I agree with Dick Armey. Here's a perfect spot.
Posted on 05/02/2002 10:32:01 AM PDT by Cinnamon Girl
You "sorely" need some history lessons!!!
Here is just a PORTION of a letter from a Doctor who LIVES there,.. if your mind is open and you WANT to know the truth!! read on...
We have heard much in the media about the fact that Palestine was “conquered” by the Jews who have no right to be here. That seems to be working well in the International arena. What are the facts?
At the end of World War I, in the Treaty of Versailles, Great Britain was awarded the Turkish district of Palestine on a mandate of facilitating the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. The Declaration was called the Balfour Declaration. Palestine encompassed the historic Jewish homeland where there had been a continuous Jewish presence for several millenia. In the year 70 CE the Romans conquered the land that was then known as Judea (from which the designation “Jew” comes). They wanted to replace the name with one that didn’t refer to Jews so they chose a name from the Philistines who had invaded the area from Greece in about 1200 BCE and who had disappeared around 500 BCE. They changed the name of the area to Philistina (Palestine).
In the early 1920's 77% of Palestine (the area east of the Jordan River) was given by England to the Hashemite Kings of Saudi Arabia. That area came to be known as Trans-Jordan. It was a state of primarily Palestinian Arabs. At that time, all residents of the area, Jews, Christians and Arabs were known as Palestinians. The Palestinian Post (now the Jerusalem Post) and Palestine Radio were Jewish institutions, founded by Jews prior to the formation of the State of Israel. In modern times, Jews have been the largest religious group living in Jerusalem since the 1840's. Only at the end of the British Mandate, prior to the formation of the State of Israel was Palestinian considered to be a term applied to Arabs only. From the formation of the State of Israel in 1948 through the 1973 war the Arabs on the West Bank of the Jordan were considered to be Jordanians not Palestinians.
In 1947 the Jewish population of Palestine agreed to a UN brokered partition of the remaining 23% of the original area of Palestine (the area west of the Jordan River) so that the Jews could have their own state. The agreement was approximately to share the land 50% to the Jews and 50% to the Arabs under Jordanian rule. The Arab League rejected the partition and as soon as the State of Israel was declared they attacked Israel. A war was fought in which the result was a division of the land which was less favorable to the Arabs than the original UN Partition Plan.
In 1967 after years of shooting at Northern Israel from the vantage point of the Golan Heights and sending terrorists into Israel, Syria and Egypt created a joint command, massed large armed forces on Israel’s border and threatened to annihilate Israel. In a pre-emptive strike Israel defeated both armies and captured the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula to the Suez Canal.
Israel had told Jordan to stay out of the war, keep you borders quiet and we won’t bother you. Instead Jordan also attacked Israel. In the war against Jordan Israel defeated them and took control of the Temple Mount and the West Bank. On entering the Old City of Jerusalem in 1967, Israel found that the holiest Jewish sites had been gutted and desecrated. Tombstones from ancient Jewish graves on the Mt. of Olives had been used as pathways to Jordanian Army latrines and as stones to line the latrines.
When Israel conquered the West Bank and the Sinai Peninsula in the war of 1967 she offered to return all the properties in exchange for peace. The answer was the famous three “no’s” from the Arab League in the Khartoum Summit. No recognition of Israel, No negotiation with Israel, No peace with Israel.
In 1973 Sadat, the President of Egypt, decided to retake the Sinai Peninsula by force. The Egyptians were soundly defeated in that war. By 1977, because of a struggling economy, and because the United States convinced Sadat that there would be a “peace dividend” if Egypt made peace with Israel, Sadat offered recognition and peace in exchange for the return of the Sinai desert, despite domestic opposition within Egypt. He flew to Israel and spoke to the Knesset. Israel entered into a peace treaty with Egypt and gave them back the land, notwithstanding the fact that 7,000 Israelis were uprooted from their homes in settlements in the Sinai, some of them forcibly by the IDF. Israel also gave up its only chance to be energy-independent. The Alma oil field in Southern Sinai provided most of the energy for Israel, and projections were that Israel would be totally energy independent if it had kept that oil field.
The Palestinians could have achieved the same. Had they the courage of Sadat, they would have their own state today.
