May 22, 2006

Palestinian Poll



Hat tip to Comment Pimpette. HAHAHAHA

Great analogy of the Israel-Palestinian conflict from the BBC message board by a poster named Leffeblond:

"The Arab states have turned Israel into a larger version of the Warsaw ghetto with their threats to drive Israel into the sea and funding terrorists. This time though that ghetto is armed and will defend itself.
I see the reluctance by the Arab nations to cede that small sliver of land as nothing more than territorial greed, as Arab League nations stretch from the Atlantic to Iraq."

48 comments:

  1. Excellent poll, Bacon.

    There is a civil war INSIDE the great religion of peace... wonderful stuff. Why, it's jihad and some sort of auto-asshat-fratricide all in one.

    They 'never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity' and seize death by the horns.

    Oh, yeah... and God is Great.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would have to say no, the Palestinians are not the biggest assmonkeys on this planet. As you know, I sympathize with their cause to some extent, but I oppose the means by which some of them try to attain it. I have a great deal of sympathy for non-terrorist Palestinians, of which there are many.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I know Frances. I'll excuse you on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. lame. i defend the palis i get ass raped six ways next tuesday, frances does it he gets a pat on the back. you're slippin' bacon.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do."
    --Luke 23:34

    As we all know, words are powerful…especially dying words. It's important that each of us remembers just exactly what Jesus had to say right before His earthly life ended.

    One of the last things Jesus said while hanging from the cross were words of forgiveness.

    Today I want to ask you, if Christ could pray a prayer of forgiveness for those who were putting Him to death, can you pray a prayer of forgiveness for those in your life who mistreat you?

    Despite what you may be going through today, can you look past your own "junk" and extend forgiveness to others?

    Jesus' dying words on the cross are a powerful example of how you and I ought to treat those who mistreat us. Are you willing to follow His perfect example in every area of your life today? Will you extend forgiveness to those who don't deserve it?

    I challenge you to pick up your cross today…and live out the life of forgiveness Christ has given you!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve, Frances is rational, and I don't think he pretends to know the whole story either. He doesn't resort to call me a racist either.

    J, Jesus is a myth. You are living a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  7. HA!!!! But no fair, I voted for "biggest assmonkeys in the universe" but it's ALSO an insult to assmonkeys.

    You need to get the Apes and Pigs Alliance button I've got at my site. Atheists count. You're an atheist ape! I'm just a pig! Oink!

    ReplyDelete
  8. That button is so me.
    Thanks.
    I get in as an ethnic Jew regardless.
    Mohammed was too clueless to cover Atheists in the Koran.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Can I answer 'yes' to the first 4 questions?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Apikoros baal korchoMay 23, 2006 12:43 PM

    I had to say that the Palestinians are terrorists and I didn't find this funny because I lived in Israel for 22 years. When you have lived with the threat under your nose and have known people who have died in terrorist attacks, calling the perpetrators "assmonkeys" seems childish and lame. Best to call them by their rightful name: terrorists. Don't forget that they elected Hamas in a democratically held election, a sign that they actively choose terror as their means of operation and naught else.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm with you Apikoros, that is why I put that answer in the poll. I'd like to see you get in a conversation with another poster here who goes by RA.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bacon, if you're going to be copying me - post some titties on your blog. It will be a huge improvement ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  13. and one more thing, hey - they can wall themselves off - no one has issues with that - they just need to do it behind the 1967 borders.

    good fences make good neighbors.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ha, lots of people have issues that Israel exists in the first place. The settlements are a red herring, and you can't move 200,000 settlers. It isn't Arab land any ways. Jordan gave up rights to the land in 1988. Now it is disputable territories.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Apikoros baal korchoMay 23, 2006 3:59 PM

    For those who have never seen this site, it puts forth the concept well enough:

    http://www.conceptwizard.com/pipeline_of_hatred.html

    It is also true that the late King Hussein of Jordan formally renounced any claim over the West Bank back in 1988. It was a deft maneuver on his part that left the West Bank totally in Israeli hands, for better or for worse. It also took all the pressure off Jordan with regard to the peace process, because Jordan had been the logical partner to be involved in such a process up to that point. By doing so, Jordan made it clear that it wanted nothing to do with the Palestinians nor with the Palestinian problem.

