You're truly amazing.
Why thank you.
The Israeli people themselves are sick and tired of over fifty years of conflict and killing, that has no real end in sight. They want some legitimate possiblity of a lasting peace. You must know that. Well, perhaps you don't.
We both accept the fact that the Israelis want peace. What we seem to disagree on is why they should be willing sacrifice to make it happen while the other side continues to blow their loved ones to oblivion. We both can look back for decades to see what Israel has sacrificed in the quest for peace. What neither of us can recall is anything the Palestinians have been asked to give up, including terrorism.
Oh sure, we go through the motions, but we know damned well the terrorism is going to continue. None the less we make demands on Israel. That is perposterous and you know it.
The fact PresBush condemns Israel for comitting this specific attack, is important to keep his appearence of being an honest broker in the ME.
Could you please tell me why Bush must remain impartial on the subject of Israel? France, Germany, the EU, the UN, all middle east leaders and just about every other nation's leadership on the planet openly condemns Israel at every opportunity. In the face of this YOU think we should remain impartial. Please grace us with the reasoning behind betraying Israel in the quest for peace. I'd love to hear it.
Anyone with half a brain knows the US is Israel's friend and ally. PresBush is attempting to assist Israel in finally securing an end to all hostilites.
Anyone with half a brain knows that our leadership remains silent regarding terrorism perpetrated against Israel until Israel responds. Then we damn Israel for jeopardizing prospects for peace. With assitance like this, who needs enemies?
If you think killing all the Palis is the answer, your wrong.
Along with the rest of your misguided comments, this one takes the cake. I'd like nothing more than to see the Palestinians living a successful life in peace on the West Bank and Gaza. It is their own citizens that aid the terrorists and you know it. It is their own leadership that avoids ending any number of efforts devised to make sure they continue. Mosks, schools, print media and civic leaders call for the destruction of the Jewish dogs or monkeys. Despite this, neither Israel or I have ever proposed killing the Palestinians other than to target known terrorists. Your implication that I did doesn't reflect well on you.
If you think Israel should engage in another war with the Arab world, your wrong.
What exactly do you call mass casualty bombings and daily military style incursions into Israeli territory, peace?
The next big war in the ME could mean the end of Israel, as we know it. And I'm not referring to any Bibical profhecy either. 300 million Arab's may not choose to sit still this time. The tinderbox could explode into a dangerous regional conflict.
So anotherwords Israel should just sit there and allow continued attacks on it's citizens? B.S., and you know it. Israel's past actions have not created peace. Their efforts at compromising and trying to meet Palestinian and global demands have been met with stiff-necked contempt. To hell with policies that see their citizens blown up by the busload, coffee shop or market full.
The day may yet come when such events will lead to all out war, with Israel and the US battling the Islamic/Arab world. Clinton had his opportunity. Lets give PresBush his opportunity. Anything is possible.
Dream on. Refusing to back your ally while everyone else openly supports their enemy is futile and suicidal.
51 posted on 06/10/2003 8:52 AM PDT by Reagan Man
Both sides are wrong. Israel to a lesser degree of course. The Palis have had three times the amount of citizens killed in the last three years, then the Israeli's have. So both sides continue to sacrifice and suffer. The problem you have is you don't view the Palis as people, but rather as cattle. You want them physically removed from Israeli territory. Such an action, would start the bigger regional conflict I mentioned. And once again, most Israeli's don't want the Pali's moved out. They want the conflict settled and they want lasting peace.
>>> ... we make demands on Israel. That is perposterous and you know it.
What actual demands have we made on Israel that they probably already gave the green light to? Come on D1, you know better then that. Sharon even realzies this can't go on forever and most Israeli's beleive some rational conclusion must be reached and soon.
>>>Could you please tell me why Bush must remain impartial on the subject of Israel? France, Germany, the EU, the UN, all middle east leaders and just about every other nation's leadership on the planet openly condemns Israel at every opportunity. In the face of this YOU think we should remain impartial. Please grace us with the reasoning behind betraying Israel in the quest for peace. I'd love to hear it.
I don't need your condescending tone D1 and I don't give a rats arse about what other nations of the world may think about Israel. Other nations of the world have not been engaged in any real peace process before. I doubt Kofi Annan and the UN have designs on securing a peace in this Isareli/Pali conflict. Bush has presented what is being called a "Road Map to Peace", so he would look pretty foolish, if he didn't try and appear to be the honest broker, he says he is.
>>>Anyone with half a brain knows that our leadership remains silent regarding terrorism perpetrated against Israel until Israel responds. Then we damn Israel for jeopardizing prospects for peace. With assitance like this, who needs enemies?
Pure horsecrap! I've heard Bush, Powell, Rice, even Rumsfeld condemn the Pali's. Our media and especially the world media has a tendency not to print such remarks from "our leaders", so as to diminish any right Isarel may have to respond with their military and protect their interests.
If you think killing all the Palis is the answer, you're wrong.
>>>Along with the rest of your misguided comments, this one takes the cake.
My remarks haven't been misguided. They've been right on the money. You need a dictionary to look up the meaning of the word "if". Such is the meaning of rhetorical phrasing.
If you think Israel should engage in another war with the Arab world, you're wrong.
>>>What exactly do you call mass casualty bombings and daily military style incursions into Israeli territory, peace?
The current three year old conflict is nothing compared to the all out wars of 1967 and 1973. And again, I used that word "if".
>>>So anotherwords Israel should just sit there and allow continued attacks on it's citizens? B.S., and you know it.
I never said that or even infered such a scenario. You did! I do think Israel has every right to protect and defend itself and have thought that since I was old enough to understand what was happening with Israel and their ME neighbors. Growing up in NYCity, half my good friends were Jewish. Many would spend summers in Israel and returned to share their stories with their friends and schoolmates. It was a first hand account of real life.
Your problem D1, as with most American's, is you don't understand the Israeli people and their strong desire for lasting peace. All out war may yet come some day in the ME. The US remains a strong friend and ally to the Israeli people. We will stand with them, as we always have. Try and see past your own nose once in a while and understand the nature of the politics involved here. Peace doesn't come without a price. If I could snap my fingers and end the conflict, I would, but this is the real world. PresBush has offered an option to both sides. There may not be many opportunities left.