I have lived and worked in Jewish towns in the West Bank. I know the people that live there. Some of the communities I have worked and lived in were Jewish towns before 1948 - before statehood. Some are new towns on the sites of or near the sites of Ancient Jewish towns from 2000 years ago. I cannot speak for every West Bank resident, but I know that a strong majority of them would move voluntarily and make concessions if they felt the result would be a lasting peace.
There seems, unfortunately, to be no reciprocity coming from the Palestinians. For years now Arafat has been talking peace to the press in English, while at the same time inciting war in Arabic to the masses. Palestinian TV bombards the people, including children, daily with hate messages about Israel and Jews. Where will peace come from in the next generation?
In Israel the focus is on peace. We want to achieve it one way or another. There are political groups pressing for outlandish compromises in exchange for peace. Our children are named Shalom (Peace) and it is a frequent theme in our prayers. We have no children named Jihad - and there is no concept of a holy war as a Jewish goal. The non-Jewish population in Israel is not seen as an “infidel” and they are welcome to share our country with us. The Muslims want only a homogenous Muslim population from the Atlantic to Malaysia without Christians or Jews. The reason they hate us is because we are not Muslims, not because we are “occupying” their territory.
I have spent many Saturday afternoons with my cousins in Ramot. My 16 year old cousin had friend called Michal. She was always coming over to their house. She was a warm and sweet little girl. Seven months ago she went to get a pizza downtown and was blown up by a suicide bomber. She died with her best friend, another 16 year old girl from Ramot. Within a few days of their killing a museum was set up in the home town of the suicide bomber in Nablus - glorifying the act in every detail. The pizza shop was recreated and the locals could walk through the different rooms of the recreated pizza shop and look at the plastic models of severed limbs of Jewish children. The PA closed down the exhibit only after it started to get bad press overseas.
In July 2000 when Barak sat down with Arafat and offered him 97% of the West Bank - it was the most that Israel could do. Israel amounts to 1/2000 the size of its Arab neighbors - and is only nine miles wide at its center. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab country - it has always been a Jewish capital - yet we offered Arafat part of Jerusalem for his capital. We could do no more. Arafat rejected our offer.
I have not spent any time preparing these words. I speak to you from my gut and my heart as I read the foreign press and watch the BBC and see distorted reporting, bias and half-truths.
I hope that those of you who read this outside of Israel have a greater perspective about what is really going on here than you did before. Unfortunately you did not know those beautiful young innocents who I knew and who touched my life - and who were recently murdered by sick suicide bombers - Michal Raziel, Aish-Kodesh Gilmour and Malchi Roth. Some of you may know my cousin Adi who was shot at while driving to work three weeks ago, but was not hit.
Take a minute and try to feel what it is like after having offered everything we could and we are answered with bombs in our cafes and restaurants, our markets and malls and our Passover Seders. It is clear that the Palestinians do not want us to retreat to the 1967 borders - they want us out of the Middle East. Incidentally, if all the fighting is about our retreating to the 1967 borders - what was all the fighting about prior to 1967?
1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
You see, John can't bring himself to choke on the truth... pray for him, he will need it! You can see that in (ii), the UN clearly states that all belligerency must stop, and if not, Israel is not required to go back to the borders.
However, I agree with you... the way the UN is acting these days, who cares what the Arab mouthpiece says anymore.
I agree with Dick Armey. Here's a perfect spot.
The Arabs demanded and even forced the flight of the "Palestinians" from the areas in 1948. The Arabs had promised to rid the areas of the Jews which never happened and thus the Arabs themselves created a huge refugee problem.
The Jews realized why the Arabs were being told and forced to leave and were fearful of the coming war and did everything they could to stop the exodus of Arabs from cities such a s Haifa and JAffa.
Incidentally: please note that, in almost all cases, references to the refugees by nationality are as "The Arabs of Palestine" or simply "The Arabs". The ONLY contemporary reference above to refer to "Palestinians" is also the only American; Arabs of that time simply did not usethe term. (They did not because the term would have been inaccurate; "Palestinian" applied then to both Jews and Arabs living under the British Mandate. Use of the term "Palestinian" to mean Arabs only came much later.)
