30th anniversary of 1973 Arab-Israeli war [Archive]

View Full Version : 30th anniversary of 1973 Arab-Israeli war

He219

10-06-2003, 03:56 PM

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20031006/i/r378597711.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20031006/capt.lon11910061801.mideast_syria_israel_lon119.jpg
Syrian President Bashar Assad, center, stands in silence after placing a wreath at a war memorial in Damascus, Monday, Oct. 6, 2003, a day after Israeli rockets blasted an alleged Palestinian militant training camp near the city in retaliation for a suicide bombing in Israel. Monday marks the 30th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, when Syria tried to reclaim the Golan Heights that it lost to Israel in the 1967 Mideast War. (AP Photo/SANA)

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20031006/capt.lon12010061800.syria_israel_mideast_lon120.jpg
Syrian President Bashar Assad, center, wearing gray suit, prays after placing a wreath at a war memorial in Damascus, Monday, Oct. 6, 2003. Monday marks the 30th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, when Syria tried to reclaim the Golan Heights that it lost to Israel in the 1967 Mideast War, (AP Photo/SANA)

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=437025
Mohamed Ali, 9, on Monday Oct 6 2003 waves an Egyptian flag as he plays over an Israeli tank, a US made M48 , which was captured during operations of the October 1973 war. Egyptians are celebrating the 30th anniversary of the October 1973 Arab-Israeli war. (AP Photo/Amr Nabil)

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=437138
An Israeli guard tower, top, overlooks the Arab village of Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights, Monday, Oct. 6, 2003 the 30th anniversary of Syria and Egypt's surprise attack on Israel. On Oct. 6, 1973, Syrian tanks rumbled into these hills in a failed attempt to reclaim the Golan, captured by Israel in battle six years earlier. To the south, Egypt was moving into the desert of the Sinai Peninsula, to try to reclaim its former territory. (AP Photo/Muhammed Muheisen)

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=437137
A monument at the center of the Arab village of Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights shows a leader of Syria's fight for independence from French rule Monday, Oct. 6, 2003 the 30th anniversary of Syria and Egypt's surprise attack on Israel. On Oct. 6, 1973, Syrian tanks rumbled into these hills in a failed attempt to reclaim the Golan, captured by Israel in battle six years earlier. To the south, Egypt was moving into the desert of the Sinai Peninsula, to try to reclaim its former territory to. (AP Photo/Muhammed Muheisen)

ArmoredDov_D9

10-06-2003, 08:11 PM

I don't understand why their celebrate... THEY LOST THE WAR.
Even though they had a head-start and outnumber Israeli forces they managed to loose.

Well, the Arab celebrations of 1973 war proves the old phrase: "Ignorance is a bliss".

Ichhabe

10-06-2003, 08:31 PM

Didn't the Egyptian army have a "Victory march" through the streets of Cairo after they lost in 1948?

And the Iraqis had their celebrations after the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War I.

Seems like a pattern, but ain't sure. ;)

Operation Ivy

10-06-2003, 09:41 PM

Do Arabs know that they lose wars??...they never act like it...they think they always win :roll:

S'13

10-07-2003, 09:33 AM

In 1967 the Egyptian people were rejoicing in the streets of Cairo over the "capture" of Haifa and Tel-Aviv. At the same time the IDF soldiers were swimming in the cool waters of the Sues canal. :lol:

He219

10-07-2003, 09:40 AM

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20031007/i/r2360747814.jpg
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) attends a memorial service at Mount Hertzel in Jerusalem October 7, 2003 for soldiers who died in the Israeli-Egypt war in 1973. Sharon, buoyed by U.S. backing for Israel's right to defend itself, said on Tuesday the army was ready to 'hit its enemies any place and in any way' after an air raid deep inside Syria. REUTERS/Gil Cohen Magen

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20031007/i/r1865215994.jpg

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=437668
Israeli Batia Yitzhak, pauses after she lit a torch during a ceremony commemorating more than 2,600 soldiers that were killed during the 1973 Yom Kippur war, in Jerusalem's Mt. Herzl military cemetery Tuesday Oct. 7, 2003. Yitzhak's son, name not given, an Israeli army paramedic, was killed Oct. 1973 in the Golan Heights during the Yom Kippur war. (AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis)

Merik

10-07-2003, 05:39 PM

ArmoredDov_D9 I was gonna say the same thing lol. You gotta give credit to those Israelis though man, they dont give up. The first week of the war they were literally getting thier asses handed to them but with some foreign equipment help and thier will to fight they pulled it off.

aktarian

10-08-2003, 05:03 AM

UoUo

10-08-2003, 08:02 AM

Ichhabe

10-08-2003, 08:21 AM

If my house start to burn, there is one item I surely would bring in to safety: Israeli Defence Forces The Six Day War. (that is a book :D )

aktarian

10-08-2003, 10:14 AM

He219

10-08-2003, 11:05 AM

http://photo.worldnews.com/PhotoArchive//uploaded/uploaded-36671_large.jpg
:P

UoUo

10-08-2003, 11:30 AM

Belive me that peace was the goal of israel...

So that's why they rejected 1971 Sadat's peace offer....

Just cheack the protocol from the meeting of arab's countries after 67.

Truckload of peace offers from all sides, Egypt, Jordan, PLO, Saudi Arabia. Rejected by Israel out of hand.

Cuz it was in't so simple like you put it.

Truckload of peace ? bull**** !!

No for jewish state ! no for israel !

That what the protocl said.

aktarian

10-08-2003, 11:52 AM

Cuz it was in't so simple like you put it.

Truckload of peace ? bull**** !!

No for jewish state ! no for israel !

That what the protocl said.

In 1971 Sadat amde peace offer to Israel which included same provisions that were included in Camp David and was in some ways more favourable to Israel than that one. In 1970s, up to 1978 invasion and even up to 1982 one there were numerous proposal that included recognition and such. All were rejected by Israel and US. Check your data. Of course, you'll have to dig a bit as US and Israel refuses to acknowledge them as it would show who is in rejectionist camp and who isn'twasn't.

IDFM203

10-08-2003, 12:59 PM

To aktarian

Before I get started I am just curious to know if you are an avid Noam chumsky fan and reader?!? For you clearly sound like one…

I am also curious, Are you Iranian or Muslim for that matter?!? I say that because I saw you in another thread where you were commenting on an Iranian picture and pointing out what branch of the military they were.

I would love there to be another Muslim on the board besides the only one we have (whose screen name is “one”) I mean up to now we have the Europeans and some Canadians taking up the Palestinians side. I always said that I would respect much more an opinion from someone from the Arab or Muslim world then any European or Canadian that hasn’t experienced this conflict first hand except for what he watched on some biased TV program or read somewhere.

Truckload of peace offers from all sides, Egypt, Jordan, PLO, Saudi Arabia. Rejected by Israel out of hand.

This statement of yours is a complete lie and fabrication. There were no truckloads of anything being offered to Israel

For what happened was In 1967, following the victorious Six-Day War, another war that had been imposed on Israel by the Arabs, Israel assumed the administration of Judea/Samaria and Gaza, and united the liberated city of Jerusalem as the nation's capital. Israel's intent, declared and repeated over and over, was to return most of these territories to Arab control, as part of a comprehensive peace treaty. But in the Arab League Khartoum(in the Sudan) conference, immediately following the war, the Arabs pronounced their "three inalterable no's": no recognition, no negotiation, and no peace with Israel. The purpose of the Arabs to "wipe Israel off the map" was re-asserted. It has never been recanted.
So in summary there was no one to even talk to, to even offer up anything for the Arabs refused to even listen or recognise Israel in the first place.

So that's why they rejected 1971 Sadat's peace offer.... .

Well lets first examine the events surrounding that “offer”.

After years of open hostility, whereas most of the Arab population in the Muslim world refused to even recognise Israel (that’s is still like that today), of course an offer would be viewed with considerable suspicion on Israel’s part and rightfully so.

Now besides the general suspicion, right before that "offer", Egypt and Israel had just signed a cease-fire to end the bloody war of attrition that followed the 1967 war. This is what happened. In the summer of 1970, the United States persuaded Israel and Egypt to accept a cease-fire. This cease-fire was designed to lead to negotiations under UN auspices. Israel declared that it would accept the principle of withdrawal from territories it had captured.
But on August 7, the Soviets and Egyptians deployed sophisticated ground-to-air SAM-2 and SAM-3 missiles in the restricted 32-mile-deep zone along the west bank of the Suez Canal. This was a clear violation of the cease-fire agreement, which barred the introduction or construction of any military installations in this area.
Time magazine observed that U.S. reconnaissance "showed that the 36 SAM-2 missiles sneaked into the cease-fire zone constitute only the first line of the most massive anti-aircraft system ever created."
Defense Department satellite photos demonstrated conclusively that 63 SAM-2 sites were installed in a 78-mile band between the cities of Ismailia and Suez. Three years later, these missiles provided air coverage for Egypt's surprise attack against Israel

So basically heading into 1971 there was already clear trickery on Egypt’s part that clearly showed their real intentions.

Now despite all this Israel was still willing to go forward but it soon become quickly clear in sadat’s language of that “offer” that he really wasn’t interested in any true peace for he only sent his “offer to UN special envoy Gunner Jerring and The crucial sentences about a "peace agreement with Israel" were neither published nor broadcast in Egypt. Moreover, Egypt refused to enter direct talks with the Jewish State. Israel attempted to at least transform the struggling Jarring mission (the UN envoy) into indirect talks by addressing all letters not to Jarring, but to the Egyptian government. Egypt refused to accept them

Now refusing to talk and listen (as we see egypt did) to the party that you are supposedly interested in peace in, is a clear sign that you are really not interested in any true peace!!

Saranof

10-08-2003, 01:00 PM

citizen-k

10-08-2003, 01:24 PM

Egyptian goal was to get Sinai back and make peace treaty with Israel. Last time I checked they achieved both. Shows you the importance of winning peace, not just war. Something certain countries still don't understand.

Belive me that peace was the goal of israel...

Just cheack the protocol from the meeting of arab's countries after 67.

Yes, thats why you started a war to take more territory! For peace!

Which war was it? 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1981 or 2000?

The lands which were "taken" in 1967 were actually returned after they were taken in 1948 - but since when does blind hatred care about facts?

S'13

10-08-2003, 01:27 PM

Yes, thats why you started a war to take more territory! For peace!

The Six Day War was waged over Israels existence, not over the expansion of it's borders. On May 17 1967, Nasser took the first concrete steps towards war. He demanded that the U.N.E.F. evacuate the Sinai Peninsula, a request which UN Secretary-General U Thant immediately complied with, surprising Israel. Nasser's re-militarization of the Sinai was followed by an even more audacious move; on May 23, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, blockading the Israeli port of Eilat at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba, in violation of international agreements regarding freedom of the seas. Overnight, Nasser had become the hero of the Arab world; he had vindicated Arab pride by standing up to the hated Israelis and defying the UN, erasing the "last traces of aggression" from the 1956 war. Almost overnight, the always tense Middle East had slid from a relatively stable status quo to the brink of regional war.

