Since the whole conflict is fireing up again, or at least on the news more now that the fighting in Iraq is pretty much over, I was wondering what your oppinions on the Israeli and Palestinian conflict is. Who do you think should really be in control of the land and why?

Since you asked, Thauglor, I think that what is happening at the present is a reaction to Shrub's so called "Roadmap to Peace." The PM of Israel, Sharon, was suppose to be here in the US this week but the attacks kept him away. They were carefully orchestrated to put a roadblock on Bush's "map."

The whole idea of this marketing term has a very artificial feel to it and is, I think, Bush trying to prove that he can "win the peace." It is more for the people back home than any real desire of his to bring a lasting peace to the Middle East.

He has bullied most of the states in the region and seems satisfied for the moment. A few indicators point towards the Far East now, but we will have to see. It is getting too near the 2004 campaign and Shrub knows he needs the votes of the "soccer moms" if he wants another term. Because of them he may have to hang his six-guns up for now.

[ May 21, 2003, 19:50: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Like a heroin addict, I've popped back in.

You know, I run a lot. I don't pronate at all and so use a cushioning shoe and not a motion control shoe.

The other day though, I twisted my ankle at the lake.

I never twisted my ankle before "Shrub" was in office.

Clearly "Shrub" is to blame for my twisted ankle.

Kinda like blaming him for this age old problem dontcha think? I mean, clearly things were going so well before.... oh, wait....

Also, just noting the potential breadth of this topic is staggering.

The other night my father and I were having a conversation about nuclear weapons...inevitably this led to talk about Revelations. My father is a revelationist, not a christian. Well anyway, he mentioned that the conflict is not going to be over till all the Palestinians are dead. He listens to Rush Limbaugh all day and watches Fox News all night. Now from knowing him these 23 years I have realized that he is a right-wing lunatic. But it troubles me how many people are probably just like him. How many people eagerly anticipate the day Isreal nukes another nation? How many people believe Isreal being nuked or nuking will be the justification of a life-times faith? How can these two nations not be in conflict when a peaceful resolution of that conflict would leave so many people with their brimstone sitting uselessly next to yesterdays newspaper?

Laches -- I did not blame him for the problems between Israel and Palistine, merely responding to the current attacks that have occured over the last week. The conventional wisdom, if there is such a thing, is that the attacks were connected to Sharon's visit.

Now, many feared that if we attacked Iraq that there would be an increase in terrorism. You can argue that attacks would have occured anyway. But in the larger picture IMO, Bush is playing a lot of politics with situation in the Middle East. There is no way you can disconnect the US meddling in the region from the situation between Palestine and Israel.

There are times that we have helped, Carter (Camp David) and Clinton (came really close, but no cigar (I won't say something tacky about who got the cigar, because I know all of you are thinking it), and times that things have been really bad, Reagan and Shrub.

The real problem is that both sides are run by hardliners. IMO, the leaders of the US and Europe should stop dealing with hardliners on both sides, which includes both Shaorn and Arafat. They had a moderate guy in Israel some years back, who could have been a real hope for peace, but the hardliners killed him the same as the other side did Sadat of Egypt. It is always an "us against them" mentality. That is the tie-in with Bush.

As a hardliner he uses the same approach. Yes, he himself gets up and says, "the Muslims are our friends," but listen to the people who support him: Rush, Delay, the evangelical right (I would never use the word Christian to describe that bunch of politcal dogs, since they are an insult to real Christians everywhere). They create in the minds of others the stereo-typical view that the challenge America faces is the hatered of Muslims everywhere. Then Bush fullfills that prophesy by doing something to get an angry reaction, and they say "see, what did we tell you? Muslims hate us and are our enemies."

About your ankle, I hope you have lots of good insurance, because you won't get any help from Shrub (but that's another topic, if you wish to start a thread, I will meet you there). Good luck with your running, Laches.

[ May 21, 2003, 17:43: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Nothing will ever solve this conflict. You could make an exact copy of Israel and give one to each and they would still fight over pathetic matters. "He killed my fathers cousins best friends flat mates uncle, so it is my duty to kill him and get revenge," well you get the idea. This is one fight that wont end in the for-see-able future.

Hi, Laches, glad you're back. :thumb:

Chandos the red wrote:

hey had a moderate guy in Israel some years back, who could have been a real hope for peace, but the hardliners killed him the same as the other side did Sadat of Egypt Yes, that's one of the main parts of the problem. Every great leader who dares to move versus peace somehow signs his on death judgement. I think it's good you bring up Saddat and Rabin. Rabin was an Israel war hero, with stong credentials and was the last big leader in Israel, a lot of Isrealis trusted him and were ready to follow him, whereever he would lead them. A "hawk" turned "dove" which had much political power. The only way to stop him, was to kill him.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ga0

Rising to the rank of Major-General at the age of 32, Rabin established the IDF training doctrine and the leadership style which became known by the command "follow me."

In 1962 he was appointed Chief of the General Staff and promoted to the rank of Lieutenant General. He developed the IDF fighting doctrine - based on movement and surprise - which was employed during the 1967 Six-Day War, when the achievement of air supremacy and massive deployment of armor led to the famous military victory. In January 1968, after 26 years in uniform, Rabin retired from the IDF.

Rabin's second term as Prime Minister was marked by two historic events - the Oslo Agreements with the Palestinians and the Treaty of Peace with Jordan.

On November 4, 1995, on leaving a mass rally for peace held under the slogan "Yes to Peace, No to Violence," Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish right-wing extremist. Age 73 at his death, he was laid to rest before a shocked and grieving nation, in a state funeral on Mt. Herzl in Jerusalem, attended by leaders from around the world.But Israel/Palestine is another issue, which is A. a hot potatoe topic and B. another huge friction in the middle of the pond.

