on 01/22/2008, -4/+15As always, the devil is in the details. Lots of peace deals have been offered by both sides over the years, but if you offer a deal you know the other side considers unacceptable it's nothing more than grandstanding. I'm curious to know if this deal is an honest effort, or just a propaganda piece.
- saunders45, on 01/22/2008, -3/+18It's a trap!!!
- CrudeDarkness, on 01/22/2008, -18/+12Israel will never make a peace deal with the Arabs. they have the upper hand, why would they want to withdraw? They are making the lives of the Palastinians a living hell so that they would slowly move out of their country and Israel could later move in on the Palestinian lands step by step until all the Palestinians have left to find a better life.
- caponumen, on 01/22/2008, -13/+20Israel CAN'T remain a "Jewish state" and have any real peace, they must prevent Muslims from becoming a majority.
That's the design of the continuous harassment and discrimination of non-Jews and a permanent plank of the right wing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_and_Entry ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Isra ...- yonoz, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2Guess what? Israeli Arabs are becoming westernized and are having smaller families. 2007 was the first year Jewish population growth exceeded the Arab one in Israel.
- hadees, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3The Palestinians want a Palestinian state with no Jews. The Jewish State is willing to have Arabs in it. Israel can remain a Jewish state with out discriminating against its minorities. But I am sure you also condemn all the Muslim states out there regularly since in some of them you can't even practice a religion other then Islam out in the open.
- simplicityiskey, on 01/22/2008, -5/+24While it seems positive that 22 Arab nations are extending an olive branch to Israel, take notice of several things. First, it requires Israel to give back lands that it believes it rightfully won. This has been one of the hotly contested issues to begin with; Israel doesn't feel it has to hand that land back over. Second, it does not seem to address the issue of Islamic militancy and how those Arab nations will handle said militancy within their borders. Third, it does not address security the Israeli state from Islamic militants and what the Arab League would do to help quell such violence. It's a nice token, but there are some real issues that have to be fleshed out. This whole issue of Israel and Palestine is so drawn-out and complicated that there are so many other issues to take into consideration.
- spiralspirit, on 01/22/2008, -3/+71) The issue for israel is not whether it feels it has to hand the land back, but whether it feels it can do so safely. By withdrawing from gaza and southern lebanon, the only response has been negative and has allowed terrorists to fire rockets into civilian areas.
2) There will undoubtedly be something ridiculous like giving half of Jerusalem to Hamas or some such nonsense, making the deal more or less untenable to anyone who isn't extremely leftist.- simplicityiskey, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3"Israel was wary of the Arab League plan partly because it would entail handing back the Syrian Golan Heights captured in the 1967 Middle East war, as well as re-dividing Jerusalem, of which Israel annexed the captured Arab eastern part in 1967."
- buckrogers1965, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2They are war criminals for trying to keep the land. It's against international law to try to change a countries borders through force. And that is a good thing.
- spiralspirit, on 01/22/2008, -3/+71) The issue for israel is not whether it feels it has to hand the land back, but whether it feels it can do so safely. By withdrawing from gaza and southern lebanon, the only response has been negative and has allowed terrorists to fire rockets into civilian areas.
- Chahrlie5, on 01/22/2008, -6/+7Anybody else smell that?
- momsshizzle, on 01/22/2008, -3/+4Yea, it's your mom's vagina.
- Chahrlie5, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2My mom's vag smell's like ***** in that case
- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4Was the rock cooking again?
- momsshizzle, on 01/22/2008, -3/+4Yea, it's your mom's vagina.
- kolinkoolface2, on 01/22/2008, -13/+10that peace agreement is so one sided it's not even funny. Israel is a pretty tough country and would never give into this kind of bull *****.
- PropCulture, on 01/22/2008, -4/+7Was this deal offered to the Peoples' Front of Judea, or the Judean Peoples' Front? Big difference.
- Picer, on 01/22/2008, -12/+7Isreal palestine both as bad as each other, no one is morally superior.
The problem is that Israel is occupying parts of Palestinian land and i mean land that the UN agrees belongs to them, but rockets are being fired in exchange - the problem is that by firing rockets they (hamas) look worse.
I think Palestine + Israel are Doomed, at this rate they will erase each other off the map.
The palestian lands should have been unified at creation, and jerusalem should become international neutral territory that way the arabs/jews dont have to grandstand over who owns the holy city.- spiralspirit, on 01/22/2008, -3/+41) palestinian lands "at creation" were in the hands of Jordan and Egypt, not Israel. There was a 2 state partition plan from the US, which the soon to be government of israel wanted, but the arabs rejected.