See-
"I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem." -- Emil Ghoury (Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee), as quoted in the Daily Telegraph, September 6 1948 (Beirut)
See-
All the above were written while the exodus of refugees-to-be was still taking place. Let us now turn to statements made after the fact: "The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies." -- Editorial, Falastin, February 19, 1949 (Amman) "It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem." --Broadcast by the Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station on April 3 1949 (Cyprus)
See-
"We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down." -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, as quoted by Nimr el Hawari (the former Commander of the Palestine Arab Youth Organization) in his book 'Sir Am Nakbah' ("The Secret Behind the Disaster"), 1952 (Nazareth)
See-
"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country." -- Edward Atiyah (Secretary of the Arab League Office in London), as quoted in 'The Arabs', p. 183 (London 1955)
See-
"The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade... He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down." -- Habib Issa, in the daily US-published Lebanese newspaper Al Hoda, June 8 1951 (New York)
See-
Abu Mazen wrote in an article entitled "Madha `Alamna wa-Madha Yajib An Na`mal" [What We Have Learned and What We Should Do], published in "Falastineth-Thawra" [Revolutionary Palestine], the official journal of the PLO, Beirut, March 1976, "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland...The Arab States succeeded in scattering thePalestinian people."
See-
Khaled al-`Azm, who served as Prime Minister of Syria in 1948 and 1949, wrote in his memoirs (published in Beirut, 1973), that among the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948 was "the call by the Arab Governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and to leave for the bordering Arab countries, after having sown terror among them...Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave...We have brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees, by calling upon them and pleading with them to leave their land, their homes, their work and business..." (Part 1, pp. 386-387).
See-
Harry C. Stebbens, who was in an official position in the British Mandatory Government in Palestine in 1947-48, wrote in the London Evening Standard (Friday, 10 January, 1969):
"Long before the end of the British mandate, between January and April, 48, practically all my Arab Palestinian staff of some 200 men and women and all of the 1800 labor force had left Haifa in spite of every possible effort to assure them of their safety if they stayed. "They all left for one or more of the following reasons:
The Arab terrorism engendered by the November, 1947, U.N. partition resolution frightened them to death of their imaginative souls and they feared Jewish retaliation.
Propagandists promised a blood bath as soon as the mandate ended in which the street of all the cities would run with blood.
The promised invasion by the foreign Arab armies (which started on May 14, 1948, with the Arab Legion massacre of some 200 Jewish settlers at Kfar Etzion) was preceded by extensive broadcasts from Cairo, Damascus, Amman, and Beirut to the effect that any Arabs who stayed would be hanged as collaborators with the Jews.
"The Palestinian Arabs were the victims then, as in 1967, of their own propaganda, and having on the average no stomach for violence they ran. I have met many of my Palestinian Arab friends since in Beirut, Damascus, Amman, and in the Persian Gulf states, and they have all without exception gladly told me that they had wished they had listened to me and stayed - as did some 200,000 who became and still are the most economically advanced Arabs in the Middle East.
See-
On 6 September 1949, the Beirut Telegraph carried an interview with Mr. Emile Ghoury, Secretary of the Palestine Higher Committee, in which he said: "The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab States in opposing partition and the Jewish State."
See-
The Jordan daily Falastin wrote on 19 February 1949: "The Arab States which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promises to help these refugees."
See-
As late as 12 October 1963, the Cairo daily Akhbar el-Yom, recalled:
"15 May 1948 arrived...on that very day the Mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead..." ,
See-
In Haifa, on 27 April 1948, the Arab National Committee refused to sign a truce, reporting in a memorandum to the Arab League Governments: "when the delegation entered the conference room it proudly refused to sign the truce and asked that the evacuation of the Arab population and their transfer to neighboring Arab countries be facilitated...The military and civil authorities and the Jewish representatives expressed their profound regret. The mayor of Haifa (Mr. Shabtai Levi) adjourned the meeting with a passionate appeal to the Arab population to reconsider its decision..."
