Colonization of Palestine precludes peace By Jimmy Carter

[Mr. Nielsen]

Nothing new here, but okay overview by former US president Jimmi Carter
in todays Haaretz: Colonization of Palestine precludes peace (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/695187.html)



Colonization of Palestine precludes peace By Jimmy Carter

For more than a quarter century, Israeli policy has been in conflict with that of the United States and the international community. Israel's occupation of Palestine has obstructed a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land, regardless of whether Palestinians had no formalized government, one headed by Yasser Arafat or Mahmoud Abbas, or with Abbas as president and Hamas controlling the parliament and cabinet.

The unwavering U.S. position since Dwight Eisenhower's administration has been that Israel's borders coincide with those established in 1949, and since 1967, the universally adopted UN Resolution 242 has mandated Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories. This policy was reconfirmed even by Israel in 1978 and 1993, and emphasized by all American presidents, including George W. Bush. As part of the Quartet, including Russia, the UN and the European Union, he has endorsed a "road map" for peace. But Israel has officially rejected its basic premises with patently unacceptable caveats and prerequisites.



The preeminent obstacle to peace is Israel's colonization of Palestine. There were just a few hundred settlers in the West Bank and Gaza when I became president, but the Likud government expanded settlement activity after I left office. President Ronald Reagan condemned this policy, and reaffirmed that Resolution 242 remained "the foundation stone of America's Middle East peace effort." President George H.W. Bush even threatened to reduce American aid to Israel.

Although President Bill Clinton made strong efforts to promote peace, a massive increase of settlers occurred during his administration, to 225,000, mostly while Ehud Barak was prime minister. Their best official offer to the Palestinians was to withdraw 20 percent of them, leaving 180,000 in 209 settlements, covering about 5 percent of the occupied land.

The 5 percent figure is grossly misleading, with surrounding areas taken or earmarked for expansion, roadways joining settlements with each other and to Jerusalem, and wide arterial swaths providing water, sewage, electricity and communications. This intricate honeycomb divides the entire West Bank into multiple fragments, often uninhabitable or even unreachable. Recently, Israeli leaders have decided on unilateral actions without involving either the United States or the Palestinians, with withdrawal from Gaza as the first step. As presently circumscribed and isolated, without access to the air, sea or the West Bank, Gaza is a nonviable economic and political entity.

The future of the West Bank is equally dismal. Especially troublesome is Israel's construction of huge concrete dividing walls in populated areas and high fences in rural areas - located entirely on Palestinian territory and often with deep intrusions to encompass more land and settlements. The wall is designed to surround a truncated Palestine completely, and a network of exclusive highways will cut across what is left of Palestine to connect Israel with the Jordan River Valley.

This will never be acceptable either to Palestinians or to the international community, and will inevitably precipitate increased tension and violence within Palestine, and stronger resentment and animosity from the Arab world against America, which will be held accountable for the plight of the Palestinians.

Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and others pointed out years ago that Israel's permanent occupation will be increasingly difficult as the relative number of Jewish citizens decreases demographically both within Israel and in Palestine. This is obvious to most Israelis, who also view this dominant role as a distortion of their ancient moral and religious values. Over the years, opinion polls have consistently shown that about 60 percent of Israelis favor withdrawing from the West Bank in exchange for permanent peace. Similarly, an overwhelming number of both Israelis and Palestinians want a durable two-state solution.

Casualties have increased during the past few years as the occupying forces imposed tighter controls. From September 2000 until March 2006, 3,982 Palestinians and 1,084 Israelis were killed in the conflict, and this includes many children: 708 Palestinians and 123 Israelis.

There is little doubt that accommodation with the Palestinians can bring full Arab recognition of Israel and its right to live in peace. Any rejectionist policies of Hamas or any terrorist group will be overcome by an overall Arab commitment to restrain further violence and to promote the well-being of the Palestinian people.

[XShipRider]

Over the years we, the US, have rattled our political sabres from time
to time with regard to Israel. We've delayed military parts deliveries
and military aid but in the end it always seems to worm it's way across
the ocean.

