|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:30 am Post subject: Israel and the Arabs (Right versus Wrong) |
 |
|
We had a debate about terrorism on this forum. It was found conclusively that both Hezbollah and the Israelis have stated that they are moral forces of combat, but both have been condemned by international bodies, human rights groups for human rights violations.
There is much talk about peace. There has been since the 1980s during the Reagan Administration, but to some extent in Rabat when Arafat in the 1970s proclaimed he was for a two-state solution, and Sadat and Begin signed a peace agreement. The march to peace for both sides was paved with blood - Jewish and Arab blood.
Hezbollah does not recognize Israel nor does Hamas. For that reason, Hezbollah and Hamas are portrayed as worse than Israel by many for this rejectionist stand. Historically, Israel has had its rejectionists as well.
The building of settlements is a rejectionist stand, expansionist, and for many years Golda Meier said there were no Palestinians, and Begin when asked about giving up the West Bank and Gaza Strip he stated he would not be one to give up Judea and Samaria.
We talk about Hezbollah needing to comply with UN 425. It is necessary. However, is only one side violating UN resolutions? Has Israel violated 242 and 338? According to the high court in the Hague, yes. The Israelis and the Arabs can only solve their differences, bridge the gaps. The Arabs won't sway Israel by lecturing on morality, and it cannot, and the Arabs cannot do either with Israel.
What was being argued in the thread was not about terrorism but rather using ideology and favouritism for one side or the other which provides no solution in the conflict. In my personal opinion when it comes to carnage, I look at the record, Lebanon burned and burned and burned from being bombed, the slaughter numbered in the thousands and thousands. There is no doubt Israel mourned its sons who died in Netanya, Tel Aviv, Haifa due to suicide bombs and also on the battlefields.
When a few Israelis would die, scores of Arabs would die as a price.
This has not worked and nor have the suicide bombings worked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You lose me here, Adventurer:
I think it's a travesty to equate Israeli transgressions with those of Hezbollah. The latter is motived by malice and nothing more.
And that goes for Hamas and the martyr brigades and al-Sadr's punks too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
madcap
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Gangneung, Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So Steve, are you saying that an Israeli life is worth more than a Palestinian? Those civilians who are dying on both sides aren't the ones who are making the decisions. Hezbolla and Hamas are de facto governments in their areas and they are making executive decisions about who and where to bomb. Israel is doing the same thing. I won't argue that one side is more justified than the other, but I will say that Israel has used excessive force in retaliation and continues to do it. It hasn't worked for fourty years, why will it work now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Golda Meier said there were no Palestinians |
it depends what she meant by that. If the meant there were no refugees then she would be denying the suffering of others.
On the other hand.
| Quote: |
Myths of the Middle East
by Joseph Farah
I've been quiet since Israel erupted in fighting spurred by disputes over the Temple Mount.
Until now, I haven't even bothered to say, "See, I told you so." But I can't resist any longer. I feel compelled to remind you of the column I wrote just a couple weeks before the latest uprising. Yeah, folks, I predicted it. That's OK. Hold your applause.
After all, I wish I had been wrong. More than 80 people have been killed since the current fighting in and around Jerusalem began. And for what?
If you believe what you read in most news sources, Palestinians want a homeland and Muslims want control over sites they consider holy. Simple, right?
Well, as an Arab-American journalist who has spent some time in the Middle East dodging more than my share of rocks and mortar shells, I've got to tell you that these are just phony excuses for the rioting, trouble-making and land-grabbing.
Isn't it interesting that prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there was no serious movement for a Palestinian homeland?
"Well, Farah," you might say, "that was before the Israelis seized the West Bank and Old Jerusalem."
That's true. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn't capture these territories from Yasser Arafat. They captured them from Jordan's King Hussein. I can't help but wonder why all these Palestinians suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war.
The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. The first time the name was used was in 70 A.D. when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of Israel would be no more. From then on, the Romans promised, it would be known as Palestine. The name was derived from the Philistines, a Goliathian people conquered by the Jews centuries earlier. It was a way for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had even less staying power.
Palestine has never existed -- before or since -- as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland.
There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.
But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.
What about Islam's holy sites? There are none in Jerusalem.
Shocked? You should be. I don't expect you will ever hear this brutal truth from anyone else in the international media. It's just not politically correct.
