22-04-2002 20:55									#31
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Roland The guerilla war that lead to irish independence in 1922, ok.

Which is comparable to the current conflict, terrorist actions and all. The major difference being the lack of a Palestinian equivilant to Michael Collins.

quote: Can you turn that into a rational argument?

Possibly. The fact that the EU refuses to acknowlege that a state of war exists between Israel and the various terrorist factions opperating openly in PA territory is immaterial to the situation at hand. They seem to be wanting Israel to follow the example the US laid down in its response to Al Qaeda pre-9/11 and substitute moral outrage for an effective response to the military attacks being launched against its territory.

	22-04-2002 21:05									#32
	Tired of ads?

"Which is comparable to the current conflict, terrorist actions and all."

With the partial Israeli reoccupation, yes. Before and after that, no.

"They seem to be wanting Israel to follow the example the US laid down in its response to Al Qaeda pre-9/11 and substitute moral outrage for an effective response to the military attacks being launched against its territory."

The point is that the "response" is counter-productive, which IMO is a legitimate judgment. Also, the situation is quite different, unless there have been some secret US occupations and settlements in Saudi-Arabia and Afghanistan.

	22-04-2002 21:17									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I bet most americans don't even know that the Palestinians are an enslaved peoples. And if they know they don't care.
What they need is a good nuking.

(OK last troll )

	22-04-2002 21:30									#34
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Roland With the partial Israeli reoccupation, yes. Before and after that, no.

Why not? Did the IRA not consider itself to be armed force opposing the foreign occupation of its country? Did they not cultivate deaths among the civilian population along with physical and psychological intimidation of that same population as a way to disrupt the British authorities and influence thier policy?

What is substantially different between the conflict then and the conflict now aside from the unfortunate absence of someone willing to make a compromise on the Palestinian side?

quote: Also, the situation is quite different,

How so? The US was faced with an armed force making military strikes against it and allowed itself to either be content with merely voicing moral outrage over the attacks or in making half-hearted retaliations against them.

I'm curious. What would the EU have Israel do to respond to military attacks in its territory?

	22-04-2002 21:40									#35
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Why not? Did the IRA not consider itself to be armed force opposing the foreign occupation of its country? Did they not cultivate deaths among the civilian population along with physical and psychological intimidation of that same population as a way to disrupt the British authorities and influence thier policy?

The difference is that the British did not bulldoze Northern Ireland, killing innocent civilian women and children. Or perhaps the difference is that the majority of the population regarded themselves as British and did not want the British to leave. Or perhaps it was that the terrorists had US funding....

Look how the British treated Adams (who acknowledged links to the IRA terrorist organisations) and compare that to how the Israelis treat Arafat (who in public at least claims to condemn terrorism).

	22-04-2002 21:49									#36
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Look how the British treated Adams (who acknowledged links to the IRA terrorist organisations) and compare that to how the Israelis treat Arafat (who in public at least claims to condemn terrorism).

The Brits gave the IRA 40,000 guns?

	22-04-2002 21:51									#37
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Israel gave Arafat 40,000 guns?

	22-04-2002 22:14									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ecthelion Israel gave Arafat 40,000 guns?

Yes.
So that our partner for peace will be able to control the terrorist organizations.
This could be funny, if not the hundreds of dead Jews.

	22-04-2002 22:19									#39
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

why do you keep putting settlers in the occupied territories?

	22-04-2002 22:21									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Roland:

quote: the different phrasing may just be because the PA has no 100 % control over terrorism, hence "efforts" (and there were some at the time, even i just for show), while Israel can simply order a withdrawal, hence "immediately".

An entirely reasonable explanation, though I am sure the PA could do much more if they tried.

quote: Vedrine ? He is "quoted" by whom ?

The comment appeared in last week's Newsweek, quoted through Reuters I think. Reuters apparently overheard the comment and reported it. The comment was attributed by title, not by name, so I cannot be 100 percent sure it was Vedrine.

quote: one of the most generous funders of the palestinians is Saudi Arabia. The US says pretty much... nothing about it. Does exactly nothing.

The US probably says nothing in public, since that might be construed by other Arabs as meddling on the behalf of the Israelis. But I bet there are private discussions in parallel with US requests to reduce support to fundamentalist religious schools.