It makes me wonder if we have some sort of secret agreement which
declares we can ostracize publicly (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) all the
while ensuring aid flows unceasingly. This public persona allows the
US to, at times and when necessary, look tough on Israel. Gut feeling:
There are more back channels with regard to US aid to Israel than anyone
can imagine. (Re-reading this I guess I just defined diplomacy.:lol:)

In my view, Israel has always done what's in their own best interest with
little regard for US policy.

[Mr. Nielsen]

In my view, Israel has always done what's in their own best interest with
little regard for US policy.

The question is, what "their own best interest" really are? Is it keeping another 1%, 5% or 20% of the west bank?

[BarkingSquirrel]

Don't you have some trees to be hugging? I mean really, how dare those meany jews keep land they captured during war?

[Mr. Nielsen]

Don't you have some trees to be hugging? I mean really, how dare those meany jews keep land they captured during war?

Because grabbing land by war went out of fashion shortly after ww2.

Just look at Iraq, which percent has the US carved out for Texas farmers to settle in?

Denmarks contribution in Iraq is of course much smaller than the US, but I think at least a ½% of iraqi territory should go to Denmark. That would only be fair. p-)

[BarkingSquirrel]

Out of fashion, not out of right. Maybe next time they'll remember not to start **** if they don't want more of their land lost. They should be glad Israel has been gracious enough to give back what they have.

[Moledet]

The question is, what "their own best interest" really are? Is it keeping another 1%, 5% or 20% of the west bank?
100%...........

[Mr. Nielsen]

Out of fashion, not out of right.

Which right? The right of might? Surely not the right of law.

In the iraqi example, the US surely has the right of might, and the size to more or less dispense with the right of international law (at least when initially going into Iraq).

So why doesn't the US keep a good chunk of Iraq?
Because it is not morally right? Because it is only the bad guys who abuse the right of might?

[BarkingSquirrel]

Actually well within the right of law. It's called Right of Conquest. Why don't we keep Iraq? Well, we're well within our right to do so, rather we CHOOSE not to for obvious political reasons. Just because we don't doesn't mean we can't. I don't own a gun, but you better bet your ass I can.

[Moledet]

Which right? The right of might? Surely not the right of law.

In the iraqi example, the US surely has the right of might, and the size to more or less dispense with the right of international law (at least when initially going into Iraq).

So why doesn't the US keep a good chunk of Iraq?
Because it is not morally right? Because it is only the bad guys who abuse the right of might?
No, because they started the war.
We went to war after the Jordanians attacked us, the US went to war to prevent a future attack.

BTW, it is perfectly legal to annex this land.

[Mr. Nielsen]

Actually well within the right of law. It's called Right of Conquest. Why don't we keep Iraq? Well, we're well within our right to do so, rather we CHOOSE not to for obvious political reasons. Just because we don't doesn't mean we can't. I don't own a gun, but you better bet your ass I can.

Your can have that opinion. Personally I prefer to believe the US is guided by morality, when it does not use it's superior might to carve out some lebensraum. :)

[Freibier]

Jimmy Carter has a point. As long as there is no palestinian state in fair borders, there won't be peace imho.
On the other hand, as long as nobody can guarantee Israels safety, I understand the Israeli position. Not that I like it, but then again I live in a safe country without constant attacks ...

[S'13]

Jimmy Carter has a point. As long as there is no palestinian state in fair borders, there won't be peace imho.


What are fair borders?

An Arab Islamist state reaching from the Mediterranean Sea in the west to the Jordan River in the east and from Lebanon in the north to the Red Sea in the south... that's the idea of fair borders according to the Hamas charter.

[Mr. Nielsen]

Fair borders are the internationally recognized borders from 1967. Any other borders will allow the conflict to go on forrever, either in unending negotiations or an unfair and unlawful peace agreement.

[Mr. Nielsen]

What are fair borders?

An Arab Islamist state reaching from the Mediterranean Sea in the west to the Jordan River in the east and from Lebanon in the north to the Red Sea in the south... that's the idea of fair borders according to the Hamas charter.

According to some on the israeli side fair borders are, a greater israel including jordan and parts of iraq.

All such nonsense should be disregarded as the nonsense it is.

