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.
To: DoughtyOne
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.
Both sides are wrong. Israel to a lesser degree of course.
Please tell me how Israel is wrong. I'd like to know. They have terrorists bombing their citizens. Palestinians are facilitating that effort at every level of their society. As such Israel has had no choice but to attack known terrorist camps, destroy bomb making facilities, limit border crossings and try to disrupt the terrorists efforts by any means possible.
The Palis have had three times the amount of citizens killed in the last three years, then the Israeli's have.
Here's a question for you. When you understand the answer you may understand why your comments are so offensive.
How many Palestinians would have died at the Israeli military's hands if it wasn't for the terrorism that was and still is advocated at every level of Palestinian society?
So both sides continue to sacrifice and suffer.
Yes, but one side continues to suffer due to their own treachery. The other side still suffers from the treachery of others.
If Palestinians weren't facilitating the terrorist attacks on Israel, Israelis wouldn't be dying and Palestinians and terrorists wouldn't be dying. You tell me who is the real problem here. I'll be damned if I can see how Israel is the guilty party here.
Once again, how many Palestinians would have died if Israel weren't being attacked? The answer is zero, therefore Israel is not the guilty party.
The problem you have is you don't view the Palis as people, but rather as cattle.
I happen to have a higher opinion of the Palestinians than you do. I know they are capable of intelligent forethought. You don't. You think they are stupid idiots that can't help stop the terrorism. I know they can. You are offended by my suggestion they should be moved off the West Bank. My friend, when intelligent people make a concious decision to destroy their neighbors, and the Palestinian society is permeated with this ideological conquest, then they must live by the weight of those decisions, whether the outcome is good or bad. We're talking about responsibility for one's own actions, a steadfast tenet of conservatism.
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.
As a matter of fact I don't want them removed from the West Bank. I stated as much in my last post to you. The problem is, if they wish to remain on the West Bank they MUST renounce their conquest to destroy Israel. They must quit teaching their children to become terrorists. They must quit indoctrinating their children that Israelis are dogs or monkeys. They must quite publishing calls for a second holocaust in their papers. They must quit refering to Israelis as dogs or monkeys in their press. They must quit facilitating terrorist activities. Has our fearless leader addressed ANY OF THIS in public? In a word, no. We don't ask a thing of the Palestinians, in earnest. With a nod and a wink we watch as they change nothing, then demand Israel hurry up.
Yes I would agree most Israelis don't want Palestinians removed from the West Bank. In the best of all worlds I agree with them. But this isn't the best of all worlds and I do not accept your premise that in light of the Palestinian desire to destroy Israel, Israelis would rather they remain on the West Bank and terrorist attacks continue in perpetuity. And no, peace is not on the table. You don't conduct a society that is saturated with the premise your enemy is an animal and should be inhialated, then seek true 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.
We have demanded that Israel dismantle the settlements and stop all incursions and military activity on the West Bank and Gaza. We have demanded that Israel recognize a Palestinian state by 2005, disregarding all other considerations. You didn't know this, yet you wish to continue this discussion?
Some settlements are already being dismantled. The other side has reacted by attacking Israel yet again. Tell me what rational conclusion you have in mind that doesn't entail Israel giving in on every issue while the Palestinians and their proxys continue to blow Israelis to bits?
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...
This is rich. You seem to think Israel is at fault in this conflict, then tell me I'm out of line in objecting to that premise.
...and I don't give a rats arse about what other nations of the world may think about Israel.
That's rather obvious. No other nation on the planet is timid about it's true motives with regard to the middle east conflict, but we should be? LOL
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.
This is downright comical. Israel responds to the terrorism that nobody has condemned, then Israel is the one jeopardizing peace. Bush's roadmap doesn't show how to reach peace. It simply shows the shortest route to the ash-heap of history.
What demands does the road map to peace make on the Palestinians? Please tell me.
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.
I have not seen even a single instance where any of these people have addressed terrorism against Israel without a condemnation of Israeli reactions to that terrorism mixed in. I will qualify that by including the cases where massive terrorist attacks have taken place, which sees our leaders condemning such actions, but include demands that Israel refrain from reacting. This is not only immoral (it allows terrorism to fluorish without efforts to stop it or exact a cost), it is simply nothing better than what Israel's most ardent enemies would call for.
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.
Well I guess your remarks could be interpreted as right on the money depending on which side you back in the middle east. Frankly I think they stink from an Israel point of view.
I don't care if you did insert the word "if" in front of this premise, and your spin on my reaction is tantamount to the "what 'is' is" nonsense. I didn't advocate killing Palestinians and your mention of that premise couldn't be interpreted any other way than to instill an impression that I had here, or that I had somewhere else.
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".
I'm sorry, I pefer to address reality. If you are going to continue to insert hypotheticals into this issue, I'm going to respond as if you knew what you were talking about.
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.
What do you mean you didn't? Did you or did you not say Israel is partly at fault here? The only way they could be at fault is by reacting to terrorism. So again I ask, what do you expect Israel to do, allow it's citizens to be attacked at will without response?
You did!
Nope, I advocate Israel strike back hard for every instance of terrorism. I condemn our leaders for suggesting otherwise.
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.
Then please explain why you think Israel is partly at fault in the middle east. Please explain how it the thought exists in your mind that Israelis would be killing Palestinians if terrorism didn't against them didn't take place.
Your problem D1, as with most American's, is you don't understand the Israeli people and their strong desire for lasting peace.
Oh Barbara Streisand. We all "wish" for middle east peace. The problem is some people have a hard time differentiating reality from a wish.
All out war may yet come some day in the ME.
Yes, and maybe it should sooner than later. If nations like Syria continue to harbor Hezbalah, then it's time to take them out.
The US remains a strong friend and ally to the Israeli people. We will stand with them, as we always have.
The US is a qualified ally of Israel at best. Yes we help her in some ways while we undermine her long term security in others. Carping on Israel for reacting to terroism not only kills Israeli support around the world ("why should we support Israel if even their best ally condemns them"), it emboldens their enemies who think their attacks are achieving sympathy in the west ("see, even the United States came out against Israel for reacting to our terrorism"). Good Lord, can't you see this?
Try and see past your own nose once in a while and understand the nature of the politics involved here.
I have. But what you don't understand is that you are advocating a political policy of self-defeatism for us and more importantly our ally who is under constant attack.
Peace doesn't come without a price.
Exactly! And please tell us what price the Palestinians have demonstrated that they are willing to pay?
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.
Once again a US President has demanded that Israel jump through hoops to end the middle east conflict, with every intention that Israel comply. Once again very few demands have been placed on the Palestinains, with every understanding that none of them will be complied with.
66 posted on 06/10/2003 10:13 AM PDT by Reagan Man