	22-04-2002 22:32									#41
	Increase the size of your Attachments

why do you keep putting settlers in the occupied territories?

	22-04-2002 22:35									#42
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Silence greets the new anti-Semitism
I personally really liked and agreed with this article, thought I would post it.

..............................

Silence greets the new anti-Semitism
And Israel left to fight alone again
By MICHELE MANDEL -- Toronto Sun

These are frightening, frustrating times to be a Jew.

Isolated, reviled, condemned in a topsy-turvy world where most politicians and journalists lay all the blame for the Middle East crisis at our door.

Anti-semitism is alive and well and living in the 21st century. Of course, now it is all couched in anti-Israel rhetoric, the new cover for the old malady, and somehow socially acceptable. But it is not only in the one-sided media that I hear its echoes. Its very real manifestations are being played out in firebomb attacks on synagogues and community centres and Jewish school buses around the world. And where are the politicians and religious leaders? Deathly quiet.

When Muslim Canadians were being targeted after Sept. 11, there were rightful cries of outrage. Not for us. Anglican Archbishop Michael Peers, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, issues a one-sided indictment of Israel. Other churches do the same. Not one of them has said a word about the global wave of anti-Semitism that has raised its ugly head across Europe and here at home.

In Saskatoon a synagogue is firebombed and in Ottawa a synagogue is desecrated. In Toronto, a community centre and a Jewish agency that helps developmentally disabled adults are defaced. An arsonist breaks into the Anshei Minsk Synagogue in Kensington Market, one of the oldest synagogues in Toronto, and sets afire 2,000 Jewish holy books, just as the Nazis did in the 1930s. And a Jewish heart surgeon has his shoulder broken after he is shoved into a parked car during an anti-Israel demonstration on Bloor St.

And listen to the deafening silence.

THUGS AND ARSONISTS

In Europe, the birthplace of modern anti-Semitism, it rages with alarming impunity. Especially brazen in France, which has the largest Muslim community in Europe, Jewish institutions, cemeteries, schools and synagogues have been attacked by thugs and arsonists. Five French synagogues were firebombed last week alone. A school bus filled with Jewish children was stoned and another was torched. And the government, too afraid of angering its large Muslim population, does little to stop it.

In Germany, two rabbis visiting from the United States were beaten by a group of six in Berlin after being asked "Are you a Jew?" The same scene has been replayed in Belgium, Caracas, Casablanca and Helsinki, and there are no international demands for the anti-Semitism to stop.

And then there is the situation in Israel.

For weeks, Palestinian homicide bombers strapped with dynamite have targeted crowds of vulnerable civilians. Day after day after day, in pizza parlours and ice cream shops and discos. My, how quiet the world is. Where is the condemnation from church groups? Where are the non-Jewish protesters?

Babies are ripped to shreds outside a synagogue after a bat mitzvah. Families just like mine sit down at the Passover seder and 26 men, women and children are blown to tiny pieces of bone and flesh. Where is the United Nations then?

When Israel finally retaliates, when they attempt to put an end to the vicious reign of terror by hunting for militants encouraged by Yasser Arafat, the world suddenly erupts in anger. Why must Israel turn the other cheek for Jewish lives, while the United States rightly launches an offensive to root out the terrorists who took American lives Sept. 11?

Ah, the pundits argue, Israel is the source of all this terrorism. If only they would leave the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza, peace would reign. The apologists offer up a reprehensible justification for the homicide bombing -- that it is somehow the only route left to the desperate Palestinians anxious for a homeland.

'A HUGE LIE'

But as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times notes, "That is a huge lie." The Palestinians were offered a state in 1947 and again in 2000 and it seems that on both occasions, nothing short of all of Israel was enough. More than 50 years ago, the UN partitioned the land into Israel and Palestine. Jewish leaders accepted the narrow territory. The Arab response was to launch an immediate war against the tiny Jewish state. Until Israel captured the territories in a defensive war in 1967, Jordan controlled the West Bank, Egypt held Gaza and neither nation did a thing to establish a homeland for the Palestinians.

Ancient history? Then let's talk about the summer of 2000. Almost everyone agrees there should be a Palestinian state and at Camp David, Israel agreed, offering to return up to 96% of the West Bank and Gaza and more dramatically, East Jerusalem. Incredibly, it was still not enough. Yasser Arafat not only refused it outright, but he strangely offered no counter-proposal for negotiation. But then Arafat has always believed a nation must "be born in blood."

