Posted on 11/10/2001 8:30:35 AM PST by l33t
Huh?
Yeah. Those strange people bowing towards Arabia.
I can't wait!
How about a photograph or a cedible eyewitness
Plenty of references on the web to UFO's, flat Earth, etc as well.
"...The results were lethal. Fifteen residents of the camp were killed, including a number of women and children. At the summary of the mission, a number of men voiced their reservations: 'Are a few hundred miserable refugees, including women and children, our real enemy?' they asked incredulously. Arik replied, 'The women are the whores of the Arab infiltrators who have been attacking our civilians. If we don't act forcefully against the refugee camps they will turn into comfortable nests for murderers.'"
From the diary of Moshe Sharett.
In response you people make infantile jokes.
The 1953 Kibya raid was part of an Israeli government policy to respond to deadly terrorist raids by "fedayeen" terrorists sponsored by neighboring Jordan and Egypt. Hundreds of Israeli civilians had been killed, and the government responded by sending Sharon's 101 Unit to hit the fedayeen, the army bases that supported them, and the villages that housed them. As the force approached the village, hundreds of Kibya residents were seen fleeing. The force believed that all residents had fled. According to the official IDF Encyclopedia, the soldiers found a young girl in one house and an elderly man in another. They were quickly chased away. Soonafter, IDF sappers blew up dozens of Kibya houses. No one knew that 69 civilians were hiding inside the homes. Their deaths were not deliberate.To connect Sharon's actions as Prime Minister to those of a young IDF officer is unfair and misleading. Israeli-caused civilian casualties during those raids 50 years ago were not intentional -- though Arab attacks on Israelis were.
If this were true then why has he refused till now to amend the Palestinian Covenent which clearly promotes the destruction of Israel.
You mean that European and Israeli journalists are honest, unlike the American? They have this strange habit of doing things like using the term death squad to describe death squads.
Regardless of who owns it - it was territory from which a war against Israel was launched in 1967. As a result of that war Israel occupied it and as such it is currently a disputed territory. To date Israel has allowed the Palestinian Authority full administrative rights over 42% of the land and 97% of the Arab population.
If the Arab population wants autonomy and a state they will have to negotiate a deal with Israel - negotiating a deal doesn't mean you get 100% of what you want. Israel has certain requirements as well, not the least being the right to national survival.
The deal Arafat wants is 100% or it's no deal. The deal Barak and Clinton offered and that he walked away from wasn't a take it or leave it proposal but a step towards a negotiating positioin. Arafat never came back with a counter proposal other that to start the intifada.
And what "law" would you be referring to.
Perhaps the "law of the jungle", how about the "law of possession".
The land belongs to people who were driven out of their homes and have been forced to spend 50 years in refugee camps. The government of Israel itself acknowledges this fact.
That's what your argument always comes down to, doesn't it? Might is Right.
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.