I know what you're going to say: "Farah, the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem represent Islam's third most holy sites."
Not true. In fact, the Koran says nothing about Jerusalem. It mentions Mecca hundreds of times. It mentions Medina countless times. It never mentions Jerusalem. With good reason. There is no historical evidence to suggest Mohammed ever visited Jerusalem.
So how did Jerusalem become the third holiest site of Islam? Muslims today cite a vague passage in the Koran, the seventeenth Sura, entitled "The Night Journey." It relates that in a dream or a vision Mohammed was carried by night "from the sacred temple to the temple that is most remote, whose precinct we have blessed, that we might show him our signs. ..." In the seventh century, some Muslims identified the two temples mentioned in this verse as being in Mecca and Jerusalem. And that's as close as Islam's connection with Jerusalem gets -- myth, fantasy, wishful thinking. Meanwhile, Jews can trace their roots in Jerusalem back to the days of Abraham.
The latest round of violence in Israel erupted when Likud Party leader Ariel Sharon tried to visit the Temple Mount, the foundation of the Temple built by Solomon. It is the holiest site for Jews. Sharon and his entourage were met with stones and threats. I know what it's like. I've been there. Can you imagine what it is like for Jews to be threatened, stoned and physically kept out of the holiest site in Judaism?
So what's the solution to the Middle East mayhem? Well, frankly, I don't think there is a man-made solution to the violence. But, if there is one, it needs to begin with truth. Pretending will only lead to more chaos. Treating a 5,000-year-old birthright backed by overwhelming historical and archaeological evidence equally with illegitimate claims, wishes and wants gives diplomacy and peacekeeping a bad name.
� 2000 WorldNetDaily.com |
| Quote: |
the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said: |
| Quote: |
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism |
| Quote: |
he building of settlements is a rejectionist stand, expansionist, and for many years Golda Meier said there were no Palestinians, and Begin when asked about giving up the West Bank and Gaza Strip he stated he would not be one to give up Judea and Samaria. |
The building of settlements is wrong.
| Quote: |
We talk about Hezbollah needing to comply with UN 425. It is necessary. However, is only one side violating UN resolutions? Has Israel violated 242 and 338? |
How is Israel in violation of 242 and 338?
Please check what they say.
242 basically calls for land for peace not unilateral withdrawal by Israel w/o a guarantee that the Palestinian side won't attack.
| Quote: |
What was being argued in the thread was not about terrorism but rather using ideology and favouritism for one side or the other which provides no solution in the conflict. In my personal opinion when it comes to carnage, I look at the record, Lebanon burned and burned and burned from being bombed, the slaughter numbered in the thousands and thousands. There is no doubt Israel mourned its sons who died in Netanya, Tel Aviv, Haifa due to suicide bombs and also on the battlefields.
When a few Israelis would die, scores of Arabs would die as a price.
This has not worked and nor have the suicide bombings worked. |
Depends on the goals of each side.
the US killed far more North Koreans than the North Koreans killed US soldiers so the US was wrong.
It is a tragedy that 600,000 arab people lost their land in 1948. But please note that the Israel enemies in that war attempted to do the same thing or even worse to Israel. During that war they were attempted to even expel or kill the arab jews of the area.
Also Arab nations themselves persecuted or expelled their arab jews and never offered any compensation yet this issue has never been raised at the UN or anywhere else. Adventurer why are their no jews in arab lands anymore? And why is it that many mideast nations have laws that say jews can't own land , have a job or collect debts. IF they oppose Israel then they better make up for what they have done.
Last Araft turned down Bill Clintons offer not only the one in July 2000 but also the far more generous one in 2001.
| Quote: |
Clinton, who tried but failed to make peace in the Middle East the legacy of his presidency, decried the current cycle of violence in Israel.
"I don't think there is a military solution to this," he said. "But I know there's not a terrorist solution to it."
Clinton also said he disagreed with President Bush that peace can be achieved only when Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is gone from power.
Nevertheless, he said it is important for the United States to remain involved because "Israelis believe that America is the only big country that cares if they live or die."
The ex-president said the best solution to the Middle East conflict is an interim settlement that would "establish a Palestinian state now."
But he stressed that the creation of such a state must be preceded by security assurances for Israel and a timetable to resolve other issues.