So instead, he offered his suicide package -- the current bloody intifada that has now raged since Sept. 2000.

Yet the world keeps telling us that it is Israel -- and the Jews -- who must bear the blame.

	22-04-2002 23:15									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Interestingly, the Brits could have used force to destroy most of the IRA cells in the later years of the troubles in NI, but chose not to. Instead, they created a situation where they could stop most of the attacks before they took place, then waited until the IRA finally realised they could not win the struggle through violence.

Had the Brits been as heavy-handed as the Israelis, I doubt there would be any kind of peace in Northern Ireland right now. Getting provoked easily is IMO by far Israel's greatest failing, it has enabled (together with Arafat's various failings) the terrorists to gain operate and gain support with impunity. Could it be that this is what EU leaders see as well?

I recall an ex-british intelligence officer writing somewhere on the net that several countries' armies have taken Israel's responses to terrorist attacks as a guide on how not to conduct such operations. Anyone know if there's any truth to it?


Edit: BTW, even though Kublai-Khan's article would have us think otherwise, there have been no attacks on Jews in Finland. The only incident has been a false bomb threat in a synagogue. While that's in itself shameful enough, I'm happy that no one's been physically harmed. I think the skinheads and other rabble here are more interested in hurting black people...

Last edited by Jaakko on 22-04-2002 at 23:29

	22-04-2002 23:21									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

See Roland?
It's not just me that believes this and is talking about it.

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 Anti-semitism my ass.

Typical responce by you when confronted by this.

quote: So the americans have problems understanding why Europe supports Palestinians. US think tanks have come up with an "easy" explanation: anti-semitism. There, think anti-semitism and don't you go torture your pretty head

What a simplistic and foolish answer.
You have been told time and again it was the pals who started this, that refuse to live in peace, and have broken every single treaty and agreement ever signed, yet you continue to blame Israel for the problem.
Since we don't think you have an IQ of 50, the only other rational explanation is your anti-semetic.
Unless you care to explain why you support the side that never compromises and swears to wipe out the Jews.

quote: PA and terrorism links have not been proven.

Men in the PA authority have admitted they also belong to Hamas.
The links sure have been proven, open your eyes.

quote: By destroying the only representation the palestinians have you destabilize the region further and plunge the Pals deeper into slavery.

That's a funny thing to say, "slavery".
Just what exactly are these "slaves" producing for Israel?

The Jews feel they can't deal with Arafat because he has broken every agreement he ever made with them.
Just look at the Oslo accords he signed, for example.

quote: (Since they REMAIN occupied or have you forgotten?)

Either you have forgotten, or you don't know, they NEVER were Palestian lands.
They REJECTED the UN partion of 29 novermber 1947, and NEVER accepted it, so they NEVER had title to ANY land.
Sorry to disillusion you, but LEAGALLY Israel doesn't have to give them squat, and is withen it's rights to police the area ANY way they chose.

quote: When the Palestinians have their own state are not under Israeli occupation then you can hold them accountable much easier. As long as they are not a free people and are denied their right to representation with whom are yougoing to doyour negotiations with?

They denied THEMSELVES of such rights, these were not taken from them by Isreal.
When you start a genocidal war, as the Pals did, and lose, you forgo future claims old boy.

quote: And again PA links with terrorism have not been proven. (unless you deem rumours or Israeli announcements which end with "I am sorry we didn't kill more Terrosists/Palestinians" (Israeli Justice Minister) facts...)

Again, they have.
Only YOU seem to deny it.
I wonder why?

quote: I bet most americans don't even know that the Palestinians are an enslaved peoples. And if they know they don't care.

The dumb Bastards did it to themselves.
They are now reaping what they sowed in 48, 56, 67, 73, and all the years inbetween that they committed terror acts.
It's people like YOU my friend, they try to deny history, that need to get in the know.

quote: why do you keep putting settlers in the occupied territories?

Your right, they should kick those Pals out, they have no right to be there.