[S'13]

From reading this article a person without any knowledge at all of Middle East history could get the impression that up untill the time Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza (strage isn't it, that up untill 1967 the W.B was considerd a part of Jordan and the G.S was a part of Egypt and while under Israeli control they became "Palestine" :) ) its citizens lived in peace.

Heck, from reading this article one may even believe that the capture of the territories was born in a vacum.

[S'13]

According to some on the israeli side fair borders are, a greater israel including jordan and parts of iraq.

All such nonsense should be disregarded as the nonsense it is.

But you don't see them running the government, do you...

[Moledet]

According to some on the israeli side fair borders are, a greater israel including jordan and parts of iraq.

All such nonsense should be disregarded as the nonsense it is.
Sorry, not even the most extreme think that way.
The only fair border is Jordan as the Palestinian state and the west bank as an Israeli territory.

[Freibier]

What are fair borders?

An Arab Islamist state reaching from the Mediterranean Sea in the west to the Jordan River in the east and from Lebanon in the north to the Red Sea in the south... that's the idea of fair borders according to the Hamas charter.
Well, there also won't be peace as long as Hamas is in charge, because those guys are nutjobs ;)
With fair borders I mean a palestinian state that isn't split up in a bunch of isolated pockets, without the "honeycomb" that Carter described.

[Mr. Nielsen]

But you don't see them running the government, do you...

Is statements like this part of the policies of the party Moledet?


The only fair border is Jordan as the Palestinian state and the west bank as an Israeli territory.

Wasn't tourism minister Rehavam Zeevi, an extremist that supported etnic cleansing, part of the Moledet party? Isn't a minister of tourism part of of the government?

Arh...enough of the guessing games. You know full well that extremist ideas of a greater israel, perhaps not as far Iraq, is mainstream politics in israel.

The difference is that Hamas does not run a state. If they were running a state, and still had territorial ambitions beyond it's internationally regconized borders, there surely would be a problem.

[Palmach]

In my view, Israel has always done what's in their own best interest with little regard for US policy.

My goodness, really?! A state actually acting in its own self-interest?! How truely unusual!!!

[S'13]

Is statements like this part of the policies of the party Moledet?


No, Moledet doesn't believe in the idea of "Greater Israel". And even if it was, Moledet can't be regarded as a party running the government as they never led any coalition. Doubt that they ever will.

[Palmach]

Is statements like this part of the policies of the party Moledet? Wasn't tourism minister Rehavam Zeevi, an extremist that supported etnic cleansing, part of the Moledet party? Isn't a minister of tourism part of of the government?

Yes, Zeevi's party patform was expansionist in nature and yes, it did advocate preserving Jewish majority within Israel. However: 1) at no point did the part advocate, support, or indorse killing of civilian population as a means of achiving their position 2) the party was a very minor member of a coalition government. Trying to compare them to Hamas is nothing but a distortion of facts and a debating ploy you are well know for.


The difference is that Hamas does not run a state. If they were running a state, and still had territorial ambitions beyond it's internationally regconized borders, there surely would be a problem.

There are no internationally recognized borders. The 1967 line is entierly arbitrary. Who is the green line more legidimate then the original separation plan?! Or more legidimate then the new border Olmert proposes?

Israel must impose its own solution on the territorial issue: create a border, lock the door, and throw away the key: let them find work in Egypt and Jordan.

PS Carter is a hoot: faving nearly screwed his own country beyond repair, he's looking for other places he can bust up... Unbelievable.

[Mr. Nielsen]

2) the party was a very minor member of a coalition government.
Likud and the labour party are certainly not minor, and the largest expansion of illegal settlements, outside the states borders, happended with labour running the government. So claiming that expansionist policies are part of israeli politics seems a bit far out.


There are no internationally recognized borders. The 1967 line is entierly arbitrary. Who is the green line more legidimate then the original separation plan?! Or more legidimate then the new border Olmert proposes?

While being arbitrary in it's outset, the 1967 borders became the legal and recognized borders. The 1967 borders are legitimised by international consensus, UN resolutions and latest the international court in the Hague, when it ruled the "seperation fence" illegal, because it went beyond the 1967 border.

Other than that, I would agree that their could be a good lot of arguments for instead going back to the borders of the original partition plan or something else, it's just not very useful.

