Posted on 12/29/2005 9:08:15 AM PST by forty_years
WHat!?!? No BARF ALERT!?!?
I have never heard an editorial or news story that even suggests that Palestinian terror/suicide bombings are wrong, or that the Israelis have a right to defend themselves from them.
Regarding your footnote on Aceh - are there still Christians there and if it going to be independent are any arrangements being made to evacuate them?
Oh, and Fisk is national disgrace (I'm from UK) even some of the Liberals have has enough of his posturing. Kindest regards,
If Palestinian land is not occupied but merely part of a legal dispute that might be resolved in law courts or discussions over tea, then a Palestinian child who throws a stone at an Israeli soldier in this territory is clearly acting insanely.
If a Jewish colony built illegally on Arab land is simply a nice friendly "neighborhood," then any Palestinian who attacks it must be carrying out a mindless terrorist act.
And surely there is no reason to protest a "fence" or a "security barrier" — words that conjure up the fence around a garden or the gate arm at the entrance to a private housing complex.
For Palestinians to object violently to any of these phenomena thus marks them as a generically vicious people.
Even Robert knows the truth, although he denies it.
Even after he was attacked by an Arab mob and beaten up, he was stll an apologist for Arab on Jew terrorism. The fact that this anti-Semite is still employed as a journalist is proof positive of media bias.
Where's the picture with his head in a bloody bandage?
Even that didn't pound any sense into that anti-Semite's skull.
It is only fair to point out that during intervals between these years she also conquered various territories, giving her something to "give up." The implication of this sentence is that territory under Israei control has gotten steadily smaller since 1957. Which is just not true.
That's because the land in question is in fact disputed. Prior to WW2 it was a territory settled by both Jews and Arabs and owned by no one. Its borders were then defined by the 1948 Arab-Israeli War armistice lines after the dissolution of the British mandate, when it was captured and annexed by Jordan. It remained under Jordanian rule until 1967, when the Arabs embarked on a war to annihilate Israel and lost the land in the process. (The spoils of war). So yes, the land is legally disputed. .....although Biblically/morally it's Israel's.
Restorer, what was the response by the palestinians to Israel exiting southern lebanon?
What is the response today with the exit of Gaza?
The answer to both is bombings.
Israel has time and time again shown a willingness for peace and the only 'roadmap' that pals and their terrorist supporters come up with is "wipe Israel off the map".
It is time for the palestinian population to ask themselves as a collective if they want peace or if they want war. If indeed they want peace then they have to make a deal. A comprimise. When making this deal both sides will have to make painful concessions.
I offer that Isreal has already made some of those needed concessions ( Gaza is a good example) and I wonder if you could offer some concessions that palestinians have made over the years to Israel that would lead Israel to believe more concessions on their part is warranted?
okay, your point is made. Not sure what the reason for the point is, but maybe you can explain?
Certainly seems to me that Muslims think it is all fine and dandy when they "capture" land but then cry foul when land is "captured" from them.
Sure appears to me like trying to have your cake and eat it too. Maybe I am missing something?
The point is that Israel was willing to "give up" territories, whether "conquered" or not. Have the Arabs been willing to give up anything yet?
No point was made. The implication is not true.
In 1956 Israel gave back what it was forced to conquer from Egypt.
In 1967, the Arabs forced Israel to again conquer.
Since June 1967, Israel has given back steadily and is today much less then she was in the Summer of 1967.
In appreciation, Israel is more vilified, less secure, and in self doubt.
accuracy wasn't the issue for me...I didn't understand what difference his point makes.
thank you... i just love that picture. but no marks on his face, makes me wonder if it isn't fake??? and if it isn't... he got off much lighter than he deserved!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.