	23-04-2002 00:37									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Jaakko Interestingly, the Brits could have used force to destroy most of the IRA cells in the later years of the troubles in NI,

Interestingly, the Brits could have squashed the IRA at its genesis by not executing the leaders of the Eastern Rebellion which in effect cannonized them as martyrs to the nationalist cause. But that's neither here nor there.

quote: Instead, they created a situation where they could stop most of the attacks before they took place,

I completely endorse putting a fence around the territories. However that is the sole extent of what can be done to prevent attacks short of instituting a real occupational government on the Palestinians in that regard, IMO.

quote: Had the Brits been as heavy-handed as the Israelis,

That's the problem. During the time period we are talking about, the Brits and thier Orange allies were quite heavy handed in thier response to the IRA and the Catholic population. It was what sustained the movement inspite of thier counter-productive methods.

We can legitimately argue the effectiveness with which Israel chooses to prosecute the war it finds itself in but to argue that Israel lacks the right to defend itself, as the EU seems to be doing, is beyond foolish.

	23-04-2002 01:55									#46
	Inflate your Upload Space

I don't see us disagreeing too much about Northern Ireland, Dino. I was merely giving an example of where heavy use of force didn't work. As I asked already, could it be that this is how European leaders see Israel's situation (ie. not winnable by force)?

Reading the statements kindly provided by Roland, it seems quite silly to argue that the EU is against Israel's right to self-defence. The text is all about the methods and their consequences, and the affirmation of the right of self-defence is quite explicit.
Remember that going into the territories with tanks isn't the only way Israel can defend itself.

So, if these statements don't mean what they say, then what is the correct way to interpret them?

	23-04-2002 02:08									#47
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Oh no, he's back.

	23-04-2002 02:10									#48
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Jaakko I don't see us disagreeing too much about Northern Ireland, Dino. I was merely giving an example of where heavy use of force didn't work.

Short of building a wall/fence completely around the territories, an idea I have only just now heard being discussed in Israel (hopefully the Poly Israelis can confirm or deny this part), I don't see any other way that they could have responded to the Passover attack in Netanya given Arafat's complicity in these type of attacks.

quote: Reading the statements kindly provided by Roland, it seems quite silly to argue that the EU is against Israel's right to self-defence.

I will admit to the possibility that I maybe limited in my thinking. How would the EU like to see Israel respond to military attacks against its territory who's sole aim is to kill as many citizens as possible?

Why should they be held to a higher standard than the former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George when he stated that he would not shake hands with murder?

	23-04-2002 02:40									#49
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

For my part, I'd just redouble all the intelligence efforts, avoiding any use of force that worsens the Pals' living conditions. Infiltrate and compromise the terrorist orgs, make them struggle for every bomber they send. Prosecute those you can, in a civilian court, hold the rest in a stalemate. At the same time encourage moderate political movements within Palestine, prepping the way for a leadership that can be properly negotiated with.
Then, finally, when the terrorists have nothing to offer except useless struggle in face of growing standards of life, try to build a lasting peace.
And most importantly, don't let the damn bombers destroy the peace process, even when they succeed in a strike!

And Mr. George had to pretty much eat his words, didn't he (well ok, those after him)?

EDIT: Hi Eli! Do you by any chance remember what particular matter we argued about last time?

Last edited by Jaakko on 23-04-2002 at 02:45

	23-04-2002 03:08									#50
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Jaakko EDIT: Hi Eli! Do you by any chance remember what particular matter we argued about last time?

I cant figure out if it's a rhetorical question or not, so I'll answer it. No.

	23-04-2002 03:23									#51
	Remove this text

quote: Ancient history? Then let's talk about the summer of 2000. Almost everyone agrees there should be a Palestinian state and at Camp David, Israel agreed, offering to return up to 96% of the West Bank and Gaza and more dramatically, East Jerusalem. Incredibly, it was still not enough. Yasser Arafat not only refused it outright, but he strangely offered no counter-proposal for negotiation. But then Arafat has always believed a nation must "be born in blood."

Ah, let's rehash this old lie...

BTW, Friedman is not exactly a good source... He makes Bush look unbiased.


Dino, regarding whether this conflict is a war or not, it is actually Israel that refuses to call it a war. the reason is that if a state of war is declared, they would have to adhere to the geneva convention. As the world is set up today, civilians have a much better protection if a state of war is declared... Which is also the reason Israel refuses to call the palestinian areas 'occupied', instead of 'administrated'.