[Palmach]

Likud and the labour party are certainly not minor, and the largest expansion of illegal settlements, outside the states borders, happended with labour running the government. So claiming that expansionist policies are part of israeli politics seems a bit far out.

Both Likud and Labor demostrated their non-expansionist credentials by signing and sticking to the peace deals with Egypt and leaving Gaza. Moreover, settlement of the West Bank and Gaza are hardly and example of expansionism: this was and is a disputed territory to which Israel has a legidimate claim based both on ancient and modern history.


While being arbitrary in it's outset, the 1967 borders became the legal and recognized borders. The 1967 borders are legitimised by international consensus, UN resolutions and latest the international court in the Hague, when it ruled the "seperation fence" illegal, because it went beyond the 1967 border.

No they are not. Neither UN nore the international court have legal authority to impose borders on anyone. As far as the "international consensus" is conserned, it once suppored takeover of Checkoslovakia.


Other than that, I would agree that their could be a good lot of arguments for instead going back to the borders of the original partition plan or something else, it's just not very useful.

Well, usefulness of an argument depends on its applicability to facts on the ground and as such a unilaterally imposed border is a better solution for all concerned. Since 1967 is an arbitrary line anyway and the aim is to end or minimize the conflict, I submit that Israeli annexation of major blocks and separation from the rest of the territory is the most workable and realistic solution.

[kineret]

Fair borders are the internationally recognized borders from 1967. Any other borders will allow the conflict to go on forrever, either in unending negotiations or an unfair and unlawful peace agreement.


according to the elected government of Hamas, 1967 border dont mean diddly sh-t to anyone but european apologists like yourself, hamas has stated so publicly. the only border they recognize is all of Israel proper. Your delusion that palestinian terrorism and general jew hatred thats so prevalent in the arab world will stop, if only big bad israel withdraws from those tiny slivers of land back to 67 line is ludicrous, wishful and naive thinking.

i also like the way outlets like guardian and bbc refer to genuine israeli cities as 'settlements', forgetting that these 'settlements' were built on land captured during the course of 3 wars, all started by arabs. ALL.

so please dont cry me these Carter tears, and dont trumpet the poor oppressed palestinian sympathy song. ive heard it all a million times. the only, the ONLY one responsible for getting themselves into this situation are the palestinians and their own leaders.

and btw, jimmy carter is an assh-le who parades on his high human-rights horse like he is the poster boy for all things ethical, while congratulating Hugo chavez, the terrorist leaders of hamas and fidel castro on their speckless human rights records. jimmy carter should stick to planting peanuts.

[XShipRider]

My goodness, really?! A state actually acting in its own self-interest?! How truely unusual!!!

Nice.

My line in that regard was in response to the very first line of the article.
As if Israel is under some obligation to abide by US policy. rofl

[KB]

The posts here only illustrate why the problem is so intractable...and even if Israel keeps the settlements and redefines its western borders, they still have to contend with the demographic time bomb of a rapidly growing Arab population inside its borders.

Is Israel still Israel when its no longer a predominantly Jewish state?

[UkrainianAmerican]

Jimmy carter should learn to shut up. THe least classy US president ever. ANd dont get me started on his policy while IN the office.

[Mr. Nielsen]

Both Likud and Labor demostrated their non-expansionist credentials by signing and sticking to the peace deals with Egypt and leaving Gaza. Moreover, settlement of the West Bank and Gaza are hardly and example of expansionism: this was and is a disputed territory to which Israel has a legidimate claim based both on ancient and modern history

No they are not. Neither UN nore the international court have legal authority to impose borders on anyone. As far as the "international consensus" is conserned, it once suppored takeover of Checkoslovakia..

Then it was part of Czechoslovakia the international community sold out. Will parts of the occupied territories be next?

The West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are not disputed, but the international communitys willingness to presure the palestinians into giving up legitimate claims, are giving even rational israelis the belief that the territories really are disputed, and not just occupied. So even today a comparison to Minich is not far off.

[UkrainianAmerican]

The posts here only illustrate why the problem is so intractable...and even if Israel keeps the settlements and redefines its western borders, they still have to contend with the demographic time bomb of a rapidly growing Arab population inside its borders.