    ReplyDelete
  16. That is great Apik, needs music though.
    Here is the link again.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey, FYI, there's a smaller version of the apes and pigs button at the site where I got it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jordan was an occupier of the land as well, so Jordan didn't have ownership rights to give away, as it wasn't "given" to Jordan.

    The fence has caused even more confiscation of Palestinian land, Israel shouldn't have built it on land it occupies and land it settled illegally.

    Had Israel built the fence within the green line, there wouldn't be dispute over. Had Israel built the same fence behind the green line, maybe those same settlers within the illegal settlements would move behind the wall on their own with proper incentive.

    Israel is trying to draw the borders unilaterally and no one is going to accept anything less than behind the green line. You'll see. Still it's all headed a lot closer to a negotiated peace, I didn't think that I'd see it in my life time, now I feel like it may happen within the next 12-15 years.

    Settlements are a red herring is a red herring.

    I'm still optimistic.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Beth, I used the small version but I made it bigger by going with a 200 by 200 instead of 150 by 150.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Why isn't fucktard in the poll? I'd vote for that. But I'll settle for biggest assmonkeys in the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I have no opinion. Odd as that may sound. I do not give Israel a free pass. My guru once said, blessed be his unspoken-name, what profits a man if he gains the world but loses his soul?

    I am not Jewish, although for 40 years now I have reflected a Jewish sensibility. Isreal began as the embodiment of a dream, an idea. Over time I've watched it evolve into something other than my beginning dream. It will evolve more. Even if I don't "endorse" what Israel will become, I will continue to be "Jewish" in how I react to it. Damn, I hate when that happens.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Houston, I don't give anyone a free pass either. But this poll isn't about Israel, it is about the Palestinians.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Jordan was an occupier of the land as well, so Jordan didn't have ownership rights to give away, as it wasn't "given" to Jordan."

    Funny, that's not what Palestinian refugess who lived at the time told me.

    "The fence has caused even more confiscation of Palestinian land, Israel shouldn't have built it on land it occupies and land it settled illegally.

    Had Israel built the fence within the green line, there wouldn't be dispute over. Had Israel built the same fence behind the green line, maybe those same settlers within the illegal settlements would move behind the wall on their own with proper incentive.

    Israel is trying to draw the borders unilaterally and no one is going to accept anything less than behind the green line. You'll see. Still it's all headed a lot closer to a negotiated peace, I didn't think that I'd see it in my life time, now I feel like it may happen within the next 12-15 years.

    Settlements are a red herring is a red herring.

    I'm still optimistic. "

    Sorry for the reposting. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I agree 100%.

    It was VERY stupid to place it where they did. They had to know it would cause contention, and that it wouldn't be accepted.

    Shocking, but I agree.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Lya, I am no fan of the the settlements. They were a mistake, and every country makes mistakes.
    However, it is not feasible to move 200,000 people from medium sized cities.
    If Israel had a sincere negotiating partner, then land swaps and cash for land could be ironed out.
    Maybe the starving of the Palestinians will get them to come to their senses....but I've been optimistic before...and the voting in of Hamas made me lose all hope.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Love the poll, Bacon.

    Stopping by just to say keep up the good work.

    Sorry I haven't been around much. Been busy with school, and even though the spring semester is over, I am taking an interim class, then have two more summer classes. As such my own blog has suffered, but I intend on getting back on the horse soon as I can.

    Johdarr

    ReplyDelete
  26. Your blog went into a coma. I figured you forgot about it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Comment Pimpette: With all due respect, you have a poor understanding of the "green line". Israel at its inception covered an area smaller than what is considered within the green line today. When massive Arab armies attacked the fledgling Jewish state, Israel was able to obtain defensible borders (at great cost of life and limb). The Green line was merely a cease-fire agreement imposed by world powers. The surrounding Arab nations never agreed to these borders. Israel gladly accepted the borders as a way to stop the violence. The West bank territories were captured by Israel during the 6 day war when the very same arab armies threatened Israel's very existence. Again, Israel needed to secure defensible borders. Had the Arabs been willing to negotiate after the 1948 war or after the 6 day war, we would not even need to have this discussion.
    I reccomend that you look at a map, read some history, and visit Israel. You will develop a much different perspective. You will also find that Israel is the only country in that entire region that subscribes to the same liberal ideals that you do.