See-
"The first group of our fifth columnists consists of those who abandoned their houses and business and go to live elsewhere... At the first sign of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle." -- Editorial, Ash Sha'ab, January 30 1948 (Haifa)
See-
"The Arab streets are curiously deserted and, evidently following the poor example of the more moneyed class there has been an exodus from Jerusalem too, though not to the same extent as in Jaffa and Haifa." -- London Times, May 5 1948.
See-
"The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab Armies would crush the "Zionist gangs" very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile." -- Msgnr. George Hakim (Greek Catholic bishop), as quoted in Sada al Janub, August 16, 1948 (Beirut).
See-
"Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit... It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades." -- The Economist, October 2 1948 (London)
See-
See: Abu Mazen wrote in an article entitled "Madha `Alamna wa-Madha Yajib An Na`mal" [What We Have Learned and What We Should Do], published in "Falastineth-Thawra" [Revolutionary Palestine], the official journal of the PLO, Beirut, March 1976, "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland...The Arab States succeeded in scattering thePalestinian people."
See-
"The Arab exodus, initially at least,was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the Palestine Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea." -- Kenneth Bilby (an American journalist, covering the area before and during the war), in his book 'New Star in the Near East', pp. 30-31 (New York 1950)
1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
Selective Eh. !!!!!
There are two points. And from my days at school, 1. comes before 2. It does not state that 2. must be completed before 1. can be completed.
There is little or no trust in this area for the last 50 years, the only man (Rabin) brave enough to step up to the plate, as all great men in history do, was assisinated by his own people.
So eaily we Forget
But I take it that people with your minset have an explanation for that also, so you can twist it round and round and the children, grand children and great grand children of the present day participants will be injured or murdered. But I suppose in your logic, its worth it, as long as Israel is allowed to survive as a name, because it will never be a country, or not as the rest of the civilised world would call a country.
If you cannot change your views for yourself, while you sit in the US in your armchair, then do it for the innocents of the future,who will not have a choice.
U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242
NOVEMBER 22, 1967
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i)Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii)Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
Since you are trying to talk "logic"... the preamble to the two points clearly states that BOTH (can you see that capitalized word?) principles need to be applied...
I do not see how you can possibly read that one should be applied without the other... or that the 1st needs to be applied before the second. To me (and I would bet to MOST people, and I would be willing to take a poll) the word both means "both", not one or the other, not one and then the other or any other way you can define it.
checking Merriam-Webster...
1. both adj: being the two
2. both pron: both ones, the one as well as the other.
3. both conj: used as a function word to indicate and stress the inclusion of each of two or more things specified by coordinated words, phrases or clauses.
So, tell me, who is the twister here??? I advise you to go back to school and figure out that both means both. As in together. As in "not one without the other". As in "not one before the other", get it???
The Koran it too does not once mention Jerusalem. Or even Palestine.
Jerusalem was founded by King David and was never visited by Mohammed.
in Historical Palestine there must have been some noteworthy Kings and statesman.
Pls list some.
Also, please submit a sample for their alphabet, a links to pictures of some of their historical documents maybe a few ancient Palestinian coins… anything .
The Arabs demanded and even forced the flight of the "Palestinians" from the areas in 1948. The Arabs had promised to rid the areas of the Jews which never happened and thus the Arabs themselves created a huge refugee problem.
The Jews realized why the Arabs were being told and forced to leave and were fearful of the coming war and did everything they could to stop the exodus of Arabs from cities such a s Haifa and JAffa.
Agreed. I knew that, but WOW, that's a TON of documentation. Thanks, definitely keeping those references.
Incidentally: please note that, in almost all cases, references to the refugees by nationality are as "The Arabs of Palestine" or simply "The Arabs". The ONLY contemporary reference above to refer to "Palestinians" is also the only American; Arabs of that time simply did not usethe term. (They did not because the term would have been inaccurate; "Palestinian" applied then to both Jews and Arabs living under the British Mandate. Use of the term "Palestinian" to mean Arabs only came much later.)
Agree again. I also think it's worth mentioning that "Palestine" used to refer to all of Israel and all of Jordan as well, so the "Palestinians" don't necessarily come from west of the Jordan, as so often claimed.
Thanks again for the extensive references!