Is Israel still Israel when its no longer a predominantly Jewish state?
Not really. It can support a huge christian population tho, because we have the same judeo-christian culture, but a 40 or more percent sunni muslim block will defeat teh whole purpsoe behind its creation (sounds racist and bigotted, but thats the way it is)

[Palmach]

Then it was part of Czechoslovakia the international community sold out. Will parts of the occupied territories be next?

You are mis-using the analogy. "International concensus" does not equal justice, as often as not it is an attempt to placate an agressor, in this case it is an attempt to buy off the arab world at the expence of Israel.


The West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are not disputed, but the international communitys willingness to presure the palestinians into giving up legitimate claims, are giving even rational israelis the belief that the territories really are disputed, and not just occupied. So even today a comparison to Minich is not far off.

Sure they are. They do not belong to any country and as such they are disputed. By the way, where is the world opinion on Keningsberg, western Poland, Tibet?

[caridon]

Sorry, not even the most extreme think that way.
The only fair border is Jordan as the Palestinian state and the west bank as an Israeli territory.
right, and this page is just another part of the great muslim plot for world domination. (sarcasm intended)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

Face facts, there are idiot fanatics on both sides.

/C

[S'13]

Face facts, there are idiot fanatics on both sides.

/C

Very true... however, ours go to prison if they try to act out while their's get elected.

[Moledet]

right, and this page is just another part of the great muslim plot for world domination. (sarcasm intended)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

Face facts, there are idiot fanatics on both sides.

/C
Anyone can write on Wikipedia.
I guess this is also a fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Syria

It's funny that you call it Arab propoganda when it clearly states there:
3. In some (primarily anti-Zionist and Ba'athist Arab) media, it refers to the fringe Zionist view (held by Avraham Stern[1] and Israel Eldad, among others) that the proper borders of the Land of Israel stretched from the Nile to the Euphrates.

BTW, both Israel Eldad and Stern are (unfortunately) dead.

[BarkingSquirrel]

right, and this page is just another part of the great muslim plot for world domination. (sarcasm intended)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

Face facts, there are idiot fanatics on both sides.

/Chttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Parasaur/wiki.jpg

If its on the wiki, then it must be true.

[Moledet]

Wasn't tourism minister Rehavam Zeevi, an extremist that supported etnic cleansing, part of the Moledet party? Isn't a minister of tourism part of of the government?

Arh...enough of the guessing games. You know full well that extremist ideas of a greater israel, perhaps not as far Iraq, is mainstream politics in israel.

The difference is that Hamas does not run a state. If they were running a state, and still had territorial ambitions beyond it's internationally regconized borders, there surely would be a problem.
He wasn't an extremist or racist or supported ethnic cleansing.
He supported transfer by will because it truely is the only way to peace.
No Arab politician did as much for Israeli Arabs as Ze'evi did, and I don't mean just supporting laws, he knew many Arabs. Not Arabs with much influence, regular people that wrote to him for help and he helped every Arab that asked him as long as that Arab was loyal to Israel.
You can be sure that he did way more for Arabs than you or your country ever did.

[Mr. Nielsen]

You are mis-using the analogy. "International concensus" does not equal justice, as often as not it is an attempt to placate an agressor, in this case it is an attempt to buy off the arab world at the expence of Israel.

It's Israel that is occupying palestinian territory not the other way around.
I would say the more correct analogy is that it is Israel that is being appeased. The US and Europe being unable to pressure Israel in any significant way, instead pressures the weakest part to give up their rights.



Sure they are. They do not belong to any country and as such they are disputed. By the way, where is the world opinion on Keningsberg, western Poland, Tibet?

As part of it's reunification, Germany has recognized that Schlesien, Preußen, Köningsberg etc. are no longer part of germany. So it's not an issue any longer.

As for the people of Tibet, they are pretty much screwed. There is never going to be a UN security council resolution calling for chinese withdrawal from occupied Tibet. And with the example set by allowing Israel to still stay in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem, the west is hardly in any position to claim the moral high ground in regard to China.