In spite of the will of Jordan's King Hussein, who felt that Nasser's pan-Arabism was threatening his rule, it had numerous supporters in Jordan, and May 30 saw Egypt and Jordan signing a mutual defense treaty. Several days later, Jordanian forces were given to the command of an Egyptian general. Israel called upon Jordan numerous times to refrain from hostilities. However, King Hussein was caught on the horns of a galling dilemma: Allow Jordan to be dragged into war, and face the brunt of the Israeli response; or remain neutral, and risk full-scale insurrection among his own population and the invasion of Jordan by its vengeful Arab neighbors.

Israel's own sense of concern regarding Jordan's future role originated in Jordanian control of West Bank. This put Arab forces just 17 kilometers from Israel's coast, a jump-off point from which a well co-ordinated tank assault could slice Israel in two parts within half an hour. While the small size of Jordan's army meant that Jordan was probably incapable of executing such a manoeuvre, the country had a long history of being used by other Arab states as staging grounds for operations against Israel; thus, attack from the West Bank was always viewed by the Israeli leadership as a severe threat to Israel's existence. In addition, the loss of Jerusalem's holy sites and the subsequent prohibition of Jewish access to them were Israel's most painful moments of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Israel watched these developments with alarm, and tried various diplomatic routes to try settling them. The U.S. and U.K. were asked to open the Tiran straits, as they guaranteed they would in 1957. Jordan was asked through numerous channels to refrain, weeks before the war and even after they began hostilities against Israel on the first day of the war. All Israeli requests for peace were left unanswered, creating a feeling of grave concern for the future of the country. The feeling of ein brera ("no choice"), prevailed. The unbearable stand-off, moreover, could not last long, as every day that Israel's citizen army remained fully mobilized brought that country closer to complete economic breakdown. Nasser's move had made war inevitable; indeed, closing the Straits met the international criteria for an act of war. The only question that remained was who would strike first -- and Israeli military doctrine demanded that the tiny country's battles take place on the soil of its enemies. On June 3 the American administration gave its blessing to an operation against Egypt.

aktarian

10-08-2003, 01:42 PM

To aktarian

Before I get started I am just curious to know if you are an avid Noam chumsky fan and reader?!? For you clearly sound like one…

Yes.

I am also curious, Are you Iranian or Muslim for that matter?!? I say that because I saw you in another thread where you were commenting on an Iranian picture and pointing out what branch of the military they were.

No to either but I recognise their badges. Actually I have one like that at home.

I would love there to be another Muslim on the board besides the only one we have (whose screen name is “one”) I mean up to now we have the Europeans and some Canadians taking up the Palestinians side. I always said that I would respect much more an opinion from someone from the Arab or Muslim world then any European or Canadian that hasn’t experienced this conflict first hand except for what he watched on some biased TV program or read somewhere.

Just out of curiosity (and no offence) but would you respect and pro-Israeli position if it came from non-Israeli?

This statement of yours is a complete lie and fabrication. There were no truckloads of anything being offered to Israel

Sadat's peace offer, February 1971
1976 UNSC resolution backed by "rejectionists" (blocked by US)
1977 PLO offer for two state solution
1981 Saudi peace plan

citizen-k

10-08-2003, 01:56 PM

Sadat's peace offer, February 1971
1976 UNSC resolution backed by "rejectionists" (blocked by US)
1977 PLO offer for two state solution
1981 Saudi peace plan

The only serious offer is the first one, all the rest are aktar-bull**** and I think you know it... ;)

aktarian

10-08-2003, 02:00 PM

The only serious offer is the first one, all the rest are aktar-bull**** and I think you know it... ;)

Irrelevant? Sure, because to work both sides have to agree to it.
BS? No.

UoUo

10-08-2003, 03:19 PM

IDFM203

10-08-2003, 04:30 PM

quote="idfm203"To aktarian

Before I get started I am just curious to know if you are an avid Noam chumsky fan and reader?!? For you clearly sound like one…

Yes. … thanks for confirming that

Chumsky is like belief system (actually HIS belief system) and a religion for that matter; I mean you can spot his followers a mile away (as I did here with you).

I would love there to be another Muslim on the board besides the only one we have (whose screen name is “one”) I mean up to now we have the Europeans and some Canadians taking up the Palestinians side. I always said that I would respect much more an opinion from someone from the Arab or Muslim world then any European or Canadian that hasn’t experienced this conflict first hand except for what he watched on some biased TV program or read somewhere.

Just out of curiosity (and no offence) but would you respect and pro-Israeli position if it came from non-Israeli? .
No offence taken….oh and yes I would

Listen I didnt say that I didn’t respect an European or Canadian opinion (for i do in most cases), go read what I wrote, I said that I would just have more respect for an Arab or Muslim opinion for at least they have experienced the conflict first hand where the Canadians and the Europeans have not

I think it is common sense to respect an opinion more when it is coming from someone who has experienced the subject first hand then someone who has not!!!

This statement of yours is a complete lie and fabrication. There were no truckloads of anything being offered to Israel

Sadat's peace offer, February 1971
1976 UNSC resolution backed by "rejectionists" (blocked by US)
1977 PLO offer for two state solution
1981 Saudi peace plan first of all I was calling a lie to your truckloads statement that you said in direct response to the 1967 war. “UoUo had said “Just cheack the protocol from the meeting of arab's countries after 67” and you responded directly to that with your truckloads comment

So I was only referring to they’re not being any offering immediately after the 1967 war.

Oh and four offers (well empty ones at that) is not any truckloads by any stretch of the imagination

Now as for the supposed later “offers”……….

sadat's peace offer, February 1971 go read what I wrote before at length about this non-offer.

Simply making an empty “offer” to a UN envoy without willing to even listen to Israel or talking directly to it is not any real and true “offer” at all.

1976 UNSC resolution backed by "rejectionists" first of all, the rejectionists label is clearly on the Arab side. Notice here all I am doing is responding to your supposed offers. I could easily put down a whole long list that highlights the numerous rejections by the arbs from israel. That list would trump big time this short list of non offers.

Now as for the 1976 UNSC. Well the U.S. rejected it for at the time it was officially recognised that the PLO was a terrorists organisation (well still are to this day) and that there was no democratic elections and that resolution called for a Palestinian state and the this was all without the PLO recognising Israel (well the UN wanted them to but that wasn’t happening) and the U.S. didn’t feel that a terrorists state (for it was clear that the PLO were not going to recognise Israel and that it was still going to carry out attacks just like what we saw during the Oslo process) is the way to any peace. No, first the Palestinians have to stop targeting and killing innocent people and then recognise Israel and then negotiations can begin as they did for Oslo.

The same can be said for the 1977”offer”

Oh lets get something clear. This offer in 1977 was not any official offer or anything like that. No, it was done by one or two Palestinians that spoke to some Israeli lefties and that was it. Clearly at the time (and even now) most of the Palestinian population were not willing to live in peace with Israel but instead wanted to see the whole Israel removed of any Jews. This was clear through their actions on the ground. These mere words by a couple of Palestinians, is not any indication of any real peace when there are Palestinians targeting innocent civilians and when most or a lot of the population doesn’t or will not recognise Israel or its right to exist.

1981 Saudi peace plan no, their peace “offerings” have the same sincerity of Hitler’s peace offerings.

No the simple fact is that every ten years or so, when relations with the United State deteriorate, they trot out a Middle East peace plan In return, they are lavished with praise and financial assistance. In fact soon after that ‘offer”, the U.S. sold the Saudis AWAC radar planes which Israel had clearly objected to. But after this offer, the U.S. reversed their opposition. Gee they really did made that "offer" for peace rofl rofl

I mean nowhere in that plan did they explicitly recognise Israel, you cant make peace with someone if you don’t recognise them in the first place.

Now I admit debating you is going to be a challenge. Like I said before, chumsky is like a religion and people that believe firmly in their religion no matter if it is not based on any real facts, cannot no matter what be convinced other wise. When you are dealing with purly on faith, the faith overrides any common sense or any real attention to the actual historical facts.

Shalom :D

aktarian

10-08-2003, 06:13 PM

thanks for confirming that

Chumsky is like belief system (actually HIS belief system) and a religion for that matter; I mean you can spot his followers a mile away (as I did here with you).

I don't believe he is correct all the time. He made several big mistakes.

No offence taken….oh and yes I would

Listen I didnt say that I didn’t respect an European or Canadian opinion (for i do in most cases), go read what I wrote, I said that I would just have more respect for an Arab or Muslim opinion for at least they have experienced the conflict first hand where the Canadians and the Europeans have not

I think it is common sense to respect an opinion more when it is coming from someone who has experienced the subject first hand then someone who has not!!!

OK, I see what you are saying.

This statement of yours is a complete lie and fabrication. There were no truckloads of anything being offered to Israel

Sadat's peace offer, February 1971
1976 UNSC resolution backed by "rejectionists" (blocked by US)
1977 PLO offer for two state solution
1981 Saudi peace plan

first of all I was calling a lie to your truckloads statement that you said in direct response to the 1967 war. “UoUo had said “Just cheack the protocol from the meeting of arab's countries after 67” and you responded directly to that with your truckloads comment

So I was only referring to they’re not being any offering immediately after the 1967 war.

Egypt changed president. I think that goes long way to explain why there were no offers prior to 1971.

Oh and four offers (well empty ones at that) is not any truckloads by any stretch of the imagination

1976 proposal to US senators (by Sadat) for peace treaty
In 1977 Egypt, Jordan and Syria informed US they wil sign peace treaties with ISrael as part of broad ME peace process (Israel rejected above mentioned offer as it wasn't linked to other Arab states signing it)
In october 1977 PLO agreed to SU-US declaration to termination of war and establishment of recognised and guaranteed borders
In February 1982 Saudi state radio twice called for negotiations with Israel
In January 1983 Iraqi press agency released stateemnt of saddam Hussein to US congresman in which he (Hussein) recognised Israel's need for security

That's 9 offers. I'm sure I could dig up some more, plus several PLO statements in same spirit. Were they empty? We'll never know as they were rejected out of hand by Israel and to some extent US.

Now as for the supposed later “offers”……….

sadat's peace offer, February 1971 go read what I wrote before at length about this non-offer.

Simply making an empty “offer” to a UN envoy without willing to even listen to Israel or talking directly to it is not any real and true “offer” at all.

Interesting how Israel complains about Egypt violating cease fire, when prior and after this time period Israel violated numerous cease-fires.

Main reason why offer was rejected was that it would require Israel to return to pre-1967 borders, soemething that ran contrary to colonisation, I mean settlement of WB (Allon plan anybody?).