Clinton said Arafat made a "disastrous mistake" by turning down past peace proposals that would have given the Palestinian leader control of 97 percent of the West Bank.
Yet, Clinton said, "There is reason for hope.
"I think this will be resolved on the terms the Palestinians walked away from."
Turning his attention to another conflict, Clinton cited India and Pakistan as countries that must move forward with peace. |
In my opinion zionism is a bad idea not an evil one but a certainly a bad one and Israel is a mistake.
But what is done is done.
And Adventurer here is your answer the side that fights for Annihilation is far worse than the side that fights ( most of the time) for self defense.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:23 am; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
madcap wrote:
| Quote: |
| Hezbolla and Hamas are de facto governments in their areas and they are making executive decisions |
You make them sound like deliberating parliamentary bodies. They're street thugs and small time terrorists. Nothing more, nothing less. Let's not glorify them or equate their deeds with Israeli efforts to protect their people from relentless rocket attacks, suicide bombings and the like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
You lose me here, Adventurer:
I think it's a travesty to equate Israeli transgressions with those of Hezbollah. The latter is motived by malice and nothing more.
And that goes for Hamas and the martyr brigades and al-Sadr's punks too. |
B'tselem issued a report and said the majority of land in which the settlements were built were on confiscated land i.e. land where Palestinians lived. That is clearly a form of ethnic cleansing, making an area Arab-frei just as some Europeans wanted some parts of Europe Juden frei. Hamas launches suicide bombs killing innocent Israelis in Netanya, Haifa, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and launches rockets at Ashkelon and Israel bombs neighborhoods with plans and destroys whole neighbourhoods in Gaza. How is that better? I see mutual malice, but you are ignoring the malice of one side and pointing out the malice of one side.
Why is that? Al Sadr, by the way, has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. He just happens to be an Arab Shiite fighting the U.S. That doesn't fit anywhere in the equation except that Sadr views himself as fighting occupation i.e. the U.S. one and the U.S. views him as a terrorist leader and the same applies to Hamas, Sadr's brigades have nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"]
| Quote: |
| Golda Meier said there were no Palestinians |
it depends what she meant by that. If the meant there were no refugees then she would be denying the suffering of others.
On the other hand.
Well, she was repeating the old mantra of "A people without land for a land without people" i.e. saying the Palestinians simply did not exist.
As far as Joseph Farah, it is very unfortunate that you quote him. I really did not read the article you posted. I probably read it 7 years ago. It sounds familiar, so I have no desire to read it again. I have more respect for Dr. Walid Phares who is also pro-Israeli. Phares states clearly he is fighting for the rights of Christians, he is more honest about where he stands unlike Farah, and Dr. Phares sees the danger manifested by Hezbollah and Iran. Fares, unlike Farah, points to both the jihadists and the moderates. So though I don't consider Fares as objective as I would like, I would be willing to hear what a Dr. Phares has say but not Farah.
Most Lebanese Christians are not so radical like Joseph Farah. He has a different agenda than the mainstream.
I mean no respect in not wanting to read him... Post Dr. Phares, who I don't always agree with, and I would be more than happy to read what he has to say like I did regarding Iran. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Adventurer"][quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"]
| Quote: |
| Golda Meier said there were no Palestinians |
it depends what she meant by that. If the meant there were no refugees then she would be denying the suffering of others.
On the other hand.
| Quote: |
Well, she was repeating the old mantra of "A people without land for a land without people" i.e. saying the Palestinians simply did not exist. |
or maybe she was saying that there has never been a Palestinian state in the history of the world. She didn't say there were no arabs in Palesitine.
This quote is not from Joeseph Farah
The Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein in it he said the same thing as Golda Meier
Zuhair Mohsen is widely known for having made the following statement in a March 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuheir_Mohsen
Also Israel's enemies are gulity of persecuting or expelling their Jewish populations.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All of this talk over who is right and who is wrong, or whose life is worth more, etc., misses the point underlying America's decision to support Tel Aviv: Hezbollah and its allies and associates aim to annihilate Israel. Until this passes, we are going to support and arm Israel to the teeth.
This does not mean that we are in love with Tel Aviv and its methods -- and we know what is going on here. It is certainly a harsh world over there.