[kineret]

As for the people of Tibet, they are pretty much screwed. There is never going to be a UN security council resolution calling for chinese withdrawal from occupied Tibet. And with the example set by allowing Israel to still stay in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem, the west is hardly in any position to claim the moral high ground in regard to China.

oh thats pretty convienient. EU has no moral high ground with regards to the israeli issue either. its funny how the tibetans are 'screwed' even though they dont blow themselves up nor raise their kids to be shaheeds, nor elect a government that supports genocide. but f-ck the tibetans, its all about the poor, oppressed palestinains who live in.. refugee 'camps'

[caridon]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Parasaur/wiki.jpg

If its on the wiki, then it must be true.

I would like an apology and damned quick.

you have no reason to insult me and you know it.

/C

[BarkingSquirrel]

You will get no apology and you know it. Just be glad I re-edited the page back to the way it was before I made my point.

[caridon]

Anyone can write on Wikipedia.
this is why you look at 3 things in every wikipedia article.
1) sources
2) The history
3) the discusion page
If you examine these for the article i sent in you will find that it has a high probability of truth.


I guess this is also a fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Syria

Judging from the 3 criterias above i would not recomend it as truth without external verification. (se the difference ?)


It's funny that you call it Arab propoganda when it clearly states there:
3. In some (primarily anti-Zionist and Ba'athist Arab) media, it refers to the fringe Zionist view (held by Avraham Stern[1] and Israel Eldad, among others) that the proper borders of the Land of Israel stretched from the Nile to the Euphrates.
BTW, both Israel Eldad and Stern are (unfortunately) dead.

Now you are reverting to strawman arguments. why do you try to take the MOST extreme example and try to pass it of as the norm ? You usualy have beter intelectual honesty.

I'l just have to take the other points and quote them here then.
"1) In mainstream conservative Israeli discourse, the term refers to a state of Israel (Hebrew: Medinat Yisra'el) established on the whole historical region of Palestine (known in Hebrew as Eretz Yisra'el, distinct from the political entity Medinat Yisra'el), situated between the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, annexing both the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
2)According to some Israeli far-right groups, such as the Betar, it refers to the pre-1922 mandatory Palestine, i.e. both the first the historical region of Palestine and Transjordan."

now are you prepared to admitt thet there is such a concept as "greater israel"

I will remind you of your statement.


Sorry, not even the most extreme think that way.
The only fair border is Jordan as the Palestinian state and the west bank as an Israeli territory.

I do belive i have proved you wrong.
/C

[caridon]

You will get no apology and you know it. Just be glad I re-edited the page back to the way it was before I made my point.

First: what you have done is called defacing and will normaly be detected and removed within minutes.

Second: the only thing you have proved (again) is that you are a imature probably homophobic person, that resorts to insults and namecalling when you cant find an argument.

Third: The fact is that your posting is not in line with the forum rules, and i would sugest you read them again.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1554

Fourth: if you had cared to examine the post instead of defacing it you would have found these links.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1554
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/lehi.html
That are rather relevant to the debate.

/C
ps now try to debate insted, it is more interesting than when you behave like a child.
ds

[BarkingSquirrel]

First: what you have done is called defacing and will normaly be detected and removed within minutes.

Second: the only thing you have proved (again) is that you are a imature probably homophobic person, that resorts to insults and namecalling when you cant find an argument.

Third: The fact is that your posting is not in line with the forum rules, and i would sugest you read them again.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1554

Fourth: if you had cared to examine the post instead of defacing it you would have found these links.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1554
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/lehi.html
That are rather relevant to the debate.

/C
ps now try to debate insted, it is more interesting than when you behave like a child.
dsFirst of all, defacing can't be applied to a handle, only a real name. What I did is well within the protections of the Digital Millennium Act and fair use/satire clauses, so you can sit down and shut the **** up any time now. It is no different than calling Bush a nazi, and just as protected.

Secondly, if I truly violated a rule, I wouldn't still be here. Kind of throws a kink in that arguement huh? Not even a pm from a mod. Ohhhh, I'm shaking in my boots. Oh, wait. I'm not wearing any boots. :roll:

As for the debate, what debate? All thats here are lies propagated by you and your cronies with no evidence whatsoever. Your pathetic attempt at using the Wiki as a defense was trounced by a single act, a single sentence, that has thrown you into a rather pathetic hissy fit.