I personally think, neither the USA nor Europe can open the gordic knot. It needs the chinese or the Indians. A big part of "Israelis" can't stand the Europeans (Antisemites), a big part of the Palestinans can't stand the Americans (Anitsemites, Arabs are semites too).

Or an divine Intervention. An Angel coming down, saying stop it, both of you, live peacefully together, children of Abraham.

Edited some spelling errors after Charlie pointed out, that Israel is written in English:"I S R A E L". Sometimes I really hate taetchars. He, he, that's the same spelling as in German. But why do the English speakers spell English "English", instead of "Inglish", like they actually say it, I guess I will never no. Ahm, no, I will never know.

[ May 21, 2003, 13:07: Message edited by: Yago ]

There was a thread about this some months ago. Most people agreed that it was a very difficult situation considering this conflict is decades old and no one can prove who has more right to be there.

P.S. Damn it, it's spelled I-S-R-A-E-L. How can I take you guys seriously when you can't even spell the name properly? Other errors are excusable. This is not.

is decades old and no one can prove who has more right to be there.
Theatschiers tend to inflame me. That's the wrong starting point. Everyone who's living there has the right to live there. Saying, that one side has more right to be there and has to leave would be very dangerous. Because it would mean that the Australians have to leave Australia, because it is clear, Aboriginies have way more right to be there, than the descendants of foreigners, who are known as "Australians". The same would be for New Zealand (Sp?) and South-Africa.

Now, South-Africa is interesting. Some whites claim, that there acutally were there before the blacks came. That's even true, as far as I know. But that does not mean, that blacks haven't the same right to live in South-Africa as the others and it does not mean, that the whites have a right to put up an "Apartheid-regime".

And the British can't claim Norhtern-Ireland for them and demand, that the Irish descendants who live there, emmigrate. It is just not fair, nor right.

And even if, Australians would say, ok, that's true, Australia belongs to the Aboriginies. Where should they go ? Which country would be ready to take millions of Australian refugees ? Danemark ? USA ? Canada ? UK ? Indonesia ? China ? Hong-Kong ? The Republic of Ireland ? Germany ? Japan (he,he, they would propably make some "camps" on Okinawa) Philippines ? Who would want millions of Australians ?

Ah, I know, the 20 million Australians could be equally distributed on Jordania, Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, Lebanon (Sp ?) and the Algerian desert.

[ May 21, 2003, 13:49: Message edited by: Yago ]

There is no way you can disconnect the US meddling in the region from the situation between Palestine and Isreal......

It is always an "us against them" mentality. That is the tie-in with Bush.

As a hardliner he uses the same approach. Yes, he himself gets up and says, "the Muslims are our friends," but listen to the people who support him: Rush, Delay, the evangelical right (I would never use the word Christian to describe that bunch of politcal dogs, since they are an insult to real Christians everywhere). They create in the minds of others the stereo-typical view that the challenge America faces is the hatered of Muslims everywhere. Then Bush fullfills that prophesy by doing something to get an angry reaction, and they say "see, what did we tell you? Muslims hate us and are our enemies."Oh come now. That is stretching at its best. There may be lots of ways to criticize the current administration for its dealings with Israel/Palestine, just as you could criticize many others (those damned Germans and French aren't trying hard enough! Clearly the French gaullist tendencies and unilateralist demands of potential EU members, including the nation of Turkey which has a populace that practices the tenets of Islam, in the recent past is hardline and serves to justify in the minds of hardliners the hardline approach taken by those in Israel and Palestine) but your approach imo is largely more related to your intense personal dislike of Bush than it is to the specific situation. I have no problem with you disliking Bush, hell, I don't like him (nor do I despise him) but your dehumanization of him and reaching to draw tangential connections doesn't really strike a strong chord imo.

Like I said, there is plenty to criticize in the current process. You could criticize the amount of time it took to address the situation (of course, others think, like Yago it may appear to some, that the US shouldn't even be involved so this criticism isn't clear cut) or you may criticize the specifics of the plan but those are specific criticisms that imo are much different from a generalized criticism of "Bush is an ******* and therefore they're being *******s too."

Here is the plan, or "roadmap," a good place to start if you want to criticize it (there's lots of reputable writers who have criticized it if you don't actually want to read the whole plan and want a Cliff's Notes version (sp?)):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59050-2003Apr30.html

And a note for what I take was obvious but just in case - I don't blame France's unilateralist moves for the problems in Israel/Palestine.

At Laches:

of course, others think, like Yago it may appear to some, that the US shouldn't even be involved so this criticism isn't clear cut In my own defence, I have to say, that ideally the far-eastern nations (Japan, China, Korea) should make some peace intervention. I stated cleary, as you did yourself too, that neither Europe nor the USA have no own meddlings in the middle-east. I've mentioned Europe and the USA, not the USA alone. Yes, some European countries used to have colonies in this region, not too long ago, that does not further reputation there.

:doh: How could I've said India, I have completly forgotten about Pakistan and Bangladesh (Sp ?).

Laches -- Here is the problem and my criticism of Bush: He is refusing to deal with Arafat, and I think that is a good thing; Arafat is one piece of the problem. Instead Bush is trying to reach out to alternative leadership and that is also a good thing.

But Bush will deal with Sharon. Sharon is as hardline as they come and you know that to be true. He could find alternative leadership in Israel but he won't do it. IMO that is because of politics. Much of his support is on the far right and he knows that he must have it, just as he needs the soccer moms who are more moderate. Do yourself a favor and listen to these guys on the far right, the way they stereo-type anyone who is Muslim, or Arab. It is painful, but important to know what these guys are saying, because they have a strong voice in policy.