    Sincerely,
    The Jewish Freak

    ReplyDelete
  28. Lya - it doesn't matter what the Palestinian refugees told you - Jordan did not give them citizenship - so, Jordan didn't want the refugees either. Jordan occupied the territory and that is what is internationally accepted. I'm sure the Palestinians would at that time have rather have been a part of Jordan than Israel, but wants, needs and realities are all different things.

    Not so shocking that we agree on something.

    Bacon - Israel has allready shown that it was capable of evacuating Gaza and other WB settlements. It would be a difficult task, but it could be done. The government put them their - KNOWING it was illegal. I don't expect that those settlements will be given up - but I say if they have to be - then deal with it.

    Jewish Freak - yeah, yeah, I know the history. I've seen the maps. I don't need to go there although maybe I will one day - not on my list of musts though, but if I do, then yes, I would also visit Gaza and the West Bank.

    Let me ask you this - just what would be defensible borders for Israel? You'd be pushing them to Russia if that was the requirement.

    The green line is allready more than res. 181 gave Israel - those borders are defensible - quite building all those settlements on occupied territory and then insisting that your illegal borders are not good enough!

    We are not in the days of 1967, this is a whole new ballgame, the stakes are higher. If a war were to erupt (which is not even a threat by bordering countries, and the only serious threat now being Iran which is more a war of words and intimidation) it would end up being nuclear at least from the Israeli side (the only country in the ME not being requested to comply with demands in regards to nuclear weapons).

    You will have peace with Arabs once there is a just solution to the Palestinian problem.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Lya, I am no fan of the the settlements. They were a mistake, and every country makes mistakes."

    I have a hard time blaming the Country for the settlements. The settlements are the attempts of the religious Jews to take back biblical Israel. And that is the point where my support ends. I can't support anything that is biblically motivated.

    "However, it is not feasible to move 200,000 people from medium sized cities."

    Agreed.

    "If Israel had a sincere negotiating partner, then land swaps and cash for land could be ironed out."

    Again, agreed. How many offers have been turned down now? Without even one counter offer?

    "Maybe the starving of the Palestinians will get them to come to their senses....but I've been optimistic before...and the voting in of Hamas made me lose all hope. "

    While I obviously think the election of Hamas was a remarkably stupid move, I can't completely blame them either. They believe their own hype, as they say. Though I suppose being taught since birth that Jews come in the night to drink the blood of Muslim babies would sort of distort your view of the opposing party, huh.


    ~~~

    "I reccomend that you look at a map, read some history, and visit Israel. You will develop a much different perspective. You will also find that Israel is the only country in that entire region that subscribes to the same liberal ideals that you do."

    I recommend the same for all people who've chosen sides without much more than t.v. news reports to "inform" them as to what's going on. Spend some time there before making armchair judgements.

    ~~~

    "it doesn't matter what the Palestinian refugees told you"

    *lol* of course. Why should I listen to the people themselves, clearly they aren't trustworthy. I thought you were on their side.

    "Jordan did not give them citizenship - so, Jordan didn't want the refugees either."

    Interesting that NONE of the surrounding countries did. And yet they "care so much" about them. Of course they forced out 700,000 Jews so I guess they didn't want to be hypocritical.

    "I'm sure the Palestinians would at that time have rather have been a part of Jordan than Israel, but wants, needs and realities are all different things."

    True. But I can say that at least some of the "Palestinians" alive when Israel was founded called themselves Jordanians. That is, until the Jews wanted the land ;)

    "You will have peace with Arabs once there is a just solution to the Palestinian problem."

    Arabs, maybe (and that's a HUGE maybe) but not Muslims. Religions butting heads won't suddenly find peace when there's a Palestine. As plenty of Arab countries are also Muslim countries, I think this statement is a bit of wishful thinking.

    ~~~

    I know I've aske this question before but - exactly how long do a people have to live someplace before that is their home? The Palestinians living now never lived in Israel, so how can they call it theirs? Does "refugee" status get passed down through generations in certain, special cases? (by which I mean, whenever Jews are invovled). Israel has existed for 50 years. How long do they need to live there before that is their home? Why is Palestinians living in refugee camps a humanitarian disgrace, but suggesting that the same be done to the Israelis (an extention of the Israel has no right to exist platform) a brilliant solution.