1976 UNSC resolution backed by "rejectionists" first of all, the rejectionists label is clearly on the Arab side. Notice here all I am doing is responding to your supposed offers. I could easily put down a whole long list that highlights the numerous rejections by the arbs from israel. That list would trump big time this short list of non offers.

By "rejectionists" I ment states that are usually refered to as such (in this case Egypt, Syria, Jordan, PLO and SU)

Now as for the 1976 UNSC. Well the U.S. rejected it for at the time it was officially recognised that the PLO was a terrorists organisation

Several creators of Israel were terrorists too. Just ask Brits. It didn't stop US (or others) from negotiating with them.

(well still are to this day) and that there was no democratic elections

So? US (and Israel) had no troubles dealing with other regimes/organisations who weren't democratically elected

and that resolution called for a Palestinian state

Two state solution is supposed to be Israeli goal to...

and the this was all without the PLO recognising Israel

And when did Israel planned to recognise any organisation as representative for Palestinians?

(well the UN wanted them to but that wasn’t happening) and the U.S. didn’t feel that a terrorists state (for it was clear that the PLO were not going to recognise Israel and that it was still going to carry out attacks just like what we saw during the Oslo process) is the way to any peace. No, first the Palestinians have to stop targeting and killing innocent people and then recognise Israel and then negotiations can begin as they did for Oslo.

For somebody so hell-bent to get PLO to recognise it I saw very little in way of recognition running the opposite way.

BTW, did Great Britain recognise US' "right to exist" before they started negotiations? Or Russia of Chechnya? etc

The same can be said for the 1977”offer”

Oh lets get something clear. This offer in 1977 was not any official offer or anything like that. No, it was done by one or two Palestinians that spoke to some Israeli lefties and that was it. Clearly at the time (and even now) most of the Palestinian population were not willing to live in peace with Israel but instead wanted to see the whole Israel removed of any Jews. This was clear through their actions on the ground. These mere words by a couple of Palestinians, is not any indication of any real peace when there are Palestinians targeting innocent civilians and when most or a lot of the population doesn’t or will not recognise Israel or its right to exist.

Actually it was Palestinian national council, PLO governing body that called for creation of state in Palestine (not of).

1981 Saudi peace plan

no, their peace “offerings” have the same sincerity of Hitler’s peace offerings.

No the simple fact is that every ten years or so, when relations with the United State deteriorate, they trot out a Middle East peace plan In return, they are lavished with praise and financial assistance. In fact soon after that ‘offer”, the U.S. sold the Saudis AWAC radar planes which Israel had clearly objected to. But after this offer, the U.S. reversed their opposition. Gee they really did made that "offer" for peace rofl rofl

Those AWACS and F-15s were reward for support for Afghan mujahedeen (don't know if Saudis said they'll match US aid dollar for dollar or it was other way around) and help to bolster their defences in case IRIAF tried anything "cute". Most of the time both AWACS and F-15s were staffed by US personell (including that tiem when F-15s shot down IRIAF F-4)

And you said it was sold despite Israeli objections. US often claims it can't be bound by outside pressures (UN charter, ICC...). Why were they allowed to be pressured by Israelis? I thought US sales were determined in Washington, not Tel Aviv.

I mean nowhere in that plan did they explicitly recognise Israel, you cant make peace with someone if you don’t recognise them in the first place.

It was plan. "You give, we give. You withdraw we recognise you." It doesn't go "We recognise we negotiate withrawal."

Now I admit debating you is going to be a challenge. Like I said before, chumsky is like a religion and people that believe firmly in their religion no matter if it is not based on any real facts, cannot no matter what be convinced other wise. When you are dealing with purly on faith, the faith overrides any common sense or any real attention to the actual historical facts.Shalom :D

As I said I don't follow Chomsky blindly. I said he made several mistakes. However I use him more as something to shape my opinions and some background, not something that makes my opinions.

IDFM203

10-08-2003, 07:26 PM

Egypt changed president. I think that goes long way to explain why there were no offers prior to 1971. what does that have to do with anything?!? Egypt’s actions on the ground didn’t change one bit.

Oh and again that 1971 “offer” was not any real offer at all, as I have explained before.

1976 proposal to US senators (by Sadat) for peace treaty
In 1977 Egypt, Jordan and Syria informed US they wil sign peace treaties with ISrael as part of broad ME peace process (Israel rejected above mentioned offer as it wasn't linked to other Arab states signing it)
In october 1977 PLO agreed to SU-US declaration to termination of war and establishment of recognised and guaranteed borders
In February 1982 Saudi state radio twice called for negotiations with Israel
In January 1983 Iraqi press agency released stateemnt of saddam Hussein to US congresman in which he (Hussein) recognised Israel's need for security

That's 9 offers.
First of all the 1976 “offer” never got to Israel to even reject in the first place. I already went into it (why the U.S had problems with it) but again it never even got to Israel to reject in the first place.

The 1977 “offer” was rejected because Israel did not trust Syria and it didnt want to give up that strategic heights (the Golan) that could seriously endanger its security (as they were doing for years prier to 1967, with the constant shelling of Israeli towns)…you can believe Syria all you want, I don’t. Nor should Israel. (I guess chumsky taught you to believe Syria at their word……well I don’t)

I am not willing to sacrifice Israel simply on a belief that Syria really wants to live in peace with Israel when they have clearly shown over the years that they don’t.

With Saudi Arabia. First of all, I seriously doubt that Saudi Arabia radio publicly called for negotiations with Israel. I would like to see a credible link where it has been documented that Saudi Arabians heard this in Arabic on the radio.

Secondly two alleged things on the radio hardly make up for the years of open incitement and absolute refusal to even recognise Israel or its right to exist.

Now as for this gem of a statement “In January 1983 Iraqi press agency released stateemnt of saddam Hussein to US congresman in which he (Hussein) recognised Israel's need for security” I don’t think I am even going to offer up a response other then to say the chumsky religion lives strongly in you. Oh and Iraqi press.. the londen times of honstey of iraq. rofl rofl

Oh and if he did say that (highly unlikely after just two years when Israel bombed and destroyed his nuclear facilities) it is obvious that it was just to curry favour from the U.S. in order to get more arms from the U.S. oh and that is hardly an offer anyways.

We'll never know as they were rejected out of hand by Israel and to some extent US. no heres what you have to understand.

Besides most Israelis understanding the politics behind these few proposals by very few people (where in most cases it was to get money or aid from the west), most Israeli’s know that none of it is backed up by any majority of any Arab population. Most of the Arab world does not want to ever recognise Israel and its right to exist. Of course some governments have done so for the sake of U.S. money and arms (Like Egypt and Jordan) most of those Arab populations carry on as if there is no peace agreement signed.

Oh and the killings continue. I mean the Palestinians have not ever stopped targeting innocent civilians.

Mere words mean absolutely nothing to me. The targeting and killings of innocent civilians over the years and the clear support for that amongst most Arabs speaks louder to me then mere words by a few dictators or a few Palestinian official.

For it is clear that their few utterances in English only, are not really representative of what most of the Arab world wants or feels.

Interesting how Israel complains about Egypt violating cease fire, when prior and after this time period Israel violated numerous cease-fires. I call bull**** on that. Israel in most cases was always responding. You show me conclusively in those years where Israel broke a case fire.

Main reason why offer was rejected was that it would require Israel to return to pre-1967 borders, soemething that ran contrary to colonisation, I mean settlement of WB if Israel was into colonisation it could have taken over the whole middle east and it certainly would never have given back the Sinai to Egypt.

Secondly it keeps the west back for it has no choice. The fact is that a lot of Palestinians want to see the whole Israel destroyed and giving back the west bank and gaze doesn’t salve anything for it all it does is bring them closer geographically to finishing their goals.

Now as for the 1976 UNSC. Well the U.S. rejected it for at the time it was officially recognised that the PLO was a terrorists organisation

Several creators of Israel were terrorists too. Just ask Brits. It didn't stop US (or others) from negotiating with them. heres the difference. Those “terrorists” by Israel were not supported by most Jews whereas the ones from the Palestinians are supported by a majority of the population.

Secondly Arafat did not reject terrorism (at the time..oh and only recently did he do that when during Oslo but we see how empty that rejection was) whereas those few Jewish leaders had. Oh and they never targeted innocent civilians.

and that resolution called for a Palestinian state

Two state solution is supposed to be Israeli goal to... no its not. Israel’s sole goal is to live in peace, now if a two state solution can do that, great! so far it is hard to see how that will bring any peace.

and the this was all without the PLO recognising Israel

And when did Israel planned to recognise any organisation as representative for Palestinians? it did recognise, it recognised that the PLO was a terrorist organisation who targeted innocent civilians.

Now I personally agree that the PLO is a representative of the Palestinian people as I also believe as such a lot of the Palestinian people want to see the whole Israel destroyed and don’t recognise Israel’s right to exist. as the PLO has made clear to (in Arabic to its own people)

For somebody so hell-bent to get PLO to recognise it I saw very little in way of recognition running the opposite way. no, I am hell bent on making peace with someone that recognises you in the first place. Israel recognised the plo, yes we recognised them as a group that is not really interested in peace. Yes recognition was clear.

You simply cant make peace with someone who doesn’t really recognise your right to exist.

Israel recognises their right to exist but only ones that want to live peacefully, it does not recognise ones that want to see it dead.

And you said it was sold despite Israeli objections. US often claims it can't be bound by outside pressures (UN charter, ICC...). Why were they allowed to be pressured by Israelis? I thought US sales were determined in Washington, not Tel Aviv. No the U.S. is not bound by anyone but at times (like here) they recognised Israel’s precarious security situation and they try to listen to what Israel as an ally has to say regarding its security. Saudi Arabia has made it clear that it is a sworn enemy of Israel and as such it becoming more powerful represents a threat to Israel. the U.S. recognised that. Now that is all before that bull**** “offer” which really just served as an excuse for the arabist state department (which is in charge of military handouts) to do what it always wanted to do in the first place. It just need a stance from Saudi Arabia so it can soften up the political climate.

I

It was plan. "You give, we give. I am really perplexed as to what Israel gets in return…. I mean besides the token English pronunciations, what does israel get back?!? Yeah I would like to know?!?

You withdraw we recognise you." Israel has done so and all it has gotten back is now killing and death.

We can argue all day how much this and how much that, the bottom line is that Israel did withdraw and the Palestinians at one point had almost full control of their lives and yet they still persisted in the targeting and killing of innocents and in fact it even increased.

I am still perplexed as to what Israel ever got in the past ten years besides an illusion.

It doesn't go "We recognise we negotiate withrawal." no, there is nothing of any withdrawal before a country doesn’t even recognise it. It is simply ridicules to ask a country to withdraw to suicidal borders (if the process fails) before the country even recognizes you. That’s simply absurd.