As far as Bush's humanity goes, much of my rants about him are just rhetorical. It is the nature of politics in the USA. Bill Clinton was accused by conservatives of everything from rape to murder. He used to run around in a jogging suit and everyone made fun. Now we have a president who puts on a suit and tie and we all are supposed to not go over the top in our criticism. Give me a break, Laches, I know you have a great sense of humor.

Charlie: I visit these boards because they are fun. There is really excellent content on these boards by people with some good ideas, both progressive and conservative. I really don't care what you take seriously, but don't cuss at anyone because of his/her spelling - that is inexcusable, IMO.

[ May 21, 2003, 19:57: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

I've touted this before and I'll do so again:

We are NOT the issue in the Israel / Palestine saga. By that I mean US / UK / The West as a whole etc. We are not causing the problems there, though admittedly perhaps we should be more proactive in the peace process.

The real reason imo that peace seems and, probably is, a long way off is that within the Jewish and Palestinian communities in the region there are those who will not settle for anything other than complete domination. Yet again the extremists are out in force when a "serious" peace effort is being made.

Until the moderates on both sides can sway, control or however else you want to put it, the extremists on both sides, they will not find the road that leads to peace on their map.

Before anyone blames it all on suicide bombers and extreme Palestinian organisations, remember how Rabin and his peace efforts were cut short by Jewish extremism.

BTW, it really gets my goat when this topic is phrased like some sort of sporting contest. Israel v Palestine indeed. What shall we have? Israel by 4?

Yes, the problem is not with the map itself but with the political context. Try to get both sides to agree with the map and you've got something. I was listening, just this morning, to a guy ranting on Fox News about the terrorist attacks (I wish I could remember his name), but he was supposed to be some expert on terrorism. Nevertheless, he began by talking of extremists in Saudi Arabia and how the war in Iraq had been a set-back to them. But he ended his remarks by saying that "hatred is being preached from the pulpits of mosques all over the world."

This is exactly the kind of thing I am ranting about. He has no more idea of what is being preached in mosques than the dog, sleeping under my chair does. The guy wants to create an image of raving Muslims who are a threat to peace. It is all politics.

I don't know about that, Chandos. I firmly believe that hatred is being preached in mosques worldwide. Not all of them, but enough to convince young men to fly airliners into buildings. The flip side the guy on your radio didn't mention is that hatred is also being preached over Christian pulpits all over the world. Not all pulpits, but enough to convince Irish Catholics to plant bombs on schoolbusses and Irish Protestants to lob bombs into gradeschools. And don't even get me started on the atrocities committed by all sorts of religions in Africa, South America -- pretty well everywhere. It only takes a few hatred filled pulpits of any faith to tar the whole religious community with an undeserved name.

The flip side the guy on your radio didn't mention is that hatred is also being preached over Christian pulpits all over the world. Not all pulpits, but enough to convince Irish Catholics to plant bombs on schoolbusses and Irish Protestants to lob bombs into gradeschools Yes, but I connect that with the British expirience of terrorism and the solution of Viking:

Until the moderates on both sides can sway, control or however else you want to put it, the extremists on both sides, they will not find the road that leads to peace on their map.

In my view, religion never played a role in the Northern-Ireland conflict. How comes, that all over Europe, catholics and protestants live together in peace ? And terrorists in Norhtern Ireland call themselves the "Irish Republican Army" or the "Ulster Volunteer Front". And political authorities, controlled by the "Anglo-Irish", like the police, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (sp ?)

They even appointed a canadian, neutral view, to look into things:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2078318.stm

The British and Irish governments have appointed retired Canadian Judge Peter Cory to examine the Finucane murder and other controversial killings.
Well, religion does only play a very marginal role in the Northern-Ireland conflict. Religion their is one of the excuses of an Apartheid-kind of system, that gives one half of the population more rights and privileges and material gain, while discriminating the other. Religion is not the important issue. I guess, they freak out about gaelic street-signs and so. And demographics is a problem. The protestants are shrinking majority and it will only take approx. 10-20 years, until the result of a referanda may lead to the reunion of the island.

Yes, they preach hate in churches there, but not out of "belief", but out of simple greed and envy versus eachother. The anglo-Irish want to secure their Apartheid-system, the Irish want to get rid of the Anglo-Irish. And don't forget the history, like the civil-war, independence war, the delibarete destruction of the gealic (sp ?) language and forced deportation.

But I drifted from my main point. Ignore extremitsts. If pacification is the wanted target, extremists will do everything to hinder it. They're lost souls. The only problem is to not let them spoil the future.

And I think the Palestine/Israel conflict has only marginaly to do with religion, but with land, water, demographics and political control. Jerusalem just happens to be the tripple-holy city. Now, some foolish heads claim the "city" for them. Not because of religion, but religion is a means to "have" the city.

Yago, don't particularly want to piss on your little fire about Northern Ireland here, BUT....

Apharteid style system? come, come. That is simply a complete distortion of anything resembling fact. If you actually believe that there is or has recently been any sort of government policy to segregate the Catholic community recently, you are completely wrong.

Religion doesn't play anything but a fringe part? True to a degree, but also a complete fallacy. Religion has long ago become the way people identify themselves, thus it has become more of an excuse to polarise themselves within groups in society than actually about the religion they believe in. People class themselves as Catholic and Protestant now without actually believing in the religion itself, it has become just a label.

The above is of course true for people around the world, not just in Northern Ireland. Still pisses me off no end that Americans post September 11 talk big about war on terror, yet had spent 25 years funding the IRA up until about 1994.