    No, I am not accusing anyone on this thread of stating these things. I am asking those on both sides for input.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I love the types who say Zionists go back to where they came from.
    65% of Jews today in Israel were born in Israel.
    Arab Muslims have a warped sense of home.

    I'm not even sure where exactly my grandmother lived in Romania or my great grandmother in Poland or my great grandfather in Iraq or my great grandfather in Poland.
    And I don't identify with any of it to be home for me. Canada is my home.
    If a Saudi couple moves to the USA and has a kid, is the kid a Saudi or an American?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Apikoros baal korchoMay 24, 2006 1:01 PM

    To those of you who say you are optimistic, remember the Hebrew proverb:

    "A pessimist is an optimist with experience."

    ReplyDelete
  32. Actually, the Palestinians are #2. They were edged out by "Soccer Fans".

    ReplyDelete
  33. LMAO - Lya - do you just cut and paste sentences without following through on the general idea of the paragraph?

    Okay - yes, they may have at one time called themselves Jordanians and I believe one of the PLO charters had even pledged allegiance to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. However, it was not internationally accepted and wasn't accepted by Jordan, that's for sure.

    "Interesting that NONE of the surrounding countries did. And yet they "care so much" about them. Of course they forced out 700,000 Jews so I guess they didn't want to be hypocritical."

    No, citizenship is not automatically granted to refugees and had the Arab countries accepted them in - they may have lost all rights to what was once their home in Israel or the territories. Israel whines a bit too much that no one else would take them in. I don't know how anyone in their right mind expected that Israel's "friendly" neighbors would want to make it easy on Israel to evict some of its natives.

    However, it had nothing to do with them forcing out over 750,000 jews from arab countries. I have to wonder what the hell they were thinking by supplying Israel with an even stronger Jewish population. To say it was a retaliatory move for the expulsion of an equal amount of Palestinians doesn't seem right. This is the one aspect of this conflict that boggles my mind.

    "True. But I can say that at least some of the "Palestinians" alive when Israel was founded called themselves Jordanians. That is, until the Jews wanted the land ;) "

    True - with the addition of: and until they realized that no one else wanted them and that no one else was willing to go to bat for them.

    "Arabs, maybe (and that's a HUGE maybe) but not Muslims. Religions butting heads won't suddenly find peace when there's a Palestine. As plenty of Arab countries are also Muslim countries, I think this statement is a bit of wishful thinking. "

    The governments will recognize Israel as soon as a just solution to the palestinian problem occurs. That is key. Palestinians having a secure, viable and economically stable state is going to be an example to the rest of the arab world. A prospering Palestine and Palestinians will be golden - it has the power of changing the whole outlook of the "muslim" people within the ME. We may not agree on many things when it comes to Islam, however, you can not teach people to hate unless there is something there to back what you are saying - there needs to be propoganda that is not easy to disprove. Israel/Palestine has been reason number 1 for a lot of terrorists and Big Brother USA keeps getting implicated in that whole thing.

    Lya - I for one am for a 2 state solution. I believe that Palestinians have their problems as do Israelis. I do not condone terrorism as a valid means of resistance and by terrorism I mean the deliberate killing of innocents, including but not limited to women and children. I do not believe that right of return for Palestinians as I believe that it will be the end of Israel within a very short time period (if Israel is to remain a democracy after such and if it becomes an Apartheid state - it would eventually fail as well). However, to say that right of return is a ridiculous request - I do not believe in that statement either, afterall that is how the Jews came to majority again after 2000 years of absence. The goal is peace and that should be everyones goal.

    Personally, I see that it will happen like this - Israel will stall with any sort of negotiations as it sees that that is in its best interest. Olmert is talking about unilateral withdrawl - which will take place, the wall will be built upon those borders Israel is attempting to draw for itself and when it finally says - these are our borders - the international community will say "No" and then a negotiated peace will ensue. At that point, Israelis will have given up so much allready that it will not be a "shock", something expected - this all may be the governments way of obtaining an acceptable peace. I also believe that Jerusalem will either be internationalized or divided, I lean towards the former as Christianity otherwise has no "rights". Alot for Israelis to give up? Not really as it was never theirs to begin with and there have to be repercussions for illegally building on the settlements. As for Palestinians - they will lose right of return, and their territory will be smaller than had res. 181 been accepted - which "Palestinians" were not really the ones that were responsible for accepting or denying, rather the neighboring Arab states made that choice for them. They've also lost time and they've been losing their dignity for years.