Let us know, though, when Hezbollah and the others are ready to talk in good faith. Until then...money and weapons.
The end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
All of this talk over who is right and who is wrong, or whose life is worth more, etc., misses the point underlying America's decision to support Tel Aviv: Hezbollah and its allies and associates aim to annihilate Israel. Until this passes, we are going to support and arm Israel to the teeth.
This does not mean that we are in love with Tel Aviv and its methods -- and we know what is going on here. It is certainly a harsh world over there.
Let us know, though, when Hezbollah and the others are ready to talk in good faith. Until then...money and weapons.
The end. |
True, but Israel took similar positions as Hezbollah seeking to annihilate the Palestinians and trying to eliminate any chance of their forming a state. Professor Yohoshua Porath called the Shalom Ha Galeel operation or Peace in Galilee Operation. According to Porath, Arafat was increasing the pressure for a two-state solution which Begin considered to be a peace offensive. He didn't want a peace state. That was one major reason he went into Lebanon, not because the Palestinians were actually much of a threat.
In the end, that didn't work and Rabin in 1993 agreed to Oslo. What am I saying? Israel and Israelis have taken extreme positions and not just Hezbollah.
I mean you are making it seem as Israel was always peaceful and the Arabs were always the aggressors. Yossi Melman in his book "The New Israelis" writes of how Sadat didn't actually want to go to war in 1973 with Israel, but Golda Meier would not listen to him, so he went to war to make a point. Was it Sadat's fault that the prime minister would give him no audience at the time? Later, the Israelis were persuaded by Kissinger that peace with Egypt would isolated Syria from Egypt, strengthening Israel's position, and they agreed and signed. Obviously, in 1973 the Arabs were the aggressors, but because of the extreme position of the PM at the time a war occured and Sadat double crossed his Syrian allies as well.
It is fine, the U.S. should arm its allies. The U.S. also put pressure for the end of the conflict and for a just solution to the problem for both sides.
After all the conflict has cost the U.S. so much and not just the Israelis and Palestinians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Israel and Israelis have taken extreme positions... |
Never denied this, Adventurer. Sometimes I do not believe you understand my position on this.
I understand what is going on. Still I support America's backing Tel Aviv. I would like to see this matter settled in a win-win way. I do not see that happening or anyone taking any steps at all in that direction until, first and foremost, Hezbollah and the others recognize Isreal's right to exist.
Then we might go about moderating and even pressing the Israelis to modify their behavior and mend fences with their neighbors.
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:33 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"][quote="Adventurer"][quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"]
| Quote: |
| Golda Meier said there were no Palestinians |
it depends what she meant by that. If the meant there were no refugees then she would be denying the suffering of others.
On the other hand.
| Quote: |
Well, she was repeating the old mantra of "A people without land for a land without people" i.e. saying the Palestinians simply did not exist. |
or maybe she was saying that there has never been a Palestinian state in the history of the world. She didn't say there were no arabs in Palesitine.
This quote is not from Joeseph Farah
[Give me a break. She was saying they don't exist. She didn't even say there were Arabs in the lands before we came. If she did say there were indigenous Arabs there, then you would have a point about her saying it doesn't matter that she didn't say there were Palestinians. It was a Zionist mantra to say "A people without land for a land without people".
What does that mean exactly? It means the Zionist leadership to some extent were saying the land was empty. This is part of the Zionist literature. Joanne Peters wrote a book called from "Time Immemorial" where she was trying to say the land was empty. It was endorsed by many Jews including Barbara Tuchman. Tuchman later withdrew her endorsement when Norman Finkelstein who is very exacting and sharp showed serious miscalculations, errors, contraditions which would undermined her arguments.
What does it matter what the Arabs were called? I don't know this Mr. Hussein. Here is what I can tell you. There was no Palestinian state in the 20th century. There was no German state until 1871. There was no Italy until around 1860. Does it mean one ignore the fact that there were indigenous people living there? The Palestinians were, in a sense, Syrians just like the Jordanians and Lebanese. I don't mean modern day Syria.
They were viewed as northern people by the other Arabs as basically Palestine was Syria-Palestine, Syria-Lebanon etc...