BTW - UVF = Ulster Volunteer Force

I'm sorry I brought up Northern Ireland! I was simply pointing out that people other than Muslims use religion as a mask for hatred and violence. But that doesn't make what they do right. I also mentioned Africa, South America and a few other hot spots as well.

Lord Depaara - I agree with the general idea of what you are saying. But the impression that the hate mongers are trying to project here in the states is one in which most Muslims can be seen as enemies of America and Arabs as terrorists, because of their religious beliefs. All of us should know that nothing could be further from the truth. But many Americans who refuse to think for themselves are swayed by this kind of rhetoric.

That is one of the reasons why America is now supposed to be on the side of Israel, instead of the right reasons. It is because all of us are supposed to know that Arabs and Palestinians are Muslims, and Muslims are taught to hate anyone who is not Islamic.

Historically, the Christians (and I use the term loosley to include Nazi Germany) have been the worst perpetraters of anti-Semitism. They have committed more horrible crimes against the Jewish people than anyone else. Muslims have not so bad a track record as Christians. This is swept under the carpet so to speak, because everyone is supposed to know that it is the Germans and the Nazis were the main ones who committed such crimes. But the historical record shows that such persecution is very deep in Christian roots. I won't cite all the instances, otherwise I would be here typing till tomorrow morning. If you doubt read, _The Merchant of Venice or _Ivanhoe_ . Fiction may not be history in the real sense, but is sometimes a good indicator of currents of thought and social conditions, IMO.

After fifteen hundred years of inhumane treatment and almost constant persecution, one would think that today's right wing zealots would say simply that we owe it to Israel to finally give them the safe space and security from such persecution. But instead we are treated to how it is a bastion of democracy in an ocean of tyrants and toltalitarian states, that despise Americans based on religious principles. They are in someway all terrorist states.

I suspect that there is growing dislike for America among Muslims. Of course every American knows that it is because of nothing that we would do that would create dislike (Please note that I am not referring to the insane madmen who flew planes into buildings but mainstream Muslims who suddenly find 250,000 Americna soldiers sitting on their doorsteps). The reason for any dislike is because Americans are successful and everyone else is just jealous of us. This is the kind of nonsense that Jerry Falwell and Rush sitting on the right would have the average American believe.

Yago is absolutely right when he says that the reason for the conflict is more practical (land, water, etc) rather than on ideology or religious differences. But how much easier it is for Americans to believe that it is otherwise.

Added Falwell link: http://www.adn.com/24hour/world/story/572160p-4483668c.html

[ May 22, 2003, 06:48: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

This conflict between these two nations is as old as the nation of Israel. When the Jews wanted a place they could call home and the USA and europe decided that they could grant that nation they found they state of Palaistine (which was the historic birth land of the Jewish nation) and decided to split this nation in two and give one piece to the Jews and one piece to the Palaistinians.
At first there was no conflict between these two nationalities until one day the zealots of the Jewish came to power and this was the beginning of the end. They decided they needed more breathing space and they took it by force. The Israelis were better equipped (of course) and they didn't have a real problem to get what they want.
The Palaistinians didn't like that and furthermore they didn't like to be prisoners in their own homes so they fight back.
At this point the tensions are too high and although i've read yesterday that the majority of Palaistinians would oppose the suicide attack IF there was a true step towards peace and equality i personally doubt that the attrocities by both sides will be easily forgotten.
But they must try or else they will never manage to enjoy peace and a life that doesn't fear to end from a stray bullet or anything unnatural.
But both goverments are lacking common sense and still expect the other side to step back and grant their requests. That is utopic and if they don't wake up the only ones who will continue to pay for this situation are the simple people fom both sides :(

Apharteid style system? come, come. That is simply a complete distortion of anything resembling fact. If you actually believe that there is or has recently been any sort of government policy to segregate the Catholic community recently, you are completely wrong.
Viking, I took Northern-Ireland, because somebody brought it up. And you seem to agree with my main point, that "religion" is not the cause, but the means to make a difference between people. It used to be a kind of Apartheid system until the 60ies in my view. Now, in point of view, South-Africa was a special case, but a special case based on the way the Empire ruled it's colonies. And I made a fast overlook over the last 200 years, I left the potatoe famine (sp ?), because I wasn't sure about the spelling. Yes, things changed in Northern-Ireland. But the reasons for the conflict are found way back in the last 3 centuries.

But Norhtern-Ireland is a good example, how to end a conflict, which involves terrorism, because the peace-process is Northern-Ireland is very successfull. I think you're comment comes from the Northern-Ireland experience:

Until the moderates on both sides can sway, control or however else you want to put it, the extremists on both sides, they will not find the road that leads to peace on their map.
That's the same problem with the right-winger Israeli who shot Rabin. Rabin was the way to end the conflict, the only one who could have pulled it through.

So, I think one of the main points, why terrorism is viewd differently by a lot of Europeans, are the expiriences of European terrorism, like Northern-Ireland. We usually hear the view of the experts on terrorism from the St. Andrews university in scottland. , I visited Belfast recently, the Britsh solving of the conflict is in my view a great success and the restauration of the city a nice sideeffect.

Btw: UDA, UFF, UVF, that's just too complicated for a poor fellow like me.

Chandos. We had a very interesting documentary about Arab Americans recently on TV. One fact that I think most westerners are simply ignorant of is that over half of the Arabs living in the US are not muslims. It is the same here in Australia, but that hardly makes a difference.

When I was in Catholic high school and Egyptian Christian enrolled at our school and he was treated with the same loathing, contempt and racism as any Arab muslim would have receieved.