It's all part of the propaganda game, which is one of the areas Israelis are really good at.


Chris, there is a lot of miscomprehension in your post, but this one really stood out:

quote: Either you have forgotten, or you don't know, they NEVER were Palestian lands. They REJECTED the UN partion of 29 novermber 1947, and NEVER accepted it, so they NEVER had title to ANY land. Sorry to disillusion you, but LEAGALLY Israel doesn't have to give them squat, and is withen it's rights to police the area ANY way they chose.

So, if I give away part of your house without your premission, but you refuse to sign the papers, I can give away ALL of your house?

Now, even if we assume that the UN has a mandate to give away land which belongs to other people, it only gave away 50% of palestine. In the 67 war, Israel stole ANOTHER 28%. All the palestinians are asking for is 22%, and Israel is still too greedy to allow them that.

Don't let nti-semitism cloud your mind. Well, antisemitism towards arabs, that is, since they are aslo one of the semitic(?) tribes.

As far as I know, there is only one anti-semitic country in the world today, and that is the US... Where a vast majority of the population believes that arabs are just dirty untermensch...

	23-04-2002 03:37									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Don't let nti-semitism cloud your mind. Well, antisemitism towards arabs, that is, since they are aslo one of the semitic(?) tribes. As far as I know, there is only one anti-semitic country in the world today, and that is the US... Where a vast majority of the population believes that arabs are just dirty untermensch...

Wow.

Did you just learn about the semitic tribes and want to show everyone how "smart" you are?

Anti-semitic = anti-jewish and it's been like that since the late 19th century IIRC

	23-04-2002 03:52									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Nah, I use my PhD for that...

Sometimes you can jar people into start thinking. It obviously didn't work on you, sliparec... I recommend it, though.

	23-04-2002 04:11									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Nah, I use my PhD for that... Sometimes you can jar people into start thinking. It obviously didn't work on you, sliparec... I recommend it, though.

What?

	23-04-2002 04:16									#55
	Increase Your PM Length

Thinking. You haven't started yet, I see. Try to force those neurons to move, and maybe it will work. Electrochock therapy might be an option if you can't get it started on your own.

	23-04-2002 04:34									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Thinking. You haven't started yet, I see. Try to force those neurons to move, and maybe it will work. Electrochock therapy might be an option if you can't get it started on your own.

Are you trying to "jar me into start thinking"?

	23-04-2002 04:38									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

There you go!

It's working!

	23-04-2002 04:41									#58
	Increase the size of your Attachments

All hail electrocock therapy!

	23-04-2002 04:55									#59
	Inflate your Upload Space

I know, I've been trying to convince my girlfriend to allow me my own defibrillator to get up in the morning!

	23-04-2002 05:56									#60
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu [quote]Chris, there is a lot of miscomprehension in your post, but this one really stood out:

I'm affraid the misunderstandings are by you, old boy.
Israel has the right to exsist, whether you believe it or not.

quote: So, if I give away part of your house without your premission, but you refuse to sign the papers, I can give away ALL of your house?

So, if I try to burn down YOUR house, and kill you and your family, I can show up 50 years later and say I want it all back?

quote: Now, even if we assume that the UN has a mandate to give away land which belongs to other people, it only gave away 50% of palestine. In the 67 war, Israel stole ANOTHER 28%. All the palestinians are asking for is 22%, and Israel is still too greedy to allow them that.

Your posts are flawed, as they always are.
THEIR NEVER WAS A PALESTINE. EVER.
It is not possible to "steal" what never was.

quote: Don't let nti-semitism cloud your mind. Well, antisemitism towards arabs, that is, since they are aslo one of the semitic(?) tribes.

The phrase is used exclusivly towards jews, as you well know.
BTW, try calling a Palestianian "semetic".
I might also, add, your mind is among the most clouded that posts on apolyton.

quote: As far as I know, there is only one anti-semitic country in the world today, and that is the US...

Wake up and smell the coffee sonny, the entire Islamic world would love to pummel Israel into the dirt.
It might also be fun to add that Eurpoe continues to have an increasing amount of anti-semitic crimes committed every day.

quote: Where a vast majority of the population believes that arabs are just dirty untermensch...

Those are your words friend.
how do we know?
Because only a fool would post them.