    Bacon - there wasn't anyone on here telling the "zionists" to go back to where they came from - or is that what the guy with the bible quotes was implying - lol.

    ABK - Let me remind you of the CP proverb:

    "A pessimist is an optimist with BAD experience, that he chose not to learn from."

    ReplyDelete
  34. You keep implying that the Palis will have a love-in once a "just" solution is arrived at.
    A "just" solution for the Hamas is Jews drowning in the sea.

    I was addressing Lya's point about how long a person has to claim "his land" and many Paliphiles I've bumped into in cyberspace say that Zionists should go back to where they came from.....you know that.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Apikoros baal korchoMay 24, 2006 2:50 PM

    As is the case with most quotations, I find that the original is hard to beat, and revisionists only distort the meanings.

    The Palestinians will never see any solution as just that recognizes Israel's right to exist. The fact that they elected Hamas has proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt. THEY have left no room for discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The FACT that they elected into office Abbas right after Arafat died - Abbas the moderate - the moderate everyone knew was for a 2 state solution shows that they wanted a peace.

    As I have said many times - Israel should have played nice while it had the chance. It became painfully obvious to the Palestinians that Israel thought it was in its best interest to stall any talks and unilaterally withdraw, drawing its own borders. It was a theme going on throughout the campaigns leading up to the election. I've allready stated before that Israel for the same reason had elected Sharon "the hawk" - for the very same reason - being feed up and wanting a hardline stance towards Palestinians. Palestinians didn't have much of a choice, but it doesn't necessarily mean that by electing Hamas that they wanted a 1 state solution - otherwise, please explain Abbas to me.

    ABK - IN YOUR MIND - was there any room for discusion before Hamas came into power? I know that Bacon was a little more balanced in his views not too long ago.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Abbas basically got in by default.
    Israel wasn't stopping the strides in peace from Arafats death to the Hamas election.
    Sorry, but I must have missed them stop playing nice.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sure - you wanna explain to me how he got in by default? I remember concern over a barghouti guy.

    Israel has REFUSED to have peace talks with Abbas since his election. Israel made demands that were not feasible for Palestine with the resources allocated to the PA.

    By the way - I never replied to your love-in. No - I don't expect all hostilities will end overnight, but I do know that whenever a peace is negotiated it will come a lot sooner. Realistically, I expect a 50% decline in hostilities in the first 5 years and then further declines as the economy becomes more established and as people start enjoying life once again.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Apikoros baal korchoMay 24, 2006 4:10 PM

    The peace process does not take place in my mind. It is supposed to take place between Israel and the Arabs. However, it isn't happening, and the refrain that everyone keeps hearing is that until a just solution is found for the Palestinian problem, there will be no peace.

    Before Hamas was elected, it was up to the Palestinian people to elect a government to represent it in the peace process. The people chose Hamas, thereby expressing their desire not to pursue peace or co-existence with Israel. So if there had been a hope for peace prior to the election, it was just that: a hope for peace but not a realistic hope because the Palestinians would not support a peaceful co-existence with Israel.

    Hamas has neither agreed to recognize Israel nor to co-exist with Israel peacefully. Hamas maintains its hard-line policy and the majority of the Palestinian people identify with that policy as evidenced by the election. With such a policy in place, the chances of a peaceful solution with Israel seem slim to none.

    ReplyDelete
  40. ABK - PLEASE EXPLAIN THE FIRST ELECTIONS AFTER ARAFATS DEATH IN WHICH A MODERATE GOV WAS VOTED IN.

    Why is it that you totally ignore that aspect? Why is it that you avoid the issue of when that government existed that Israel would not negotiate with Abbas?

    Why is it that while Arafat was alive all Sharon would do is say that he is not willing to negotiate with a terrorist? Why is it that when a moderate that supported the two state solution was voted in that then and only then did Sharon all of a sudden have demands? Why is it that you avoid these issues and just jump to the election of Hamas?

    Why is it that no one here is willing to tackle the fact that Israel controls the arms and amo that the PA has - why is it that no one here talks about the amo shortage that the PA suffered and all the while Israel is screaming at the Palis to disarm the terrorists? Why is it that we just jump to the "Hamas was elected" and there is no negotiating? What about inbetween Arafat and Hamas? What about that?