It's ingrained into Western psyche. Many Westerners are amazed to hear that there are Palestinian Christians, and they even question when the Palestinians became christians. Talk about out of touch!

I think that you are correct, it all boils down to politics. Westerners want to hate muslims and muslims want to hate westerners because they are and they can.

There were bushfires raging all over Australia last summer and my old father actually claimed that it was muslim terrorists linked to Bin Laden who were doing it for revenge over attacking Iraq!

I felt so sorry for my father. How narrow minded. And you know, that that is exactly what some ignorant muslims would say in reverse.

I think it is about time that we started to accept that people overseas are different and we have no right to force our views onto them.

Yago. I loved your sections about Australia. It even sounds almost comical. The ironic thing is, that nobody takes this scenario seriously, but to transfer the concept to Israel leads to howls of racism.

Jewish settlers are allowed to return to Israel under any circumstances, but a recent newspaper article by a prominent NY Jewish author (forgot the name) stated that Sharon is blocking the Palestinian request for the "right of return" to their homes. If 1 side has the right, then not the other?

It can't even be one sided. Each party needs to accept the views and rights of the other. Otherwise there is simply no end to the nonsense that has been going on for too long.

Well, this is drifting into a broader topic but the topic of whether Muslims are wrongly criticized by the right for preaching hate in Saudi Arabia etc. The assertion was this is bunk and I'd like to play devil's advocate here.



Saudi Arabia is a nation comprised almost entirely of Wahabbists. Wahabbi Islam is a highly militant branch of islam that dictates Jyhad as the sixth pilar of Islam. The religion includes countless justifications for killing anyone who ISN'T wahabbist ISlam and indeed, encourages its followers to do so. In fact one cleric stated that to deal with, socialise with or befriend anyone who isn't a Wahabbist is amount to treason. They state quite openly that while ISlam prevents the killing of women and children and other innocents, this does not apply when dealing with non-wahabbists, who are all to be considered enemy's and can thuis be killed, tortured, or raped, as that is god's will.

As one man put it "Imagine if the KKK managed to control all of texas, and used the oil funds to spread their hatefull belief system across all of christandom. This is what Saudi arabia is to the Muslims."
Now, I imagine the response is either to deny the above, in which case I'd suggest that the following:

"Zacarias Moussaoui, mon frère" by Abd Samad Moussaoui

Abd Samad draws connections between Al Qaeda and other religious cults, suggesting more than a political organization Al Qaeda, like the related Wahabi Islam should be thought of as a group of religious extremists not as a group with a purely political agenda.

"Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism" by Dore Gold

It explains the history of Wahabbi Islam. This isn't regular Islam, this is the Aryan Nations, Nazi empire, Everyone who isn't us must die and God loves it version of Islam.

If you can't find the book, try here. http://www.godulike.co.uk/faiths.php?chapt...1&subject=intro

It's a rather accurate desciption, although i think they tone down the Wahabbist tendancy to violence and their calls of Jihad. The other option is to point out this is just one form of the religion and you're talking about all the other forms in asserting they aren't preaching hate etc. Probably then will follow an assertion that Christians and Jews and etc all have fringe elements that preach violence and it is stupid to paint all of Christianity with a broad brush because of these fringe groups.

I agree. I once made a list of Christian terrorist organizations for a post on this website and it included Christian groups spanning the globe (but particularly in S. America it seemed) and so I agree the pulpit of hate is not confined to one religion.

Here however is a non-PC devil's advocate assertion: in no other religion than Islam is the "fringe" element so prominent. Indeed, the Wahabbis are so widespread that it is not accurate to refer to them as a fringe movement any more than it would be accurate to refer to... Methodists as a fringe movement of Christianity. Further, because of the special role Saudi Arabia plays in the Middle East economically and because of the special role Saudi Arabia (or the land that once was something else but is now Saudi Arabia)plays to Muslims in general for religious reasons, the Wahabis enjoy a special prestige which allows them to spread their message to other non-Wahabbi Muslims which they take advantage of.

So, perhaps the Muslim religion is not inherently more violent than any other religion. Perhaps historically the other major religions have been equal *******s. However, today, the preaching of hate IS more widespread in the Muslim religion, in part because of the Wahabbi sect and others, than it is in other religious groups. The dislike of Israel and more generally western infidels for many IS in fact closely tied to the preaching of hate from the pulpit.

I can't say what precisely Chandos is referring to when he talks about what he is talking about and I can't and won't discount that stupid things have been said. However, when someone says that hate is being preached in many Muslim mosques and that influences the stance on Israel and the west that is not just a load of you know what.

After all, a great deal of the Muslim world supports Palestine unquestionably. Indeed, without seeing polling data I'll go ahead and assert it is a strong majority and this includes the Asian, African, and other nations where the religion is predominant. This support though clearly isn't entirely tied to simple sympathy for one being done wrong; from elsewhere:

Let us not mince words. The Arab and Muslim world has in pertinent part USED the Palestinians and exploited them.

The tender sensitivities of this selfsame Arab Middle East as concerns the Palestinians were somehow not in evidence when Hussein of Jordan violently threw out the PLO in 1970. The existing Arab populace (Christian, Muslim & Druse) in Lebanon were thankful to be rid of Arafat and the Palestinians when the Israelis helped evict them in 1982. Kuwait either executed or chased out nearly 300,000 of them after the '91 Gulf War. http://www.sfbg.com/gulfwar/090992.html

The Palestinians could have had their separate state in 1947, courtesy of the UN. It was not Israel but the Arab states that stepped in, scuttled the UN plan and declared war on Israel. (It was also those Arab states that LOST that war.)