2) Jerusalem is not just a religious issue - its a security and economic one as well. Even if you declare peace tomorrow, there will still be palestinians who reject it, and security in jerusalem will be made even more complex by handing part of it over. 2nd, how do you hand it over? Do you kick people out of their homes? force shop owners out? Who would police this "international city"? who would govern it? the UN? is that even credible?
- spiralspirit, on 01/22/2008, -3/+41) palestinian lands "at creation" were in the hands of Jordan and Egypt, not Israel. There was a 2 state partition plan from the US, which the soon to be government of israel wanted, but the arabs rejected.
- provost, on 01/22/2008, -9/+9reuters africa.. it probably wont hit any major US news because the US and Israel both don't actually want a real peace deal. They want everyone to continually view arabs and arab nations as hostile so they have reasons to further both the military industrial complex and the neo conservative agenda of greed and power.
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -5/+5if it doesn't hit US papers it's because it's a PR stunt. Hamas isn't part of the deal, Israel is relatively (if not entirely) peaceful with the nations offering the deal. What it is really saying is: Israel should leave their land and get no confidence of peace because the savages attacking them aren't party to the deal.
- slunktoday, on 01/22/2008, -3/+5I know how to solve this. We need to channel more tax dollars to countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia (like we just recently promised), so we can help fund conflicts.
Then, after they're done bombing each other, we can waste more money to rebuild the stuff we helped destroy.
I mean, giving money to Middle East countries could never backfire on us, right?
Let them fight it out if they want. I don't want any of my tax money contributing to it though.- kc9fjc, on 01/22/2008, -4/+5Or since Israel would win, we could just continue to fully support Israel as they are our strongest ally in the Mid East. Israel is constantly attacked and needs to be able to defend itself. We cant simply call on a nation to set down their defence so our "friends" (with oil) can do as they please. Israel needs to keep the land that is rightfully theirs and never give it up.
- MrErr, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3Or we could support the Arabs and have an uninterrupted supply of oil.
- pintomp3, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2"Israel is constantly attacked"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war
- kc9fjc, on 01/22/2008, -4/+5Or since Israel would win, we could just continue to fully support Israel as they are our strongest ally in the Mid East. Israel is constantly attacked and needs to be able to defend itself. We cant simply call on a nation to set down their defence so our "friends" (with oil) can do as they please. Israel needs to keep the land that is rightfully theirs and never give it up.
- 3leggedHorse, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3 Bet they don't but in the process make it look like they are the victims.
- ukfoole, on 01/22/2008, -8/+13How about as a sign of peace, the Arabs say "Fine, keep that tiny plot of land it is rightfully yours and we were wrong to continually wrong to try to exterminate your nation, heck there isn't even oil there. Also, any militants in our countries who attack Israel will be stamped out in a minimal timeframe."
You want peace? Compromise. That is what diplomacy is about. Everyone on digg called it "diplomacy" when the UK sat on its hands while Iran danced our sailors around like puppets. Well, time for a big steaming bowl of diplomacy for the Arab nations to eat. Yum, smells like dookey.- freedomkeeper, on 01/22/2008, -4/+3Comprimise is when neither side gets what they wany.
- foopirata, on 01/22/2008, -4/+4But peace comes out of it, because both sides can't have all they want.
It's what adult people do. Your option? - elint6, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1duh?
- foopirata, on 01/22/2008, -4/+4But peace comes out of it, because both sides can't have all they want.
- Kizilbash, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1It is not rightfully theirs, they were not wrong to oppose it and they never tried to exterminate their nation. On the contrary, Israel is trying to ethnically cleanse the territory and have been trying to for over 60 years.
Compromise is that the Arab countries know all that and STILL offer peace, though the Israelis definitely do not deserve it.
- freedomkeeper, on 01/22/2008, -4/+3Comprimise is when neither side gets what they wany.
- borneo66, on 01/22/2008, -6/+8So wait -- did the "Arab world" just admit to being at war with Israel?
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/22/2008, -6/+6No, they offered peace if Israel stops raping it.
"The 22-nation Arab League revived at a Riyadh summit last year a Saudi peace plan first adopted in 2002 offering Israel full normalisation of relations in return for full withdrawal from occupied Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese land."
Won't happen. The goal is to invade these countries. If they wanted peace Israel would not exist.- spiralspirit, on 01/22/2008, -5/+8Israel unilaterally withdrew from both southern lebanon and gaza, and what it has earned them is the war in lebanon 2 summers ago and the current situation that allows tens of rockets to be fired into israel daily. Israel doesn't have enough soldiers to police their own borders, let alone invading syria and lebanon. do you even know the relative sizes of these countries to israel? Your claim is absurd to anyone with a sense of geography, let alone politics.
- hmmmok, on 01/22/2008, -1/+7Or history.
