Debate : 16351


Off-Topic / Debate / 16351

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Mike Petrucelli

[snip] (...) Ah, I see. [snip] (...) Well if 5 Arab armies had not attacked them they probably would not have. (...) *If* it meant peace then yes I do think Israel would hand back the West Bank. That was why Barak was elected and offered peace to (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) You should have paid more attention in history class. This is not quite true. (...) Has all the land taken in '67 ever been offered back... I don't think so. (...) To a certain extent they are "oppressors". Check their human rights record! (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —John Neal

(...) It was a pre-emptive strike. This does not mean that the Arabs weren't going to attack anyway-- they were. The war was unavoidable (for Israel). Israel wisely seized the upper hand. For you to say that they "invaded" shows that *you* did most (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) Nite quite John. Let's just look at one front. The claimed issue for engaging Syria was that Israeli farmers were being harassed by the Syrians - they (the farmers) made a presentation to the Israeli cabinet which reportedly concluded the (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —John Neal

(...) <snip long quote which you have *already* offered elsewhere which I can't find relevant> Just answer this question "yes" or "no": Would the Arabs have invaded Israel if they hadn't acted first? (...) "Mostly over"? It's never "over" for the (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) The quote demonstrated: a) Why Israel wanted the war. b) How they provoked it. (...) The battle was "mostly over". Israel was reluctant to advance substantially into Arab territory as they feared a counter attack by external powers (i.e. the (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —John Neal

(...) Israel tricked the Syrians. Fine. The purpose was to control the Golan Heights so as to provide a safe buffer between her and Syria. It was a completely *defensive* strategy. Has Israel used this strategic advantage against Syria in an (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) Wrong. Read the quotes again. (...) Indeed. (...) We've covered that ground before. (...) How many years later? (...) Not quite. (...) He got it back because he *did* attack! His attack made Israel understand that they had to speak to him. (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Mike Petrucelli

(...) place. (...) current (...) getting (...) Odd? The Arab countries that controled the land (and forced the Arab refugees now called Palastinians into the refuge camps in the first place) have not requested the land back. Dispite this 97% of that (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) That is a notion which is quite wrong. (...) You have *not* answered my question have you? The answer is no! (...) Who made them refugee's? I accept it would have been more convenient for Israel if the Arab states had accepted them into their (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Mike Petrucelli

(...) never (...) true. (...) West (...) years (...) Bank. (...) disagree (...) years, (...) refugees (...) be (...) media (...) Israel. (...) This excerpt from one of Mona Charen's articles conters your argument far better than I can and includes (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) (Given that this thread-let was about Ms Charen's integrity, I’m bemused that you are using her to justify your argument(!). Have we went full circle?) Even if true, I don't agree it does answer my argument. My questions to you were: 1. Who (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Mike Petrucelli

[snip] (...) That is why I used an excerpt that contained its sorce reference. (...) Arab propaganda. Not all Arabs (Palestinians) fled Israel in 1948, because they did not belive the silly things that the dictators tell them. (like the Saudi-Arabia (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) If "not all", then how many? Israel was able to clear 80% of Palestinians from the area (~700,000 individuals), I happen to think that had more to do with their aggression than it does alleged reports of "Jewish Vampires". However, I don’t see (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Mike Petrucelli

(...) circle?) (...) they (...) How about people that moved into an area 1-2 years before the the country was formed by the UN. The only reason they moved there was because the Arab countries were trying to discourage the UN from putting Israel (...) (23 years ago, 18-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) That does not really answer my question. Your point, even if true, does not justify Israel’s actions in any way. Does it? (...) To be honest, I have no idea. (...) I can't agree with that view. (...) Peace on Israel's terms? Barak went to the (...) (23 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) If the word "soldier" is used in the wide sense here, the last statement is probably flase. It is a common opinion that the ultimate Japanese capitulation was caused by the heavy civillian casualties after the atomic bomb attacks. Prior to the (...) (23 years ago, 18-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)