Who is really responsible for ongoing Palestinian misery?? The Palestinians receive more aid per capita than any other "nationality" on earth, most of it from the EU. See, e.g. http://christianactionforisrael.org/isrepo...03/nowhere.html

Yet poverty continues in Gaza and parts of the West Bank, even as Arafat's personal fortune is estimated at between 300 million and several billion. Gee, could there be a link there?

Yes, Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East are angry. Who wouldn't be? They live under despotic regimes and kleptocracies. The children of their middle class emerge from college into dead economies that have no jobs for them. They see a civilization that was once the vanguard of knowledge and sophistication sinking into a bog of oppression and religious obscurantism. Israel may be a convenient scapegoat, but it is not the source of the problem. (Israeli Arabs enjoy the highest standard of living of Arabs in any Middle Eastern Country, btw. Anyone want to venture a guess as to how many live there? Hint: start at one million, then count UP). Don't take my word for it; see what Bernard Lewis has to say.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/01/lewis.htm
I agree with those who say with regards to the more general dislike of the west found in the Arab Muslim nations that non-religious factors play a strong role. However, should the religious factor be dismissed off hand because it is non-P.C.? Isn't there evidence that strong groups do in fact preach hatred of Israel and the west (and everyone else for that matter) FOR religious reasons that are unrelated to non-religious reasons. Now, I will conceed readily enough that because of things like economic factors these groups more easily influence members of the populace than they could otherwise but that doesn't change the fact that the hate is rooted and grounded in religious beliefs even if they wouldn't be as influencial without other factors.

Ouch, now is the above non-P.C. or what? I'm atheist btw and an equal opportunity critic of religion when I deem appropriate so please no comments about me being a right wing fundamentalist Christian etc.

Almost as an aside Chandos, your criticism of Bush for dealing with Sharon when he demanded new Palestinian representation is, imo, way off. Just look at the practicalities. What if Bush had made such a demand? What would have happened? Wouldn't have worked eh? Also, it really isn't a good comparison to note that under the old Palestinian negotiator there hadn't been peace for, oh, I don't know 3,4,5 decades while Sharon hasn't been leading Israel that long - hell, there wasn't even an Israel back when the old Palestinian leadership was at war. Also, it is much more difficult to demand that Israel, which elected Sharon, perhaps stupidly, up and change their entire well settled democratic system of election. Compare that to Palestine which of course elected the old regime but at the same time the demand did not require its ouster but merely that Palestine go ahead and appoint a PM, like it was already set up that they could, who could do the negotiating. The old regime is still in power both in reality and formally and if it chooses to scuttle the process it could (but popular support of the people of Palestine is now behind the PM so he is less likely to.)

You're comparing apples and oranges imo.

Like I said, lots of ways to criticize the plan, that wasn't a strong one though. It was highly unrealistic.

He, Chandos the Red's post about portraying (sp ?) Islam in general, brought me to the idea, to go to an Israeli-rightwinger side, which holds international articles and is meant for an international public, how they portray Europe and explain the European policies towards the Middle-East conflict. What I liked the most, is the Article which suggests, that Europe is soon going to be an Islamic-colony, Europeans are aware of that and are preparing to be good servants to the new masters."Europe is no longer Europe. It is a province of Islam, as Spain and Portugal were at the time of the Moors. "

Sidenote: Maybe I should change my name to "Santyago matamoros". (I know "i")

Well, next to the usual "France is a vulture", there are some articles about Europe in general.

http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/

France is the vulture of the world:


Australian Prime Minister John Howard framed his words perfectly in opining on the current state of France: "When you start to compare [permanent security council members], America is the eagle, China is the tiger, Russia is the bear, and in my view France is the vulture," he said in an interview to ABC Radio. "It circles around and does nothing for itself, waiting for the opportunity to go and pick the benefits of other people's hard work."

Europe, traditional european anti-semitism and the notorious love of Europeans for everything islamic:


The old continent's pro-Islamism comes from long ago. It stems from the special protection Muslim conquerors applied to "dhimmi" Jews and Christians

Europe is no longer Europe. It is a province of Islam, as Spain and Portugal were at the time of the Moors. It hosts almost 16 million Muslim immigrants and teems with mullahs, imams, mosques, burqas, chadors. It lodges thousands of Islamic terrorists whom governments don't know how to identify and control. People are afraid, and in waving the flag of pacifism – synonymous with anti-Americanism – they feel protected."

In a series of essays published in France and the United States, Bat Ye'or has reconstructed in terms updated by today's models the theory and practice – from its origins up to today – of Islamic jihad, or holy war, and above all of "dhimmitude," which is the condition assigned to Christians and Jews by Muslim teaching.

The Arabic word "dhimmi" is translated "protected." And this is what Oriana Fallaci holds: European Christians, in their pro-Islamism, seek protection. Indeed, they live as if they already feel themselves to be "dhimmi."
Enzo Bettiza adds that this feeling of dhimmitude is a trap contrived by the modern Islamist elite to conquer Europe and the world.

Among the "services" performed by this "hidden dhimmitude" of Europe is a laxity in the face of Muslim immigration. There is Europe's tolerance of cultural separatism on its own territory. There is the concession of financial aid to Muslim governments fiercely hostile to the West. There is the slur against the State of Israel. There is the understanding for Palestinian and Islamist terrorism. There is the human shield offered by the Franciscans to Arab guerrillas taking refuge in the Bethlehem basilica.

Further, Bat Ye'or shows that there is also a theological dhimmitude at the roots of the pro-Islamism of many Christians who live in Arab countries.