As I said I don't follow Chomsky blindly. I said he made several mistakes. However I use him more as something to shape my opinions and some background, not something that makes my opinions. I find it hard to believe that you really believe that he makes mistakes. In fact I would be curious to hear some of these mistakes that you disagree with him on.

aktarian

10-09-2003, 06:04 AM

Egypt changed president. I think that goes long way to explain why there were no offers prior to 1971. what does that have to do with anything?!? Egypt’s actions on the ground didn’t change one bit.

Oh and again that 1971 “offer” was not any real offer at all, as I have explained before.

Yes, it called for ISrael withdrawal. That is reason to reject it out of hand.

1976 proposal to US senators (by Sadat) for peace treaty
In 1977 Egypt, Jordan and Syria informed US they wil sign peace treaties with ISrael as part of broad ME peace process (Israel rejected above mentioned offer as it wasn't linked to other Arab states signing it)
In october 1977 PLO agreed to SU-US declaration to termination of war and establishment of recognised and guaranteed borders
In February 1982 Saudi state radio twice called for negotiations with Israel
In January 1983 Iraqi press agency released stateemnt of saddam Hussein to US congresman in which he (Hussein) recognised Israel's need for security

That's 9 offers.
First of all the 1976 “offer” never got to Israel to even reject in the first place. I already went into it (why the U.S had problems with it) but again it never even got to Israel to reject in the first place.

The 1977 “offer” was rejected because Israel did not trust Syria and it didnt want to give up that strategic heights (the Golan) that could seriously endanger its security (as they were doing for years prier to 1967, with the constant shelling of Israeli towns)…you can believe Syria all you want, I don’t. Nor should Israel. (I guess chumsky taught you to believe Syria at their word……well I don’t)

So Israel keeps Golan, WB, water and refugees stay out without compensation. Exactlly what do Arabs get?

I am not willing to sacrifice Israel simply on a belief that Syria really wants to live in peace with Israel when they have clearly shown over the years that they don’t.

With Saudi Arabia. First of all, I seriously doubt that Saudi Arabia radio publicly called for negotiations with Israel. I would like to see a credible link where it has been documented that Saudi Arabians heard this in Arabic on the radio.

Secondly two alleged things on the radio hardly make up for the years of open incitement and absolute refusal to even recognise Israel or its right to exist.

N. Chomsky, Fatefull Triangle, South End Press, 1999, p 76

Now as for this gem of a statement “In January 1983 Iraqi press agency released stateemnt of saddam Hussein to US congresman in which he (Hussein) recognised Israel's need for security” I don’t think I am even going to offer up a response other then to say the chumsky religion lives strongly in you. Oh and Iraqi press.. the londen times of honstey of iraq. rofl rofl

Yes, they often run stories that are contrary to officila policy of that state :roll:

Oh and if he did say that (highly unlikely after just two years when Israel bombed and destroyed his nuclear facilities) it is obvious that it was just to curry favour from the U.S. in order to get more arms from the U.S. oh and that is hardly an offer anyways.

Rejection of any peace proposal on grounds it's "fake" it's time honored tradition of Israel.

We'll never know as they were rejected out of hand by Israel and to some extent US. no heres what you have to understand.

Besides most Israelis understanding the politics behind these few proposals by very few people (where in most cases it was to get money or aid from the west), most Israeli’s know that none of it is backed up by any majority of any Arab population. Most of the Arab world does not want to ever recognise Israel and its right to exist. Of course some governments have done so for the sake of U.S. money and arms (Like Egypt and Jordan) most of those Arab populations carry on as if there is no peace agreement signed.

Israel had no troubles signing peace with Egypt, despite the fact that there was opposition in Egypt. Of course, then it was in Israel's interest to make peace.

Oh and the killings continue. I mean the Palestinians have not ever stopped targeting innocent civilians.

Mere words mean absolutely nothing to me. The targeting and killings of innocent civilians over the years and the clear support for that amongst most Arabs speaks louder to me then mere words by a few dictators or a few Palestinian official.

For it is clear that their few utterances in English only, are not really representative of what most of the Arab world wants or feels.

Replace killings with new settlements and you see what Palestininas see.

Interesting how Israel complains about Egypt violating cease fire, when prior and after this time period Israel violated numerous cease-fires. I call bull**** on that. Israel in most cases was always responding. You show me conclusively in those years where Israel broke a case fire.

Incursions in demilitarised zones prior to 1967 war, numerous violations of cease fires regarding Lebanon...

Main reason why offer was rejected was that it would require Israel to return to pre-1967 borders, soemething that ran contrary to colonisation, I mean settlement of WB if Israel was into colonisation it could have taken over the whole middle east and it certainly would never have given back the Sinai to Egypt.

Israel can't keep entire ME down, they can keep WB and GS down.

Secondly it keeps the west back for it has no choice. The fact is that a lot of Palestinians want to see the whole Israel destroyed and giving back the west bank and gaze doesn’t salve anything for it all it does is bring them closer geographically to finishing their goals.

It keeps WB because that land is most suitable for colonisation and is less populated than GS.

Now as for the 1976 UNSC. Well the U.S. rejected it for at the time it was officially recognised that the PLO was a terrorists organisation

Several creators of Israel were terrorists too. Just ask Brits. It didn't stop US (or others) from negotiating with them. heres the difference. Those “terrorists” by Israel were not supported by most Jews whereas the ones from the Palestinians are supported by a majority of the population.

Several of them held high positions in ISraeli gov't. I guess Israelis had no troubles with their terrorist past.

Secondly Arafat did not reject terrorism (at the time..oh and only recently did he do that when during Oslo but we see how empty that rejection was) whereas those few Jewish leaders had. Oh and they never targeted innocent civilians.

They rejected terrorism in such way that IDF continued their practices.

Didn't target civilians? Deir Yassin? Qibya?

and that resolution called for a Palestinian state

Two state solution is supposed to be Israeli goal to...
no its not. Israel’s sole goal is to live in peace, now if a two state solution can do that, great! so far it is hard to see how that will bring any peace.

Peace of the conqueror more likelly and keeping Palestininas without rights.

and the this was all without the PLO recognising Israel

And when did Israel planned to recognise any organisation as representative for Palestinians? it did recognise, it recognised that the PLO was a terrorist organisation who targeted innocent civilians.

Now I personally agree that the PLO is a representative of the Palestinian people as I also believe as such a lot of the Palestinian people want to see the whole Israel destroyed and don’t recognise Israel’s right to exist. as the PLO has made clear to (in Arabic to its own people)

Did Israel say they will recognise other organisation as representative if they are not terrorists? No, they refused to engotiate with Palestinians on principle.

For somebody so hell-bent to get PLO to recognise it I saw very little in way of recognition running the opposite way. no, I am hell bent on making peace with someone that recognises you in the first place. Israel recognised the plo, yes we recognised them as a group that is not really interested in peace. Yes recognition was clear.

And refused to negotiate with Palestinians. sOunds like they are recognising Palestinin right to exist. :roll:

You simply cant make peace with someone who doesn’t really recognise your right to exist.

Israel recognises their right to exist but only ones that want to live peacefully, it does not recognise ones that want to see it dead.

Then Arabs/Palestininas should negotiate with any Israeli who advocates colonisation of WB or confiscation of Palestinian land.

And you said it was sold despite Israeli objections. US often claims it can't be bound by outside pressures (UN charter, ICC...). Why were they allowed to be pressured by Israelis? I thought US sales were determined in Washington, not Tel Aviv. No the U.S. is not bound by anyone but at times (like here) they recognised Israel’s precarious security situation and they try to listen to what Israel as an ally has to say regarding its security. Saudi Arabia has made it clear that it is a sworn enemy of Israel and as such it becoming more powerful represents a threat to Israel. the U.S. recognised that. Now that is all before that bull**** “offer” which really just served as an excuse for the arabist state department (which is in charge of military handouts) to do what it always wanted to do in the first place. It just need a stance from Saudi Arabia so it can soften up the political climate.

Precasroius situation my arse. Israel just wants neighbours to be weak (heaven forbid Isreal would slip form 10 times stronger to 9 times stronger).

I

It was plan. "You give, we give. I am really perplexed as to what Israel gets in return…. I mean besides the token English pronunciations, what does israel get back?!? Yeah I would like to know?!?

they would get recognision, secure borders. But it would require them to give back land.

You withdraw we recognise you." Israel has done so and all it has gotten back is now killing and death.

We can argue all day how much this and how much that, the bottom line is that Israel did withdraw and the Palestinians at one point had almost full control of their lives and yet they still persisted in the targeting and killing of innocents and in fact it even increased.

I am still perplexed as to what Israel ever got in the past ten years besides an illusion.

Both sides violated Oslo treaty. Palestinin violations are condemned. Israeli are not.

It doesn't go "We recognise we negotiate withrawal." no, there is nothing of any withdrawal before a country doesn’t even recognise it. It is simply ridicules to ask a country to withdraw to suicidal borders (if the process fails) before the country even recognizes you. That’s simply absurd.

So Arabs are supposed to recognise Israel, assimilate refugees and them ISrael will negotiate about withdrawal. Right. :roll:

As I said I don't follow Chomsky blindly. I said he made several mistakes. However I use him more as something to shape my opinions and some background, not something that makes my opinions. I find it hard to believe that you really believe that he makes mistakes. In fact I would be curious to hear some of these mistakes that you disagree with him on.

Tyre blast still atributed to gas elak, no mention of Marine/FL bombings, several predictions turned wrong.

ArmoredDov_D9

10-09-2003, 08:11 AM

I am not willing to sacrifice Israel simply on a belief that Syria really wants to live in peace with Israel when they have clearly shown over the years that they don’t.

With Saudi Arabia. First of all, I seriously doubt that Saudi Arabia radio publicly called for negotiations with Israel. I would like to see a credible link where it has been documented that Saudi Arabians heard this in Arabic on the radio.

Secondly two alleged things on the radio hardly make up for the years of open incitement and absolute refusal to even recognise Israel or its right to exist.

N. Chomsky, Fatefull Triangle, South End Press, 1999, p 76

The Saudi "peace" plan includs the immigration of millions of Palestinians into Israel, what which is known as"al-Awda", and everyone knows that floding Israel with Palestinians will bring to its destruction. It is hard to call such a plan a "peace plan".

As for Chomsky, the guy is antisemite and anti-Israeli , so don't count on him. He is expert in liguinstigs, not in politics and stathood, nor history.

Israel had no troubles signing peace with Egypt, despite the fact that there was opposition in Egypt. Of course, then it was in Israel's interest to make peace.

Oh and the killings continue. I mean the Palestinians have not ever stopped targeting innocent civilians.

Mere words mean absolutely nothing to me. The targeting and killings of innocent civilians over the years and the clear support for that amongst most Arabs speaks louder to me then mere words by a few dictators or a few Palestinian official.

For it is clear that their few utterances in English only, are not really representative of what most of the Arab world wants or feels.

Replace killings with new settlements and you see what Palestininas see.