Quite frankly we're all reluctant to even reply to you as your posts give us migranes just trying to decypher that chicken scratch you call a post. I've seen four year olds with better typing skills. Not to mention, exactly how much of a debate could you possibly put up when it took you over FIVE HOURS to even realise there was a reply directly above your last post? Pardon me while I tremble in the face of your mighty intellect. :roll:

[caridon]

First of all, defacing can't be applied to a handle, only a real name. What I did is well within the protections of the Digital Millennium Act and fair use/satire clauses, so you can sit down and shut the **** up any time now. It is no different than calling Bush a nazi, and just as protected.

Secondly, if I truly violated a rule, I wouldn't still be here. Kind of throws a kink in that arguement huh? Not even a pm from a mod. Ohhhh, I'm shaking in my boots. Oh, wait. I'm not wearing any boots. :roll:

As for the debate, what debate? All thats here are lies propagated by you and your cronies with no evidence whatsoever. Your pathetic attempt at using the Wiki as a defense was trounced by a single act, a single sentence, that has thrown you into a rather pathetic hissy fit.

Quite frankly we're all reluctant to even reply to you as your posts give us migranes just trying to decypher that chicken scratch you call a post. I've seen four year olds with better typing skills. Not to mention, exactly how much of a debate could you possibly put up when it took you over FIVE HOURS to even realise there was a reply directly above your last post? Pardon me while I tremble in the face of your mighty intellect. :roll:

OK let me explain something here.
1) My statement about defacement was in regards to your actions on the wikipedia cite.
If you care to look at their terminology you will find it there.

2) Unlike you I come here for debate, not for the purpose of throwing insults around. But to each his own.

3) I don’t have any cronies here, and I have, as far as I know, not told any lies here. I have pointed out an inaccuracy. When questioned I have backed it up with several independent cites. (And by the way you haven’t even tried to prove me wrong) As for your "point". You could have made it using any sentence, however you tried to use it to insult me (in a predictable American way, by claiming that I am gay), that is a immature and childish behaviour.

4) If you have problems with my writing then i would sugest that you learn some english, English is my third language and i am a dyslectic (why does that word have to be hard to spell :) ) But most persons have no problem understanding my writings

5) Unlike you I have a life outside of MP. I posted my to answers from separate tabs in my browser and then logged out. I didn’t see your reply until 5 hours later. And if you didn’t know: The strength of a argument is not dependant on if you can post it within 5 seconds of a reply.

To conclude: you are a immature troll and I hope you get on the bad side of a moderator sooner rather than later.


/C

[Moledet]

Now you are reverting to strawman arguments. why do you try to take the MOST extreme example and try to pass it of as the norm ? You usualy have beter intelectual honesty.

I'l just have to take the other points and quote them here then.
"1) In mainstream conservative Israeli discourse, the term refers to a state of Israel (Hebrew: Medinat Yisra'el) established on the whole historical region of Palestine (known in Hebrew as Eretz Yisra'el, distinct from the political entity Medinat Yisra'el), situated between the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, annexing both the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
2)According to some Israeli far-right groups, such as the Betar, it refers to the pre-1922 mandatory Palestine, i.e. both the first the historical region of Palestine and Transjordan."

now are you prepared to admitt thet there is such a concept as "greater israel"

/C
I read that part, number 1 isn't greater Israel and is the most extreme view that exists right now (my view).
Betar doesn't realy exist any longer, it's a name of a football club, but I haven't heard of the youth movement Betar for a long time I think it's long gone.

[BarkingSquirrel]

Blah, blah, blah. I'm a whinny fairy queen. Blah, blah, blah.

Translation: "Waaaaaaah, I have no source of evidence that isn't automatically invalid due to anyone and everyone being able to write what they please there. Not only that but I picked a fight and lost. Waaaaaaah!"

[kineret]

apology? lol

barkingsqurell, send him some candy and flowers too, will ya.

[ogukuo72]

I think the greater problem is with the Palestinian leadership ... they never really had a good one. Every leader that they had led them up blind alleys.