Whether this judgment is true or not, the fact remains that Europe's and America's current disagreement regarding war in Iraq is born also of an experience of dhimmitude that only the old continent has experienced. Pro-Islamic mimetism/opportunism as protection.

http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/Zuckerman-2002-10-07.asp

Europe is sick again. The memory of 6 million murdered Jews, it seems, is no longer inoculation against the virus of antisemitism.

The historic antisemitism denying individual Jews the right to live as equal members of society has horribly coalesced with a new version of antisemitism that denies the collective expression of the Jewish people, namely Israel, to live as an equal member of the family of nations.

How do they do this? By applying two of the oldest antisemitic techniques: the double standard and moral equivalency. The double standard is manifest in the way Jews and the Jewish state are judged in a way no other people would be. With venom unsurpassed in modern dialogue, Europe demands that Israel acts as if it has to win the "moral man of the year" award just to defend itself. Israel is attacked for any deviation, no matter how trivial, as if responding to those that seek its destruction is a moral failure. This pernicious, and intellectually dishonest, double standard has the effect of implicitly denying Israel the right to the same measures of self-defense that any other state would exert. When Israelis take steps to assert their collective rights of self-defense in the face of unprecedented terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli civilians, they encounter an almost unanimous condemnation from the European establishment and the European media. European detractors turn every Israeli act of defense into its current euphemism: crimes against humanity. The Europeans took the election of Ariel Sharon as a license to view every act of self-defense as an aggression.

Ever obsessed by anti-Americanism, they have seized on the Middle East crisis as a way to attack the United States and Israel as being unfeeling toward the poor of the world. For them, the Palestinians have become the poster child for Third World victimization. Indeed, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is portrayed as an extended human-interest story told exclusively from the Palestinian point of view. Unmentioned is the fact that there is not a single democratic state in the entire region, that there would not be a single Israeli soldier in any Palestinian city or any checkpoint were Jews not the daily targets of terror. Ignoring the corrupt, authoritarian regime in Palestine, the critics from the left attack Israel on universalist issues, arguing that Israel is an occupying power in the West Bank oppressing the Palestinians.

http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/Fallaci-2002-04-12.asp

I find it shameful and see in all this the rise of a new fascism, a new nazism . A fascism, a nazism, that much more grim and revolting because it is conducted and nourished by those who hypocritically pose as do-gooders, progressives, communists, pacifists, Catholics or rather Christians , and who have the gall to label a warmonger anyone like me who screams the truth.

But I stand with Israel, I stand with the Jews. I stand just as I stood as a young girl during the time when I fought with them, and when the Anna Marias were shot. I defend their right to exist, to defend themselves, to not let themselves be exterminated a second time. And disgusted by the antisemitism of many Italians, of many Europeans , I am ashamed of this shame that dishonors my Country and Europe. At best, it is not a community of States, but a pit of Pontius Pilates. And even if all the inhabitants of this planet were to think otherwise, I would continue to think so.

Laches wrote:

. However, should the religious factor be dismissed off hand because it is non-P.C.? Isn't there evidence that strong groups do in fact preach hatred of Israel and the west (and everyone else for that matter) FOR religious reasons that are unrelated to non-religious reasons. That's a difficult question. I don't dismiss the religious factor out of political correctness, because I tend not to be political correct versus religions, as some christans on this board may have noticed to their dismay. Now, the roots of those preaching is, in my opinion, not to be found in islamic belief, but in political questions of the last century. I had a similiar argument with Ragusa, in European history, religion and politics used to be always entwinded, particularly in my country. So I am used to distinguish presbyterian, lutheran or catholic belives and the politics and wars, which were legitimzed with them.

My personal expirience with people of islamic believes (coming from a country with a huge islamic minority) and what I know of Islam, just shows no evidence for this allegetion:"FOR religious reasons that are unrelated to non-religious reasons"

"Isn't there evidence that strong groups do in fact preach hatred of Israel and the west."

They do so, but for populist gain and to further their political influence."

A. The scapegoat theory (blaming the west for own shortcomings) has something strong to it.

B. But advertizing their own political ideas by saying:" The infidels, immorals and worhippers of the holy cow, a.k.a. the almighty Euro, have brought nothing else than rape, criminality and poverty. Come to us. We know how to solve the problems of our country by going back to the fundaments of islam. What "Islam" is, will of course be interpreted by our political leaders, when they seize power and make new laws.

And by the way, I still think, that Iran is going to be the first democracy in the middle east.

[ May 22, 2003, 16:05: Message edited by: Yago ]

...pacifism – synonymous with anti-Americanism...
Damn, pacifist has become an insult now.

This is classical far-right speech: anyone who dare to do anything but totally agree on every subject and actively support Israel no matter what is a Nazi (or a "dhimmi").

A little story about how Europe is under Islamic rule:
There's a Belgian law only a handful of law makers fully understand that is called law of universal competency. That law basically allow anyone to sue other people whatever their location. Since the law has been voted, hundreds if not thousands of plights have been registered against many people including Kagame, Putin, Kim Jong Il, Bush Sr, Castro... no one broke a brain vessel about it but when a plight was filed against Sharon the Israeli ambassador in Brussels was recalled home, the press displayed pictures of Manneken Pis peeing on Sharon, all Belgians were quickly labeled nazi, accusations spread about how all Belgians sent Jews to their death during WWII (for the record Belgium is the only country where some restistance movements' single purpose was to hide Jews from the Germans), a true cold war began, finally our government agreed to alter the law.
Morality: in the "Islamic ruled" country of Belgium, Israel makes the law.