Building a house would never so severe as slaughtering innocent civilians. How can you even compare?
If you are justifying the massacre in Haifa because of few houses in the middle of Shomron, then something is wrong with your moral judgement.

Now as for the 1976 UNSC. Well the U.S. rejected it for at the time it was officially recognised that the PLO was a terrorists organisation

Several creators of Israel were terrorists too. Just ask Brits. It didn't stop US (or others) from negotiating with them. heres the difference. Those “terrorists” by Israel were not supported by most Jews whereas the ones from the Palestinians are supported by a majority of the population.

Several of them held high positions in ISraeli gov't. I guess Israelis had no troubles with their terrorist past.

Secondly Arafat did not reject terrorism (at the time..oh and only recently did he do that when during Oslo but we see how empty that rejection was) whereas those few Jewish leaders had. Oh and they never targeted innocent civilians.

They rejected terrorism in such way that IDF continued their practices.

Didn't target civilians? Deir Yassin? Qibya?

When was it? It was in the 50's when Arab soldiers blend into civilian populaton and dressed as women to ambush our troops.

We are now in the 90's. Things have change since then. If the Arabs would be punished for every atrocity they have commited - their suffering was ending only after a millenium or so.

Your way of justifying Palestinian massacring Jews in Netanya, Jerusalem and Haifa because events of the long past you are no different than the antisemites who advocates the extermintion of Jews because "they killed Jesus".

Pray to your God (Allah if I'm not mistaken) that it wil not seek justice to the Arab people.

and the this was all without the PLO recognising Israel

And when did Israel planned to recognise any organisation as representative for Palestinians? it did recognise, it recognised that the PLO was a terrorist organisation who targeted innocent civilians.

Now I personally agree that the PLO is a representative of the Palestinian people as I also believe as such a lot of the Palestinian people want to see the whole Israel destroyed and don’t recognise Israel’s right to exist. as the PLO has made clear to (in Arabic to its own people)

Did Israel say they will recognise other organisation as representative if they are not terrorists? No, they refused to engotiate with Palestinians on principle.

Wrong. There was a thing in 1993 called "Oslo Accords" in which Israel recognized the PLO as the representatives of the Palestinian people. Then, Israeli believed that the PLO abandoned the way of terror.

[quote]
You withdraw we recognise you." Israel has done so and all it has gotten back is now killing and death.

We can argue all day how much this and how much that, the bottom line is that Israel did withdraw and the Palestinians at one point had almost full control of their lives and yet they still persisted in the targeting and killing of innocents and in fact it even increased.

I am still perplexed as to what Israel ever got in the past ten years besides an illusion.

Both sides violated Oslo treaty. Palestinin violations are condemned. Israeli are not.

Palestiniaans violation killed hundreds of innocent, Israeli violation didn't.

aktarian

10-09-2003, 10:25 AM

ArmoredDov_D9

10-09-2003, 11:48 AM

The Saudi "peace" plan includs the immigration of millions of Palestinians into Israel, what which is known as"al-Awda", and everyone knows that floding Israel with Palestinians will bring to its destruction. It is hard to call such a plan a "peace plan".

It's also called settlement of refugee problem. NATO fought a war to achieve this. Using your arguments one can also safelly say that immingration of Jews into Palestine was disaster for Palestinians.

But there is no Palestine. Palestinian officals told not once that the al-Awda is just a lever to the destruction of Israe. Just why many Israelis dlost faith in peace with the Arabs. The Arabs can't accept Israel existment and in their "peace" offers still trying to destroy it.

As for Chomsky, the guy is antisemite and anti-Israeli , so don't count on him. He is expert in liguinstigs, not in politics and stathood, nor history.

How typical, label critics of Israel as antisemite.

C'mon, the man is a nutcase.

Building a house would never so severe as slaughtering innocent civilians. How can you even compare?
If you are justifying the massacre in Haifa because of few houses in the middle of Shomron, then something is wrong with your moral judgement.

I'm not justifying bombings. I'm saying that Palestinians say that no matter what Israel will continue to build settlements in WB. Same as Israelis say Palestinians will continue bombings.

Palestinians got offer from Ehud Barak to evacuate almost 80% of the settlements. They rejected it because the offer didn't inculding givinh them the al-Awda. Their execuses for the terrorist bombings are not exceptable.

And still, Palestinian suicide bombing are not justified by any means.

When was it? It was in the 50's when Arab soldiers blend into civilian populaton and dressed as women to ambush our troops.[/red]

So after which time things don't matter anymore? Peopel still hunt war criminals from WW2 and that was 60 years ago.

But we ain't treating current Germans as Nazis. War criminals from WW2 are hunted on personal basis.

We are now in the 90's. Things have change since then. If the Arabs would be punished for every atrocity they have commited - their suffering was ending only after a millenium or so.

Ditto Israelis.

Wrong again. The Israelis were much more human and moral than Arabs in all the wars. Sometimes we've paid heavy price for that.

Your way of justifying Palestinian massacring Jews in Netanya, Jerusalem and Haifa because events of the long past you are no different than the antisemites who advocates the extermintion of Jews because "they killed Jesus".

As I said, when things stopped being important?

When you really truely honesyl start a new leaf and attone your previous wrongdoings.

Israel has longed changed from the 50's era and Palestnians can't keep killing in the name of old senseless hatred.

Events on the 50's do not justify what the Palestinians doing today.

Will continue later... --> continued (edit post)

[color=red]Wrong. There was a thing in 1993 called "Oslo Accords" in which Israel recognized the PLO as the representatives of the Palestinian people. Then, Israeli believed that the PLO abandoned the way of terror.

And before that they refused to engotiate with any Palestinin organisation.

We talking about the present, not about 20 years ago when the PLO commited dreadful acts of internatiol terror such as airliners hijacking and the Munich massacre. When it was seemed that the PLO stopped using terror, Israel started to negotiate with it.

Palestiniaans violation killed hundreds of innocent, Israeli violation didn't.

It took Palestinian land. Israel wanted peace for no land.

It is not moraly equivelant for deliberately targeting civilians.

You may edit your reply post and then I will answer.

aktarian

10-09-2003, 01:24 PM

But there is no Palestine.

If that is not "not recognising right to exist" I don't know what is.

Palestinian offical told not once that the al-Awda is just a lever to the destruction of Israe. Just why many Israelis dlost faith in peace with the Arabs. The Arabs can't accept Israel existment and in their "peace" offers still trying to destroy it.

Settlement of refugee issue is subject of many UN resolutions. Including one which Israel acepted to be admited into UN as a member. I can't remeber number right now.

C'mon, the man is a nutcase.

If not antisemite than critics of ISrael are crazy. How convenient.

Palestinians got offer from Ehud Barak to evacuate almost 80% of the settlements. They rejected it because the offer didn't inculding givinh them the al-Awda.

They rejected it because it didn't resolve refugee problem.

[color=red]But we ain't treating current Germans as Nazis. War criminals from WW2 are hunted on personal basis.

So if somebody involved in killing Jews would be captured and stood trial in Israel "It was long time ago" would be legitimate defence and he would be freed?

Wrong again. The Israelis were much more human and moral than Arabs in all the wars. Sometimes we've paid heavy price for that.

More humane. Right. :roll: Pelestininas didn't massecre entire villages or plaster them with arty and planes.

Will continue later...

OK

IDFM203

10-09-2003, 01:35 PM

Armered dov has done an eloquent job I am just going to answer some things that he missed out.

Oh and again that 1971 “offer” was not any real offer at all, as I have explained before.

Yes, it called for ISrael withdrawal. That is reason to reject it out of hand. . no obviously you didnt read what I wrote or you are too blind to understand what I wrote.

I will say it again. It wasn’t taken seriously when the Egyptians have just broken the cease fire before (by putting in sam’s in areas that it wasn’t supposed to which clearly showed their true intentions) and the fact that they weren’t willing to talk or listen or to even negotiate e with Israel directly about this “offer”. That is not a sign of a true and sincere offer when you are refusing to even talk to the party that you are supposedly interested in making peace.
I have said this before but you offer up your typical chumsky response. No go back and read what I wrote. It had nothing to do with Israel not wanting to give back land. Israel made it clear after 1967 that it wanted to but the Arabs had their three no’s.(as I talked about before) and refused to talk to Israel

1976 proposal to US senators (by Sadat) for peace treaty
In 1977 Egypt, Jordan and Syria informed US they wil sign peace treaties with ISrael as part of broad ME peace process (Israel rejected above mentioned offer as it wasn't linked to other Arab states signing it)
In october 1977 PLO agreed to SU-US declaration to termination of war and establishment of recognised and guaranteed borders
In February 1982 Saudi state radio twice called for negotiations with Israel
In January 1983 Iraqi press agency released stateemnt of saddam Hussein to US congresman in which he (Hussein) recognised Israel's need for security

That's 9 offers.
First of all the 1976 “offer” never got to Israel to even reject in the first place. I already went into it (why the U.S had problems with it) but again it never even got to Israel to reject in the first place.

The 1977 “offer” was rejected because Israel did not trust Syria and it didnt want to give up that strategic heights (the Golan) that could seriously endanger its security (as they were doing for years prier to 1967, with the constant shelling of Israeli towns)…you can believe Syria all you want, I don’t. Nor should Israel. (I guess chumsky taught you to believe Syria at their word……well I don’t)

So Israel keeps Golan, WB, water and refugees stay out without compensation. Exactlly what do Arabs get? ) no with Syria they don’t get back the Golan and Israel has peace with them as wee see for the past 25 years. And Israel should not give it back for that is to much of a strategic place to give back to a country that is not really interested in living in any true peace with Israel. So with Syria your right there really isn’t anything to talk about. Syria has never said that it wants peace all it says is that it wants the Golan back. It has been clear that they do not want peace with Israel other then a few token words in English which don’t fool anyone other then a “chumskynite” who takes everything Syria says at their word.

As for the WB.. No Israel was going to give it away only if the Palestinians were willing to live in peace, it is clear that even with the WB they will not for they want to see the whole Israel in their hands as you have even insinuated with you Saudi proposals which calls for that it its own round about way.

I am not willing to sacrifice Israel simply on a belief that Syria really wants to live in peace with Israel when they have clearly shown over the years that they don’t.

With Saudi Arabia. First of all, I seriously doubt that Saudi Arabia radio publicly called for negotiations with Israel. I would like to see a credible link where it has been documented that Saudi Arabians heard this in Arabic on the radio.

Secondly two alleged things on the radio hardly make up for the years of open incitement and absolute refusal to even recognise Israel or its right to exist.

N. Chomsky, Fatefull Triangle, South End Press, 1999, p 76. what are you kidding me?!? Thats your official source to prove your allegation. hahahhah
That’s like me proving Islam is the correct religion to a non believer by simply showing him a quote from the Koran.

Get this straight. I don’t believe in the chumsky religion. You simply showing me a bible of his word doesn’t prove anything to me.