- MrErr, on 01/22/2008, -4/+4You make it look like Israel was doing the world a magnanimous favor when it withdrew from land not belonging to it. Don't you think something is wrong with that picture?
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -4/+7Do you not know about the '67 war or do you purposely ignore it? considering those attacks, Israel is right on keeping strategic land until it's neighbors can prove not to be savages.
- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -5/+2Nope they don't - and that is the problem. Before any discussion on the issues is possible both sides have to calm down. Far far too much rhetoric from both sides, too much hostility from both sides and both sides engage in massive dis-information campaigns.
Truthfully, sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be better just to wall off the entire region and let them have at it. This is just sad how a bunch of archaic invisible-man cults can hold the rest of the world hostage because they refuse to see their brother.
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/22/2008, -7/+3First of all, my family is involved in Israeli politics.
Second, read Podhoretz.
Israelites don't control Israel. They never did and they never will. America controls Israel.
Third, picking a reaction from a non related action doesn't make much of an argument. Israel's existence is only justified by the bible.- foopirata, on 01/22/2008, -3/+7Really? How exactly is your family involved in Israeli politics? And if they are - why can't you learn something from them?
Podhoretz can suck my circumcised head. If you knew anything about Israeli politics, you'd know he has no weight over here. Poser.
There is no such thing as "Israelites" any more, poser.
Israel's existence is justified as being the homeland of the Jewish people. Archeology shows it better than the Bible. I guess your "family", who is "involved in Israeli politics" could explain it to you. I guess you're adopted (nothing against adopted people, just pointing that this "person" here doesn't know what he's talking about). - ElAssoWipo, on 01/22/2008, -6/+2"Israel's existence is justified as being the homeland of the Jewish people."
Judaism is a religion, settlers are european. By that argument, America should be given back to the natives despite all the hatred it would cause. The enforcement of democracy and a peaceful multicultural environment in Palestine was justified. Israel was not.
Podhoretz doesn't need weight in Israel. Who funds your army? Who made it possible for Israel to exist? Who is still supporting Israel today? America controls Israel in every way. America is responsible for the creation of Israel and still supports Israel with massive amounts of money and weapons.
Where does Zionism come from? It's not jewish. It's christian. That's why America does what it does. They are using Israel. It's a tool in a much larger plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism
http://www.cc-vw.org/articles/czdefine1.html
I can't tell you how my family is involved because I wish to remain anonymous on this site. I admit it's a fallacy anyway and changes nothing so I retract that argument. - foopirata, on 01/22/2008, -1/+5"Judaism is a religion, settlers are european" - did it ever occur to you that many Jewish families can trace their roots back to the Middle East, more specifically, to what is today's Israel? Are you aware of the population movements that occurred in the Middle East? That just to give you a pointer regardnig "being european". Do some research and you'll find that Judaism also exists as an "ethnicity". Judaism is more like an extended family than a religion. A shared cultural, religious and historic past centered in the geography of Israel.
"Podhoretz doesn't need weight in Israel. Who funds your army?" - I can tell you it is not Podhoretz.
"Who made it possible for Israel to exist?" - the UN, by the partition in 1947.
"America controls Israel in every way." - gee, and the whole of digg thinks it is the other way around. Glad you're here to illuminate them. The fact is that US and Israel are allies. Allies discuss stuff and generally act in accordance when their interests align. But I wouldn't go so far as saying that America controls Israel.
"Where does Zionism come from?" - let me introduce you to one of the Old Testament's most beautiful (in my humble opinion) texts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_137 - it is very known, it opens up with "By the rivers of Babylon". It shows the Israelites (then they existed!) yearning for a return to Jerusalem from where they had been exiled. There's Zionism for you. It's as Jewish as gefilte fish. Conspiracy theories aside.
"I can't tell you how my family is involved because I wish to remain anonymous on this site. I admit it's a fallacy anyway and changes nothing so I retract that argument." - ....right. Ok. Sure. At least you admit it is a fallacy. - ElAssoWipo, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Glad to see you at least admit that the justification of Israel is entirely originated from the Old Testament. You're on the right track.
- foopirata, on 01/22/2008, -3/+7Really? How exactly is your family involved in Israeli politics? And if they are - why can't you learn something from them?
- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -5/+4@Pa4
Savages?
Want a quick run down of things the UN has had to chid Israel about?