1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the [b]establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: Since Israel is in the west bank as a result of being surrounded by 6 Nations army and after having a long standing and on going low lever war with the Arabs 242 will never kick in until there is an end to the belligerency and acknowledgment of the sovereignty.
Heck even the latest newest Saudi plan is trying to acknowledge the sovereignty of Israel.
The oft-cited UN Resolution 242 (passed in the wake of the 1967 war) does not, in fact, require a complete withdrawal from the West Bank. As legal scholar Eugene Rostow put it,
"Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until 'a just and lasting peace in the Middle East' is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces 'from territories' it occupied during the Six-Day War--not from 'the' territories nor from 'all' the territories, but from some of the territories."
John_11_25 said: As you can see from resolution 242 below, it DOES state that Israel should withdraw from the territories occupied during the recent conflict.
I also know of the Middle East History, as I used to work and live in Israel, Jordon, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, so I think I am more than able to comment, unlike some of the participants in this thread, who are armchair viewers and may not have been outside of their state, never mind their country.
I'm sorry, but the resolution does not say that (Israel should withdraw from the territories). It made the Arabs very angry because that is what they wanted it to say, for obvious reasons, and they protested loudly. But they were voted down. "The" was purposefully left out. Here are a few quotes from the men who were there:
Lord Caradon. U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970) Chief architect and Author of U.N.Resolution 242:
"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That’s why we didn’t demand that the Israelis return to them."
"We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the "the" in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately ... We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier ... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever".
Eugene V.Rostow. U.S.Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs (1966-1969) who assisted in the writing of the draft:
"motions to require the withdrawal of Israel from "the" territories or "all the territories" occupied in the course of the Six Day War were put forward many times with great linguistic ingenuity. They were all defeated both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council."
"Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 ... rest on two principles. Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbours make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to "secure and recognised borders", which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949".
(September 10, 1968)
George Brown, Britain’s Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs:
"The proposal said, ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."
I did not notice John L's slam. He is as accurate about people here not having been out of thier state as he is about Middle East history.
I am from Hungary now living in Calif., my father having been in the Hagana! (SP)
Here's another one-
- Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969:
"As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told the House previously, we believe that these two things should be read concurrently and that the omission of the word 'all' before the word 'territories' is deliberate."
Seems the ARABS have a real and consistent anger problem, triggered by the fact that other people won't do or say exactly what THEY WANT them to. This simple statement could be made the "master file name" for every one of their ongoing personal and national problems.
They possess NO CONCEPTS OF FREEDOM for OTHERS to SPEAK or HEAR what they want to or not... the right for all to speak, and NOT be listened to, based on the choice of individual nations, or people has escaped them. And it drives them muderously insane.
Hence their incessant prayers five times a day to a deaf, and apparently non-existant god, from towers with loudspeakers amped up, to try and FORCE others to hear what THEY have to shout about... death, anger and murder of the current Jihad culture... The gospel of anger, and outrageous death.
Nobody wants to hear their stupid minaret's song, for it has become the song of death for all in it's shadow and proximity. They are the islamic towers of irrepressable rage... and death.
Seems they need some very basic "anger management" training.... These kind of lessons REQUIRE humiliation of an active, pugnacious kind...
But who is the "lucky" teacher gonna be?
The Prime Minister of Israel sits down with Arafat at the beginning of negotiations regarding the resolution of the conflict. The Prime Minister requests that he be allowed to begin with a story. Arafat replies, "Of course."The Prime Minister begins his story: "Years before the Israelites came to the Promised Land and settled here, Moses led them for 40 years through the desert. The Israelites began complaining that they were thirsty and, lo and behold, a miracle occurred and a stream appeared before them. They drank their fill and then decided to take advantage of the stream to do some bathing -- including Moses. When Moses came out of the water, he found that all his clothing was missing.
"Who took my clothes?" Moses asked those around him.
"It was the Palestinians," replied the Israelites--"
"Wait a minute," objected Arafat immediately, "there were no Palestinians during the time of Moses!"
"All right," replies the Prime Minister, "Now that we've got that settled, let's begin our negotiations."
Funny, I studied Bible for a number of years in school, and I never REALIZED that Joshua led the Children of Israel all the way to Brooklyn!
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.