Oh and I will repeat.. With Saudi Arabia. First of all, I seriously doubt that Saudi Arabia radio publicly called for negotiations with Israel. I would like to see a credible link where it has been documented that Saudi Arabians heard this in Arabic on the radio.

Secondly two alleged things on the radio hardly make up for the years of open incitement and absolute refusal to even recognise Israel or its right to exist.

Now as for this gem of a statement “In January 1983 Iraqi press agency released stateemnt of saddam Hussein to US congresman in which he (Hussein) recognised Israel's need for security” I don’t think I am even going to offer up a response other then to say the chumsky religion lives strongly in you. Oh and Iraqi press.. the londen times of honstey of iraq. rofl rofl

Yes, they often run stories that are contrary to officila policy of that state :roll: [/quote] Bull****!! They would have had their heads chopped off if they did such a thing. Can you be that naive to really believe that there is freedom of the press in Iraq?!?

Oh and if he did say that (highly unlikely after just two years when Israel bombed and destroyed his nuclear facilities) it is obvious that it was just to curry favour from the U.S. in order to get more arms from the U.S. oh and that is hardly an offer anyways.

Rejection of any peace proposal on grounds it's "fake" it's time honoured tradition of Israel. . you see your typical emotional response is a time honered trait amongst chmskynites. Yes it is an emotional response for I have outlined to you why Israel israel has though those ‘offers’ weren’t sincere. You have yet to have proven intellectually how I am wrong and how they were in fact sincere.
I would love to hear how Iraq which has no land issues in this dispute was interested in peace with Israel or Saudi Arabia……………

[quote]

Israel had no troubles signing peace with Egypt, despite the fact that there was opposition in Egypt. Of course, then it was in Israel's interest to make peace. well first of all I think it was a mistake to do that for Israel didnt get anything back in return. I mean as we see with Syria, war wasn’t going to happen anyways whether Israel gave back that land or not. And the factual realty on the ground is that most Egyptians go on with their hatred of Israel as if that agreement was never singed.

Now Israel singed that for unlike what you believe, it is always willing to make the painful concessions when they believe it can lead to peace. At the time they believed that so they did it. I think hindsight, they were wrong for it didnt change the factual reality on the ground. In fact I would be curious to hear what Israel got out of that deal with Egypt?!?

Oh and the killings continue. I mean the Palestinians have not ever stopped targeting innocent civilians.

Mere words mean absolutely nothing to me. The targeting and killings of innocent civilians over the years and the clear support for that amongst most Arabs speaks louder to me then mere words by a few dictators or a few Palestinian official.

For it is clear that their few utterances in English only, are not really representative of what most of the Arab world wants or feels.

Replace killings with new settlements and you see what Palestininas see. Building a house would never so severe as slaughtering innocent civilians. How can you even compare?
If you are justifying the massacre in Haifa because of few houses in the middle of Shomron, then something is wrong with your moral judgement.

To make it more clear what armour dov said. There is no moral equivalence and justification to Israel building houses to Palestinians targeting and killing innocent civilians.

Interesting how Israel complains about Egypt violating cease fire, when prior and after this time period Israel violated numerous cease-fires. I call bull**** on that. Israel in most cases was always responding. You show me conclusively in those years where Israel broke a case fire.

ncursions in demilitarized zones prior to 1967 war, numerous violations of cease fires regarding Lebanon... . no most of those incursion was in response to attacks. Get that response.

Israel can't keep entire ME down, they can keep WB and GS down. they don’t want to keep the ME down or anything like that anyways but it sure as hell could have kep the sini and it didn’t. that is not any sign of colonisation.. As for WB and GS ,Israel gets no benefit of keeping them down. It has no choice but to keep that land when the reality is that a lot of the population there wants to see the whole Israel eradicated of all Jews. Occupation is better then total destruction of the Jews.
.

Secondly it keeps the west back for it has no choice. The fact is that a lot of Palestinians want to see the whole Israel destroyed and giving back the west bank and gaze doesn’t salve anything for it all it does is bring them closer geographically to finishing their goals.

It keeps WB because that land is most suitable for colonisation and is less populated than GS. . if it had the more suitable concept it would have kicked out the Palestinians during the 67 war. No it didn’t for it is humane and also in its belief that it could actually make peace with them some day. That has proved to be an elusive illusion. Israel gets no benefit out of occupying these people. Its not like the Palestinians are a windfall to Israel or anything like that. It simply has no choice. Its not suitable in any stretch of the imagination to occupy a people. Israel doesn’t want that, I don’t want that. We simply have no choice and we hope that one day we can achieve a true peace with them.

.

Several of them held high positions in ISraeli gov't. I guess Israelis had no troubles with their terrorist past. . well I already documented this before. In how the British weren’t these benevolent rulers and there was the peaceful Arab population blah blah blah…no the British were heavily biased against the Jews then and helped the Arabs in their attacks against the jews so again while a lot of Israeli did not support these few jews then they nonetheless understood that they were in most cases responding to aggression from the other side.

Now Israel here in most cases has been responding to aggression from the Palestinian terrorists in where most of the population support them. or when in all of its wars when it was responding to the attacks and to the danger that it was facing from the Arabs.

Secondly Arafat did not reject terrorism (at the time..oh and only recently did he do that when during Oslo but we see how empty that rejection was) whereas those few Jewish leaders had. Oh and they never targeted innocent civilians.

They rejected terrorism in such way that IDF continued their practices.

Didn't target civilians? Deir Yassin? Qibya? . a couple of incidents in the fifties doesn’t compare to the astronomical and numerous ones committed by the Arabs in the 20’s,30’s,40’s,50’s,60’s,70’s,80’s,90’s,2000 etc…. where in most cases the Arabs have deliberately targeting innocent civilians where Israel has not.

no its not. Israel’s sole goal is to live in peace, now if a two state solution can do that, great! so far it is hard to see how that will bring any peace.

Peace of the conqueror more likelly and keeping Palestininas without rights. . no, rights are not giving to people that want to destroy you. Oh and cut it out. Israel has giving Palestinians plenty of rights. It has only got tuff when it was clear that a lot of them wanted to destroy the state of Israel which is intolerable a situation to accept..

Did Israel say they will recognise other organisation as representative if they are not terrorists? No, they refused to engotiate with Palestinians on principle. yes and the principle is that it refused to negotiate with people that don’t recognise its right to exist and in fact work daily on killing and targeting its innocent civilians.

Oh and as armous dov said. “There was a thing in 1993 called "Oslo Accords" in which Israel recognized the PLO as the representatives of the Palestinian people. Then, Israeli believed that the PLO abandoned the way of terror.”

And refused to negotiate with Palestinians. sOunds like they are recognising Palestinin right to exist. :roll: . no they recognise the ones that doesn’t want to destroy us as having the right to exist. Israel will go after ones that want to see us destroyed. It doesn’t discriminately go after the Palestinians, for if it did, they could finish the job in a day. No, in most cases, it goes only after the ones that have murdered or planned the murder of Jews.

And as we see from Oslo, Israel proved that it was willing to recognise Palestinians but wee see that wasn’t the same from the Palestinians on Israel.

[quote]

Precasroius situation my arse. Israel just wants neighbours to be weak (heaven forbid Isreal would slip form 10 times stronger to 9 times stronger). . I don’t know about you but 6 million that are surrounded by a billion Arabs that want and fight constantly to destroy you is defiantly a precarious situation in my book and giving up land when its to a party that is not sincere is simply suicidal.

[quote]
I
they would get recognision, secure borders. But it would require them to give back land. bull****!! Israel gave land in the Oslo and was prepared to give more but all it got back was actually more killing and not less.

A fact!! More Israel’s have died because of Oslo and because of Israel giving up land then in all the years before excluding the major wars.

Both sides violated Oslo treaty. Palestinin violations are condemned. Israeli are not. . no Palestinians killed and Israel built houses. Now Israel has every right to build houses as long as there isn’t any true peace deal. I mean Israel should not have to wait a thousand years until the Arabs are ready for a true peace. They are not now so Israel has every right to build on it. Now if the Arabs would stop killing Israeli’s for long periods and then Israel would still go on for years building houses then perhaps you will have an argument but that was never the case. Israel stopped for periods but the killing always continued and In fact only increased.

So Arabs are supposed to recognise Israel, assimilate refugees and them ISrael will negotiate about withdrawal. Right. :roll: .
No it’s this simple. The Arabs are supposed to recognise Israel and then are supposed to cease the killings. Then after those facts on the ground are there, then Israel hands back land. Mere token words mean absolutely nothing. The facts on the ground speak much louder to me. The facts were that Israel gave up land and the Palestinians did not give up killing.

Tyre blast still atributed to gas elak, no mention of Marine/FL bombings, several predictions turned wrong.

Give me a break…you found one token error. Yeah you clearly follow him blindly. I can smell chumsky all over you here. its clear that you are a blind follower of his.

aktarian

10-09-2003, 03:37 PM

no obviously you didnt read what I wrote or you are too blind to understand what I wrote.

I will say it again. It wasn’t taken seriously when the Egyptians have just broken the cease fire before (by putting in sam’s in areas that it wasn’t supposed to which clearly showed their true intentions) and the fact that they weren’t willing to talk or listen or to even negotiate e with Israel directly about this “offer”. That is not a sign of a true and sincere offer when you are refusing to even talk to the party that you are supposedly interested in making peace.

Then Palestinians could say that Israelis didn't mean anything with Oslo as they continued with colonisation of WB.

I have said this before but you offer up your typical chumsky response. No go back and read what I wrote. It had nothing to do with Israel not wanting to give back land. Israel made it clear after 1967 that it wanted to but the Arabs had their three no’s.(as I talked about before) and refused to talk to Israel

It had everything to do with giving back land. Israel refused, pure & simple.

no with Syria they don’t get back the Golan and Israel has peace with them as wee see for the past 25 years. And Israel should not give it back for that is to much of a strategic place to give back to a country that is not really interested in living in any true peace with Israel. So with Syria your right there really isn’t anything to talk about. Syria has never said that it wants peace all it says is that it wants the Golan back. It has been clear that they do not want peace with Israel other then a few token words in English which don’t fool anyone other then a “chumskynite” who takes everything Syria says at their word.

And one reply before you were saying that rejection of offers had nothing to do with not wishing to withdraw. Now you are saying that Syria will never get Golan back. Thank you for making my point for me.

As for the WB.. No Israel was going to give it away only if the Palestinians were willing to live in peace, it is clear that even with the WB they will not for they want to see the whole Israel in their hands as you have even insinuated with you Saudi proposals which calls for that it its own round about way.

Token parts of WB while new military posts sprung up which in time honored fashion evolved into new settlements.

what are you kidding me?!? Thats your official source to prove your allegation. hahahhah
That’s like me proving Islam is the correct religion to a non believer by simply showing him a quote from the Koran.