1. Resolution 106: "... 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"
2. Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
3. Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem"
4. Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"
5. Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria"
6. Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
7. Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
8. Resolution 248: "... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
9. Resolution 250: "... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"
10. Resolution 251: "... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
11. Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
12. Resolution 256: "... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation""
13. Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
14. Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
15. Resolution 265: "... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
16. Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
17. Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"
18. Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
19. Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
20. Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"
21. Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
22. Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem"
23. Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
24. Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
25. Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"
26. Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"
27. Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"
28. Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
29. Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
30. Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon'
31. Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
32. Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
33. Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
34. Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
35. Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"
36. Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"
37. Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
38. Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians"
39. Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
40. Resolution 476: "... 'reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'"
41. Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'"
42. Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"
43. Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility"
44. Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"
45. Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
46. Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
47. Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
48. Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"
49. Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
50. Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"
51. Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"
52. Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
53. Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
54. Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops"
55. Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
56. Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
57. Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
58. Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
59. Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians
60. Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
61. Resolution 673: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
62. Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
63. Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
64. Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians
65. Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
and that was just up to 1994....add another 14 years to that......and I think you get an idea that there are savages on both sides....- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -2/+61) How many are binding?
2) yet there have been no resolutions against Hamas ... hmmm, why could that be. The UN is a profoundly anti-semetic organization. Remember that ISrael was created by them largely because none of the member nations wanted to harbor the jews after WWII. I'm sorry if I don't trust an organization that allowed a Saudi official to state at the UN that jews drink christian children's blood.- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -3/+2 So the UN is anti-semetic huh? The organization that brought Israel into existence is against what it brought into existence? Of course not -it is just that it doesn't turn a complete blind eye to what horrible and inhumane actions Israel has done?? Grow up kid.
What you are saying is the entire world is anti-semetic, which is of course stupid. But that is your only trick. Call names, try and fool or shame people into stuff.
Screw you. The jews are no better / worse than any other group of people - and they do, have, and continue to to have as their leaders every bit as wicked and evil ***** as the other side does. Your inability to see this merely demonstrates how you are merely the mirror image of what you claim to hate. Which is no doubt where half your anger comes from. - foopirata, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3@Waiting
I dare say the UN today is not the same organization that brought Israel into existence. The point of the matter is that the committees in the present UN that are supposed to look at atrocities and the like are controlled by the Arab bloc.
"The jews are no better / worse than any other group of people - and they do, have, and continue to to have as their leaders every bit as wicked and evil ***** as the other side does." - indeed, we do. But it is the Israelis. We got lots of non-Jewish Israelis. By singling out "The jews" you sound...anti-semitic.
- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -3/+2 So the UN is anti-semetic huh? The organization that brought Israel into existence is against what it brought into existence? Of course not -it is just that it doesn't turn a complete blind eye to what horrible and inhumane actions Israel has done?? Grow up kid.
- foopirata, on 01/22/2008, -2/+5@Waiting2awake
You like lists? Let me give you one then.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%20Obstacle%20 ...
Between September 29, 2000 and May 1, 2006, Magen David Adom treated a total of 7,844 casualties as follows:
999 killed, 642 severely injured, 940 moderately, and 5,263 lightly injured, among them 11 MDA staff members.
(IDF casualties treated by IDF medical personnel are not included in these figures.)
Note: This list also includes 18 Israelis killed abroad in terror attacks directed specifically against Israeli targets, and 3 American diplomatic personnel killed in Gaza.
List of victims by date:
Sept 27, 2000 - Sgt. David Biri, 19, of Jerusalem, was fatally wounded in a bombing near Netzarim in the Gaza Strip.
Sept 29, 2000 - Border Police Supt. Yosef Tabeja, 27, of Ramle was shot to death by his Palestinian counterpart on a joint patrol near Kalkilya.
Oct 1, 2000 - Border Police Cpl. Madhat Yusuf, 19, of Beit Jann, died of gunshot wounds sustained in a gun battle with Palestinians at Joseph's Tomb in Nablus.
Oct 2, 2000 - Wichlav Zalsevsky, 24, of Ashdod, was shot in the head in the village of Masha on the trans-Samaria highway.
Sgt. Max Hazan, 20, of Dimona, died of gunshot injuries sustained near Beit Sahur.
Oct 8, 2000 - The bullet-riddled body of Hillel Lieberman, 36, of Elon Moreh was found at the southern entrance to Nablus.
Oct 12, 2000 - First Cpl. Yosef Avrahami and First Sgt. Vadim Norzhich, 33, two reserve IDF soldiers, were lynched by a Palestinian mob at the police building in Ramallah.
Oct 19, 2000 - Rabbi Binyamin Herling, 64, of Kedumim, was killed when Fatah members and Palestinian security f
- PA42, on 01/22/2008, -2/+61) How many are binding?
- spiralspirit, on 01/22/2008, -5/+8Israel unilaterally withdrew from both southern lebanon and gaza, and what it has earned them is the war in lebanon 2 summers ago and the current situation that allows tens of rockets to be fired into israel daily. Israel doesn't have enough soldiers to police their own borders, let alone invading syria and lebanon. do you even know the relative sizes of these countries to israel? Your claim is absurd to anyone with a sense of geography, let alone politics.
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/22/2008, -6/+6No, they offered peace if Israel stops raping it.