    Again, I ask you this question - as Hamas was not in power and the Palestinians had given you a moderate government. The polls from the time after (just after) Arafat's death showed great improvement in the hopes of the Palis and that HOPE was reflected with the government they gave you - so again, I ask you:

    ABK - IN YOUR MIND - was there any room for discusion before Hamas came into power?

    ReplyDelete
  41. I think you have revised history a bit there Pimpette. See here

    The Gaza withdrawel I believe was negotiated while Arafat and Sharon were in power. The Roapmap to Peace, remember that?
    Again, Abbas was really the only candidate who had a chance, and the militants/terrorists supported him too.

    Amona was emptied out too. Yet the Palestinians who have never failed at missing an opportunity voted in terrorists whose platform is to destroy Israel.

    Sometimes in politics, the lips move and the actions are different. With Hamas, their lips move and suicide bombs go off just like they intend them to.

    Don't forget, negotitations were going on contrary to whatever history you are rewriting but both Israel and the Palestinians were also in election mode. Everyone knew that major hands were tied until the elections were done with.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Steve, Frances is rational, and I don't think he pretends to know the whole story either. He doesn't resort to call me a racist either.

    Thank you for the defense.

    I think you know that I am not anti-Semitic, and you afford me respect as such. My opposition is to certain Israeli POLICIES. My views on those policies have absolutely no relationship with the religion of the policy makers. Israel could be an overtly atheistic country, and I would still have the same policy objections.

    I'm not against the Israeli people or the Palestinian people, generally speaking. I hate lumping people together into groups, whether it's Palestinians or Jews or blacks or whites. I look at people as individuals, not as members of a larger group. Group affiliation means little or nothing to me, compared to individual merits.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The problem in the middle east is that reality creates group affiliations.
    Another thing is other people use group affiliations in very bad ways.
    Hitler murdered Jews for being born Jews, he didn't care what they believed.
    In other Arabs countries Jews and even Christians in many have Dhimmi status.
    So Israel must be a majority Jewish state out of necessity, for survival purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Francis - I agree with you, why would I be attacking you? Terrorism is wrong, no matter whose doing it. Bacon just thinks you don't know enough about the whole conflict, which is why you don't agree they are assmonkeys. Re-read his comment, "and he doesn't claim to know the whole story."

    And Lya, you only want people to see one side of the debate, that's why you only recommend they visit Israel, and never see Palestine. I agree, if you want to see how one half lives, go visit Israel... it's beautiful. Several of my jewish friends have been recently. Have you seen the skyline in Tel Aviv? Now check out all those office buildings in Ram'allah... oh wait... its rubble.

    Like most people, extreme Zionists believe that the Palestinians... a society with a wasted economy, a declining standard of living, 40% unemployment, and no plans for future growth, they have all the "power" to stop it tomorrow. Gosh, they never miss an opportunity, to miss an opportunity - or to go to an Israeli checkpoint on the way to work.

    But Israel, the multi-billion dollar society with aircraft jets, nuclear weapons, a well-trained army, and a rising standard of living. These people have no responsibilities for the conflict. They settlements are a mistake, but what are you gonna do. It's all been the fault of the have-nots.

    Only innocent Israeli's die... there's no such thing as an innocent Palestinian being killed. That's the story.

    Every dead innocent Israeli is a tragedy. But why no tears for the other side? OH yeah... they did it all to themselves, right?

    ReplyDelete
  45. "But why no tears for the other side? "

    Because they are the other side. They danced in the streets after 911. They kill Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Steve, shedding tears for the Palestinians is like shedding tears for cancer.

    ReplyDelete
  47. ummmmmmmmm, we aren't talking about disengagement, which yes, was part of the roadmap. And, please, Sharon didn't exactly WANT to coordinate it with the Palestininas - he wanted it unilateral - the only reason he coordinated was because of International, oh wait, sorry US pressure.

    What I'm talking about is peace talks - first it was that Sharon refused to negotiate with a terrorist (arafat), but when the terrorist was gone and the moderate was in. Then it was not until Hamas and millitants are disarmed - which btw was impossible to do with an amo shortage and lack of arms and equipment - something Israel was well aware of since they control what arms, amo and equipment PA gets. They wouldn't even let USA and Russia give the PA 19 armored vehicles.

    Israel would like to do this unilateraly - but in the end it will have to be negotiated.

    ReplyDelete