Attack the source, fine. yOu don't beleive him, fine. I do.

Get this straight. I don’t believe in the chumsky religion. You simply showing me a bible of his word doesn’t prove anything to me.

If you don't believe Chomsky that's fine with me. I, however, do. YOu trust your sources, I'll trust mine.

Oh and I will repeat.. With Saudi Arabia. First of all, I seriously doubt that Saudi Arabia radio publicly called for negotiations with Israel. I would like to see a credible link where it has been documented that Saudi Arabians heard this in Arabic on the radio.

I stated my source. If you have problems with it it's not my problem. Nobody attacked Chomsky that he didn't have his facts straight and proved it with his facts. If you care to provide source where this claim was discredited I'm willing to study it. Until you do I'll trust it.

Secondly two alleged things on the radio hardly make up for the years of open incitement and absolute refusal to even recognise Israel or its right to exist.

Or translated in another situation. After several decades of talking about world revolution and how they will destroy capitlism Sovs suddenlly want to talk with US (detante). One statement that they are willing to must mean they are "faking it" and US should ignore those offers.

Bull****!! They would have had their heads chopped off if they did such a thing. Can you be that naive to really believe that there is freedom of the press in Iraq?!?

And suddenlly they anounce that Hussein recognises Israel's need for security and such. What's wrong with this picture? If they are state controlled they should announce only what Hussein ants, shouldn't they?

you see your typical emotional response is a time honered trait amongst chmskynites. Yes it is an emotional response for I have outlined to you why Israel israel has though those ‘offers’ weren’t sincere. You have yet to have proven intellectually how I am wrong and how they were in fact sincere.

Were they sincere? We'll enver know beause they were rejected in same emotional response you accuse me of. There sure as hell was a lot of them...

I would love to hear how Iraq which has no land issues in this dispute was interested in peace with Israel or Saudi Arabia……………

Reasons for Iraq to make peace: to stop Israel from helping Iran, to stop Israeli actions in Lebanon (this is late 1982/early 1983 we are talking).
Saudis: to difuse situation in near region.

well first of all I think it was a mistake to do that for Israel didnt get anything back in return.

Youa gain make my point. Israel shouldn't talk with Arabs. As for not getting anything :roll: :roll: . Just look what followed soon after Camp David and what happened to Egypt's relations with other Arabs.

I mean as we see with Syria, war wasn’t going to happen anyways whether Israel gave back that land or not. And the factual realty on the ground is that most Egyptians go on with their hatred of Israel as if that agreement was never singed.

OK, OK, you made my point twice so far. I thank you. No need to go further.
As for Egyptians hating you. It's one thing to have population hating you, it's another to have gov't doing same and acting on that.

Now Israel singed that for unlike what you believe, it is always willing to make the painful concessions when they believe it can lead to peace. At the time they believed that so they did it. I think hindsight, they were wrong for it didnt change the factual reality on the ground. In fact I would be curious to hear what Israel got out of that deal with Egypt?!?

Painfull concessions? Like returning Golan?

What Israelis got from peace with Egypt? Removing strongest Arab army on their borders (thus having free hand in Lebanon), isolating Egypt form other Arab states (thus weakening Arab states).

To make it more clear what armour dov said. There is no moral equivalence and justification to Israel building houses to Palestinians targeting and killing innocent civilians.

Yes, one kills civilians, other kills any future plans for future state. Of course Israelis point at killings of civilians while claiming they aren't building any new settlements.

I call bull**** on that. Israel in most cases was always responding. You show me conclusively in those years where Israel broke a case fire.

Pre-1967 incursions into demilitarised zone in border with Syria, 1981-82 truce on Lebanese border. as for the 1982 invasion itself cases of violating cease-fire are to numerous to name.

no most of those incursion was in response to attacks. Get that response.

Enemy shells you and you build farms in are they sheleld. sOunds like perfect response. :roll:

they don’t want to keep the ME down or anything like that anyways but it sure as hell could have kep the sini and it didn’t.

Sinai wasn't worth having. No water, no oil, no fertile land.

that is not any sign of colonisation.. As for WB and GS ,Israel gets no benefit of keeping them down. It has no choice but to keep that land when the reality is that a lot of the population there wants to see the whole Israel eradicated of all Jews. Occupation is better then total destruction of the Jews.

If they don't get any benefit from having it, why do they keep building setlemts there? If they would want it only as military buffer (as you seem to claim) than they would only build military instalations there. Why deliberatlly put civilians in harm's way? You don't see S Koreans building much of a setllements near DMZ, do you?

Secondly it keeps the west back for it has no choice. The fact is that a lot of Palestinians want to see the whole Israel destroyed and giving back the west bank and gaze doesn’t salve anything for it all it does is bring them closer geographically to finishing their goals.

See above post regarding buffer.

if it had the more suitable concept it would have kicked out the Palestinians during the 67 war. No it didn’t for it is humane and also in its belief that it could actually make peace with them some day.

Cheap labour with no right never hurt.

That has proved to be an elusive illusion. Israel gets no benefit out of occupying these people. Its not like the Palestinians are a windfall to Israel or anything like that. It simply has no choice. Its not suitable in any stretch of the imagination to occupy a people.

Cheap labour.

Israel doesn’t want that, I don’t want that. We simply have no choice and we hope that one day we can achieve a true peace with them.

Oh, poor Israel, saddled with white man's burden. No choice but to rule over population with no rights. How I pitty you. :roll:

well I already documented this before. In how the British weren’t these benevolent rulers and there was the peaceful Arab population blah blah blah…no the British were heavily biased against the Jews then and helped the Arabs in their attacks against the jews so again while a lot of Israeli did not support these few jews then they nonetheless understood that they were in most cases responding to aggression from the other side.

I wouldn't be pleased with population killing my troops, foreign ministers and violating various regulations. See any resemblance with Palestinians? If so much population was opposed to this "few Jews" why didn't they reject their goals. In Hebrew. As Israel wants Palestinans to reject terrorism. In Arabic.

Now Israel here in most cases has been responding to aggression from the Palestinian terrorists in where most of the population support them. or when in all of its wars when it was responding to the attacks and to the danger that it was facing from the Arabs.

Responding my arse. :roll: They often initiated actions and in calm areas (prior to declaration of independance).

a couple of incidents in the fifties doesn’t compare to the astronomical and numerous ones committed by the Arabs in the 20’s,30’s,40’s,50’s,60’s,70’s,80’s,90’s,2000 etc…. where in most cases the Arabs have deliberately targeting innocent civilians where Israel has not.

Not targeting civilians my arse. They were killing civilians left and right since before independance.

no, rights are not giving to people that want to destroy you.

Then why should Palestinians give any rights to ISrael, that denies them right to exist?

Oh and cut it out. Israel has giving Palestinians plenty of rights. It has only got tuff when it was clear that a lot of them wanted to destroy the state of Israel which is intolerable a situation to accept..

Plenty rights, right :roll: . Like right to be expelled, killed in night raid, killed by indiscriminate shelling. Great rights indeed. :roll:

yes and the principle is that it refused to negotiate with people that don’t recognise its right to exist and in fact work daily on killing and targeting its innocent civilians.

And yet Palestinians are expected to negotiate with state that refuses to recognise their right to exist.

Oh and as armous dov said. “There was a thing in 1993 called "Oslo Accords" in which Israel recognized the PLO as the representatives of the Palestinian people. Then, Israeli believed that the PLO abandoned the way of terror.”

And PLO recognised Israel. Then they believed Israel abandoned colonisation of WB.

no they recognise the ones that doesn’t want to destroy us as having the right to exist. Israel will go after ones that want to see us destroyed. It doesn’t discriminately go after the Palestinians, for if it did, they could finish the job in a day. No, in most cases, it goes only after the ones that have murdered or planned the murder of Jews.

Or after those who happen to stand in the way, happened to live in Lebanese refugee camps. And there are plans to remove all Palestinians to Iraq.

And as we see from Oslo, Israel proved that it was willing to recognise Palestinians but wee see that wasn’t the same from the Palestinians on Israel.

They recognised Israel. And both sides violated agreement.

I don’t know about you but 6 million that are surrounded by a billion Arabs that want and fight constantly to destroy you is defiantly a precarious situation in my book and giving up land when its to a party that is not sincere is simply suicidal.

Precarious situation is when you are outnumbered, outgunned and outtechologied. Israel is only outnumbered and even that not in all aspects.

bull****!! Israel gave land in the Oslo and was prepared to give more but all it got back was actually more killing and not less.

That's why they continued to build settlemets, because they were planning to give that land back. Silly me for not realising that. :roll:

A fact!! More Israel’s have died because of Oslo and because of Israel giving up land then in all the years before excluding the major wars.

Care to provide source?

no Palestinians killed and Israel built houses. Now Israel has every right to build houses as long as there isn’t any true peace deal.

Of course it has right. It also shows they aren't planning to give that land back and any statements regarding land-for-peace are utter BS.

I mean Israel should not have to wait a thousand years until the Arabs are ready for a true peace.

No, they could accept one of proposals.

They are not now so Israel has every right to build on it. Now if the Arabs would stop killing Israeli’s for long periods and then Israel would still go on for years building houses then perhaps you will have an argument but that was never the case. Israel stopped for periods but the killing always continued and In fact only increased.

What is long period? Settlemets freeze was never long lasting and when it was it didn't include widening existing ones or turning military outposts into settlemets.

No it’s this simple. The Arabs are supposed to recognise Israel and then are supposed to cease the killings. Then after those facts on the ground are there, then Israel hands back land. Mere token words mean absolutely nothing. The facts on the ground speak much louder to me. The facts were that Israel gave up land and the Palestinians did not give up killing.

So Arabs give ISrael everything Israel wants and then Israel waits and if they feel like it they give back land? Sorry, that's not negotiations or treaty, that's diktat.

And BTW, didn't you say Israel shouldn't give any land back in the beginning of your post? So which one is it?

Tyre blast still atributed to gas elak, no mention of Marine/FL bombings, several predictions turned wrong.

Give me a break…you found one token error. Yeah you clearly follow him blindly. I can smell chumsky all over you here. its clear that you are a blind follower of his.[/quote]

Oxley

10-10-2003, 04:16 AM

http://photo.worldnews.com/PhotoArchive//uploaded/uploaded-36671_large.jpg

Holy crap he is fat.

Oh and, why dont you Israeli's ever shut up about the 1973 war? You won... so what?
It was a long time ago, a very long time ago. Nothing to be that proud of, the Vietnamese army dosnt brag as much as you people do, and they won a huge war back in the 70's :|

So... how about you all just not talk so much about it on this forums, we are all very, very tired of this.

ArmoredDov_D9

10-10-2003, 08:31 AM

But there is no Palestine.

If that is not "not recognising right to exist" I don't know what is.

Today there is no Palestine and there never was. I'm only stating the fact here. There never was an autonomous Palestinian government until in Oslo Accords the PA was funded.