However, if your ancestors were say from Hama or Homs, Syria the Palestinians would call you a Syrian to differentiate you from them as you are more northern than they even if your family was there a century or so. I know this to be true, because I know the history quite tell.
Palestine was essentially viewed as a Syrian province. The connexion to modern Syrians is much weaker because of the colonial divisions and separations. The Palestinians were separate to some extent even before the conflict. Zuhair is wrong. He is repeating oversimplified talk of Arabs are the same which Arabs repeat to stress unity among them and to play down divisions which is not the same as saying we are identical.
Anyway, before the first suicide bomber ever detonated his bomb, Israel was building settlements and trying to expel people from Jerusalem and the West Bank. I met someone who was expelled. He was expelled from a country he was born in. Also, students who were studying outside of the West Bank in 1967 in the U.S. or any country during the conflict essentially lost their right to go back to their native West Bank to live.
With that perspective, it is not only Hezbollah which has a very dark past. Take a closer look at what Israel has done to the Palestinians since 1948. The modern Israeli historians admit it. It happened. Why deny what is historically true? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Israel and Israelis have taken extreme positions... |
Never denied this, Adventurer. Sometimes I do not believe you understand my position on this.
I understand what is going on. Still I support America's backing Tel Aviv. I would like to see this matter settled in a win-win way. I do not see that happening or anyone taking any steps at all in that direction until, first and foremost, Hezbollah and the others recognize Isreal's right to exist.
Then we might go about moderating and even pressing the Israelis to modify their behavior and mend fences with their neighbors. |
I agree with the position you have with the verbiage above that I am quoting. It is rather fair. Israel is a sovereign country with a right to exist. Also, the Palestinians have a right to exist. The Israelis recognize the Palestinian side which they didn't in the past, and Hezbollah has a very old reactionary position which creates problems for the Palestinians, Lebanese, and Israelis. I also want a win-win situation. We don't have to wait for Hezbollah to recognize Israel. They need to be weakened by a lack of Lebanese popular support. The more the Lebanese state holds and becomes stronger, the more Hezbollah will have less maneuvering room. Responding with a lot of violence only plays into their hands...
If this is your general position, I generally agree with it. The key when it comes to Hezbollah is getting Syria out of the equation. If Hezbollah loses Syrian backing and less Lebanese support them then the army would be more powerful. The Lebanese depending on the right conditions want an armistice, an end of hositilities and with the Shebaa Farms under their control. More and more want Hezbollah under control and disarmed. Peace won't happen in one day as we both know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| If this is your general position... |
Not only my own general position, Adventurer, but, in broad strokes, the American govt's as well.
Glad we agree in principle on this. But good luck in persuading Iran, Syria, and all of their proxies throughout the Arab Middle East, especially in Lebanon and Palestine.
In any case, cheers to agreeing on something. Not often on this cantanerous board does that occur. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
True, but Israel took similar positions as Hezbollah seeking to annihilate the Palestinians and trying to eliminate any chance of their forming a state. Professor Yohoshua Porath called the Shalom Ha Galeel operation or Peace in Galilee Operation. According to Porath, Arafat was increasing the pressure for a two-state solution which Begin considered to be a peace offensive. He didn't want a peace state. That was one major reason he went into Lebanon, not because the Palestinians were actually much of a threat. |
We all saw how much Arafat really accepted a two state solution when he turned down Clintons offer. There is not much evidence that he would have ever accepted one.
Israels attack on Lebanon was due in a large part to PLO attacks on Israel from Lebanon. Would there have been no attack if the Palestinian side had not been attacking Israel?
| Quote: |
In the end, that didn't work and Rabin in 1993 agreed to Oslo. What am I saying? Israel and Israelis have taken extreme positions and not just Hezbollah. |
When has there ever been an Israeli govt that was against any peace with the arab states?
Futhermore Hizzbollah blew up a Jewish community center not in Israel but in Argentina. Has Israel ever just gone out overseas to kill as many muslims as they could?
| Quote: |
It is fine, the U.S. should arm its allies. The U.S. also put pressure for the end of the conflict and for a just solution to the problem for both sides.
After all the conflict has cost the U.S. so much and not just the Israelis and Palestinians. |
The US did try to bring peace to the mideast. Arafat rejected Bill Clintons offer not only in the summer of 2000 but the far more generous offer in December 2000. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
