Subject:
|
Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 18 May 2002 15:24:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
850 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > [snip]
> > > (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?)
> >
> > That is why I used an excerpt that contained its sorce reference.
> > >
> > > Even if true, I don't agree it does answer my argument. My questions to you
> > > were:
> > > 1. Who made them refugee's?
> >
> > 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 "Jewish Vampire" article.
>
> 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 why the Palestinians should not be allowed to return
> even if their fears were ill founded. Analogy: If I flee from my home in the
> ill founded belief that is on fire, should I not be allowed to return?
>
> If a family has lived on the same plot of land for generations, why should
> they be removed without compensation to provide a home for an economic
> migrant from the former USSR?
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 there in the
first place.
>
> > (Now if you think that is being
> > ridiculously paranoid consider this. Durring World War 2 when US troops were
> > taking Islands with Japanesse civilians it was very common to see people
> > jumping off cliffs to avoid "capture." Fortunatly most of the Japanesse did
> > not belive their government's lies and discovered that the US soldiers had no
> > ill will toward unarmed cilivians.)
>
>
>
> >
> > > 2. Why should the Arab states support them? Because they share a religion?
> >
> > The Arab states forcably exiled the Jews living in their countries. Israel • did
> > not force those people into refugee camps like the Arab countries did to the
> > Palestinians, they accepted them as citizens.
>
>
> Now Mike, I expect you know well that Israel was actually encouraging Jews
> to move to the region, it is hardly surprising they did not put them in
> refugee camps!
And what about the land that was stolen were they compensated for that?
>
> >
> > > 3. Why should Israel be allowed to steal their land?
> >
> > They did not. The Palestinians (unlike the Jews) were not forced out of • their
> > homes they chose to leave.
>
> I can't agree with that. The Israeli’s were destroying whole villages as
> they moved through some areas.
>
> >
> > > 4. Would you let them steal yours?
> >
> > No but that is irrelevant they did not steal anyones land. The only land • stolen
> > was Jewish property in the Arab countries.
>
> I can't agree with that. Was the land bought in a fair sale? I think not!
>
> > >
> > [snip]
> > > > but at the same time why is no one critizising Palestinian actions?
> > >
> > > Now you are being paranoid! They do Mike. Check the Amnesty and HRW sites.
> >
> > The problem is most news agencies are making excuses for the Palestinians,
> > saying they are acting out of desperation and such.
>
> It's true. Take a look at how they live, and how their leaders have sold
> them out time-after-time.
Yep, their leaders blame it all on Israel and the people mindlessly believe
them. The few Palestinians that try to think for themselves are executed as
Israeli collaborators. Israel is not keep the Palestinians oppressed the PLO
and Arab governments are. They are Israel hating pawns just like they are
supposed to be.
>
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > I do support Israel's right to fight back
> > > > > > > > though.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do the Palestinians not have the “right to fight back”?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From Israel offering peace?!
> > > > >
> > > > > No, fight back against Israeli agrression!
> > > >
> > > > So they start a fight and cry 'wolf' when they lose?
> > >
> > > I don't agree with that analogy. If we accept that the west bank and gaza
> > > are occupied terrotories, the Palastinians have the right to fight back
> > > against the forces of occupation (not civilians).
> >
> > If the above situation were true I would most certainly agree with it. Of
> > coure 97 percent the West Bank and Gaza was NOT occupied since 1993.
>
> Not quite true:
> http://www.opendemocracy.net/forum/document_details.asp?CatID=127&DocID=1380
> "The map shows how the built-up areas of the settlements constitute only
> 1.7% of the land in the West Bank, but their municipal boundaries and
> regional councils now control a total of 41.9% of the land."
>
> The map:
> http://www.opendemocracy.net/document_store/Doc1380-5.pdf
>
> > Barak
> > offered to give the rest back in exchange for peace. Arafat did not accept.
> > Only after the Palestinians spent 18 months suicide bombing civilians did
> > Israel's army finally retaliate by invading. You would think that Arafat • would
> > have learned that lesson in 1967, but then again most of the world is now
> > criticizing Israel and making excuses for Palestinians.
>
> As I have said before, Barak could not even guarantee that offer as it would
> have to be validated in a referendum.
So even though Barak was elected because he wanted to work for peace, the
people would not have supported him?
> Even so, what stopped him from making a
> second offer? Do you feel Arafat was obliged to accept the offer simply
> because it was made to him?
Considering he was offered basicly everything he claimed to Western diplomats
to want, it seems odd that he did not accept. Oh wait, then he would have no
excuse to order terrorist attacks with the intent to destroy Israel.
>
> > If the Palestinians
> > ONLY wanted the West Bank and Gaza it had already been offered.
>
> Not all of it - we both agree on that much. What about Jerusalem? Have they
> no right to that?
Barak also offered Arafat a capital in Jerusalem.
>
> > The current
> > terror campaign is intended to bring about what Arafat wanted all along, the
> > destruction of Israel.
>
> That is the aim of some involved. Some in Israel want to do the same to the
> Palestinians - do you accept that?
Some in Israel is a little different than all of the Arab countries.
> >
> > [snip]
> > > > > Where did the refugees come from?
> > > > > What was Israel's role in Suez?
> > >
> > > No answer?
> >
> > The first question was answered above.
> > This might be a major case of 'DUH' but I have no Idea what 'Suez' refers to.
>
> The Suez War ('57?) which Israel started for France and the UK! France
> rewarded them with arms and “nuclear technology”.
Oh yeah that was definately a case of 'DUH'. I stand corrected on my previous
statement that Israel did not do anything prior to '67.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 17-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