Palestinian offical told not once that the al-Awda is just a lever to the destruction of Israe. Just why many Israelis dlost faith in peace with the Arabs. The Arabs can't accept Israel existment and in their "peace" offers still trying to destroy it.

Settlement of refugee issue is subject of many UN resolutions. Including one which Israel acepted to be admited into UN as a member. I can't remeber number right now.

Israel rejected any UN resolution regarding the settling of Pals refugees inside Israel.

C'mon, the man is a nutcase.

If not antisemite than critics of ISrael are crazy. How convenient.

I had some writing of him in Hebrew defending on a French professor who is a Holocaust denier.
I think that's proved my point.

Palestinians got offer from Ehud Barak to evacuate almost 80% of the settlements. They rejected it because the offer didn't inculding givinh them the al-Awda.

They rejected it because it didn't resolve refugee problem.

The Israeli suggestion was to let Pals refugees to become cotizens wheere they're sitting and get internaatiol aid for rehibilitaation.

Even if Arafat don't accept this proposal - there is no reason to blow up the entire negotation and start in a mass-murder campaign of terror.

[color=red]But we ain't treating current Germans as Nazis. War criminals from WW2 are hunted on personal basis.

So if somebody involved in killing Jews would be captured and stood trial in Israel "It was long time ago" would be legitimate defence and he would be freed?

Eichman was captured and executed in 1961 (only 15 years after the Holocaust). Soon all Nazi criminals will die , so your question will be irrelevant.

Wrong again. The Israelis were much more human and moral than Arabs in all the wars. Sometimes we've paid heavy price for that.

More humane. Right. :roll: Pelestininas didn't massecre entire villages or plaster them with arty and planes.

So as Israel. Please tell why we didn't flattered Jenin with artillery as the Russians did to Grouzny? You know very well that we have the power to erase Paestinian cities from the map.

Remember Hafez al-Assad? He slaughter 20,000 muslims in Hamma.

And Palestinians? they commited a lot of massacres: Munich massacre, Passover massacre, Haifa massacre, Jerusalem massacre, Hebrom massacre (1929), the 1936-1939 gret Uprising they commited dozens of massacres.

Will continue later...

OK

Adri

10-10-2003, 08:59 AM

holy crap ! this topic must have the
"the topic with the longes posts award !"

aktarian

10-10-2003, 09:24 AM

He219

10-10-2003, 10:48 AM

The Deir Yassin (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre)massacre occured during battle in the town of Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948. This occured during Jewish attempts to break the siege of Jerusalem (imposed by raids of Arab irregular forces upon the sole Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road).

At least 107 Palestinian civilians were killed; some sources give considerably higher figures.

The Jewish forces participating in the battle belonged to two Jewish terrorist groups - the Irgun (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun) and the Stern gang (www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_gang). At the time notorious for their hard-handedness and "take no prisoners" strategy.

The incident had a large impact on the outcome of the war, It greatly stimulated Palestinian Arab refugee flight (see Palestinian Exodus) and appears to have been critical in the final decision of the Arab states to intervene directly in Palestine in 1948 to thwart the creation of the state of Israel. It also inflamed hatred among Jews and Arabs and took the atrocities both sides commited during the conflict to a higher level.

The Qibya massacre (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre)was a military action in October 1953 carried out by Israeli troops in a West Bank village.

The military action as Qibya was carried out by two Israeli units, a paratroop company and Unit 101 under the command of Ariel Sharon (who became Prime Minister of Israel in 2001). It led to the death of over 50 Palestinian Arabs and the demolition of most houses in Qibya, a village in the western West Bank, which was then under Jordanian control.

A massacre by a state is "a tragedy" as Clinton called the Qana massacre (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Lebanon) of 102 civilians sheltered at the UN compound.
I was unaware of these specific events...
:|

ArmoredDov_D9

10-10-2003, 11:08 AM

Today there is no Palestine and there never was. I'm only stating the fact here. There never was an autonomous Palestinian government until in Oslo Accords the PA was funded.

Denying Palestinina right to exist right there. Same thing Israel complains Palestinians are doing.

??? Please detail the logics lead to your corolary. I just stated the fact the there never was a Palestinian state and the first offer to erect one was given by Israel in Kamp David.

Israel rejected any UN resolution regarding the settling of Pals refugees inside Israel.

UN resolution 194 calls for return of refugees wishing to do so. As a condition for Israel to become member of UN it had to accept this resolution, as resolution 273 (which grants Israel membership) states.

We don't accept any return of any Arabs refugees. Israeli rejecting the 194 resolution outright. And as for the UN - it can't do anything about it.

The Israeli suggestion was to let Pals refugees to become cotizens wheere they're sitting and get internaatiol aid for rehibilitaation.

Even if Arafat don't accept this proposal - there is no reason to blow up the entire negotation and start in a mass-murder campaign of terror.

What kind of citizenship is one where you can live in country you are citizen of?

Palestinian refugees in Lebanon will get Lebanese citizenship. Refugees in Egypt will get Egyptian citizenship, and so forth...

Eichman was captured and executed in 1961 (only 15 years after the Holocaust). Soon all Nazi criminals will die , so your question will be irrelevant.

And people who massacred Palestinians still live. At least one of them sits in government.

Who "massacred" Palestinians? Mostly they fellow Arabs.

So as Israel. Please tell why we didn't flattered Jenin with artillery as the Russians did to Grouzny? You know very well that we have the power to erase Paestinian cities from the map.

Right. Of course all those Lebanese who say their villages were destroyed by ISraelis are lying. Every single one of them.

Why didn't you flatten Jenin? Because that would be a bit hard to show as counter-terrorist operation.

No. We didn't flatten Jenin in order not to indiscremently hurt civilians.
We could use a lot more artillery and the world would not react differently from what he did (anyway, Palestinians would spread their blood libles of thousands of dead in Jenin. The end? Only 22 civilians died during battles).

Remember Hafez al-Assad? He slaughter 20,000 muslims in Hamma.

About the number of civilians killed in Lebanon in 1982.

You forget that Lebanon was at civil unrest and most citizens were killed by Arabs in the civil war and not by Israel.

And Palestinians? they commited a lot of massacres: Munich massacre, Passover massacre, Haifa massacre, Jerusalem massacre, Hebrom massacre (1929), the 1936-1939 gret Uprising they commited dozens of massacres.[/color]

And Israelis commited a lot of them. Deir Yassin, Qibya, Qana..

Only three names. As I explained before, in Deir Yassin, Arab soldiers dressed as womenn and used the population as human shield.
Irgun deputy commander Michael Harif, one of the first to enter Deir Yassin, later recalled how, early in the battle, I saw a man in khaki run ahead. I thought he was one of us, I ran after him and told him, 'Move ahead to that house!' Suddenly he turned, pointed his weapon at me and fired. He was an Iraqi soldier. I was wounded in the leg. (Milstein interview with Harif, p. 262)

As for Qana incident:
In early April 1996, Israel conducted its military operation "Grapes of Wrath" in response to Hizballah's continued launching of rockets at villages in northern Israel. The 16-day operation caused hundreds of thousands of civilians in south Lebanon to flee their homes. On April 18, Hizballah fired mortars at an Israeli military unit from a position near the UN compound at Qana, and the Israeli Army responded with artillery fire. Several Israeli shells struck the compound, killing 102 civilians sheltered there. In the "April Understanding" concluded on April 26, Israel and Hizballah committed to avoid targeting civilians and using populated areas to launch attacks. The Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group, co-chaired by France and the United States, with Syria also represented, was set up to implement the Understanding and assess reports of violations.
So here's the story for short: Hizbullah used UN post as human-shield to shot mortar bomb on Israeli villages, Israel used artillery to shell the mortar, some shells missed the target and hit the UN post.

S'13

10-10-2003, 11:17 AM

Couldn't have said it better ArmoredDov_D9.
woot

seventy6er

10-10-2003, 11:59 AM

http://www.thirdage.com/news/features/images/news.yawn.jpg

IDFM203

10-10-2003, 12:45 PM

Then Palestinians could say that Israelis didn't mean anything with Oslo as they continued with colonisation of WBlisten people can say all sorts of things. Of course everyone has his or her versions. The reality is that Israel gave to the Palestinians almost every town and every city that they were living in, it gave it over to them where they had almost complete autonomy over 95% of their lives and Israel was always in the process of giving back more. Throughtout all those handovers, all Israel got back was a token word of peace in English (while in Arabic there was no such thing) and with that English statements it also got back at the same time more Israelis being targeted and being killed.

So in essence Israel gave up land and it got back more death.

Oh and again. There is no moral equivalence to Israel sometimes building houses to the Palestinians constantly targeting and killing innocent Israelis,

I have said this before but you offer up your typical chumsky response. No go back and read what I wrote. It had nothing to do with Israel not wanting to give back land. Israel made it clear after 1967 that it wanted to but the Arabs had their three no’s.(as I talked about before) and refused to talk to Israel

It had everything to do with giving back land. Israel refused, pure & simple. you see this is an emotional response(pretty typical from you already) for you just say so with any backing it up with any pertinent facts or any sane arguments.

No it wasn’t about that, for Israel offered the land after 1967 and was rejected and with this “offer” its important to first examine the events surrounding that “offer”.

After years of open hostility, whereas most of the Arab population in the Muslim world refused to even recognise Israel (that’s is still like that today), of course an offer would be viewed with considerable suspicion on Israel’s part and rightfully so.

Now besides the general suspicion, right before that "offer", Egypt and Israel had just signed a cease-fire to end the bloody war of attrition that followed the 1967 war. This is what happened. In the summer of 1970, the United States persuaded Israel and Egypt to accept a cease-fire. This cease-fire was designed to lead to negotiations under UN auspices. Israel declared that it would accept the principle of withdrawal from territories it had captured.
But on August 7, the Soviets and Egyptians deployed sophisticated ground-to-air SAM-2 and SAM-3 missiles in the restricted 32-mile-deep zone along the west bank of the Suez Canal. This was a clear violation of the cease-fire agreement, which barred the introduction or construction of any military installations in this area.
Time magazine observed that U.S. reconnaissance "showed that the 36 SAM-2 missiles sneaked into the cease-fire zone constitute only the first line of the most massive anti-aircraft system ever created."
Defense Department satellite photos demonstrated conclusively that 63 SAM-2 sites were installed in a 78-mile band between the cities of Ismailia and Suez. Three years later, these missiles provided air coverage for Egypt's surprise attack against Israel

So basically heading into 1971 there was already clear trickery on Egypt’s part that clearly showed their real intentions.

Now despite all this Israel was still willing to go forward but it soon become quickly clear in sadat’s language of that “offer” that he really wasn’t interested in any true peace for he only sent his “offer to UN special envoy Gunner Jerring and The crucial sentences about a "peace agreement with Israel" were neither published nor broadcast in Egypt. Moreover, Egypt refused to enter direct