The wole situation between Israel and the palestinians is not altogether a religious one. For both sides (+ Jordan) the peace process is a question of survival. One crucial element in the palestinian's demands is the withdrawal of the Israelis from Westbank and Gaza Strip. The problem is that 40-50% of Israels water supply comes from the occupied territories, mainly from the Westbank.
Together with the syrian demand of a withdrawal from the Golan Heights (were 3 of 4 source rivers of the jordan flow), this is a very difficult situation for Israel. After withdrawing from all occupied territory, they would be dependend from their former enemies.

Israel's rightwingers (meaning Hebrew zealots) are not only reluctant about having to depend to their enemies. They shudder to this thought because it comes againsts their beliefs and ethics
I have read recently an article about the Golan heights and the reporter said that any country posseses these heights can get into Israel in no time and from a very good strategically speaking position. I understand by this way the reluctance of Israel to give up these Heights.
But i can't understand why Israel does never try the peacefull way to achieve the security and wellfare of their nation and always choose to treat the surrounding Muslim nations as low-lives that do not even worth speaking to.
I do believe that they had something wrong in their heads screwed.
And i do believe that they are the bigger part of the problem not the others. This of course is my opinion only and it is based on the facts that have come to my knoledge and the way i understood them :cool: maybe i'm wrong maybe not time will tell :)

A most timely article:

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030521-094809-5098r.htm

But that's the point Darkwolf. Who would take 20 Million Australian refugees. Oklahoma ? Why should Lebanon take the Australians, when there is so much space left in Oklahoma.

4 million Arabs coming back + 1 million Arabs already there = 5 million Arabs in Israel = 50%/50% jews/arabs in Israel.

He, he, allow them to have a state on their own. NOOOOOO, the WAAAATTTTTEEEERRRRRR.

And anyway: Mark Twain is the source that proves, that Palestinians never were in Palestine ? Come on. The same could have been said about Nevada. Nothing, a few rocks and Las Vegas.

The land to which Jews began to return in large numbers during the final two decades of the 19th century — the land they transformed from desert to orange groves, cities and kibbutzim — was largely empty, not the thriving "nation of Palestine," as the current myth has it And that's the part I like the most. Huh ? hoh ? Heh? O t t o m a n e m p i r e !

From Darkwolf's article:

In 1867, Mark Twain visited the Holy Land and was dismayed at what he found, "a desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds — a silent, mournful expanse. ... A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action. ... We never saw a human being on the whole route. ... There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country." (From "The Innocents Abroad.")
Mark Twain wrote:

WE traversed some miles of desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds -- a silent, mournful expanse, wherein we saw only three persons -- Arabs , with nothing on but a long coarse shirt like the "tow-linen" shirts which used to form the only summer garment of little negro boys on Southern plantations...

The population of Jerusalem is composed of Moslems, Jews, Greeks, Latins, Armenians, Syrians, Copts, Abyssinians, Greek Catholics, and a handful of Protestants. One hundred of the latter sect are all that dwell now in this birthplace of Christianity. The nice shades of nationality comprised in the above list, and the languages spoken by them, are altogether too numerous to mention. It seems to me that all the races and colors and tongues of the earth must be represented among the fourteen thousand souls that dwell in Jerusalem. Rags, wretchedness, poverty and dirt, those signs and symbols that indicate the presence of Moslem rule more surely than the crescent-flag itself, abound. Lepers, cripples, the blind, and the idiotic, assail you on every hand, and they know but one word of but one language apparently -- the eternal "bucksheesh." To see the numbers of maimed, malformed and diseased humanity that


I can not speak now of the Mount of Olives or its view of Jerusalem, the Dead Sea and the mountains of Moab; nor of the Damascus Gate or the tree that was planted by King Godfrey of Jerusalem. One ought to feel pleasantly when he talks of these things. I can not say any thing about the stone column that projects over Jehoshaphat from the Temple wall like a cannon, except that the Moslems believe Mahomet will sit astride of it when he comes to judge the world. It is a pity he could not judge it from some roost of his own in Mecca, without trespassing on our holy ground] http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin

Chapter 47

Let me guess, this "Washington Post" has some reputation. :mad:

[ May 23, 2003, 21:03: Message edited by: Yago ]

Really? Why bother with the Washington Times when you can hear/watch/read the same "news" on Fox News, or the New York Post.

I am surprised that Sharon might go along with the map. But I think he is pretending.
Here's a clip from the Houston Chronicle:

"Sharon's willingness, at least for now, to accept the road map, may defuse criticism Bush has received at home from conservative Christians, who are opposed to Israel giving up land that they believe the Bible says belongs to the Jews."

www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/1923309 (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/1923309)

Let me guess, this "Washington Post" has some reputation Don't confuse the Washington Post with the Washington Times.

BACK OFF Yago!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :toofar:

I never said I supported the article, or claimed it was proof of anything, so quite putting words in my mouth.

A said it was a timely article. If anything, it seem to be a biased article from a Zionist point of view. That said, as person's perception is their reality.

All I was doing was saying that it was an interesting article. If someone here isn't intelligent enough to read the article and make their own conculsions, then they won't last long here anyway. I shouldn't have to slap a disclaimer on everthing I put a link up to. :mad:

By the way, Twain did write about the inhabitants of Nevada, in particular the Washoe indian tribe. Another part of my varied past, I used to live in Nevada, specifically the North Shore of Lake Tahoe, in a town called Incline Village.

Temper, temper, please. Besides, isn't the Washington Times owned by the Moonies, or some such bunch?

Oooooooooooooooooopppppppppssssssss:doh: :doh: :jawdrop:

Well, then I went to far. Sorry, Darkwolf, I missinterpreted your post. I thought you post that article to state you're opinion.

Now, I look like a fool. :help: :cry: (Ok, I often do that, but still, it's hard to get used to it).

What can I say in my defence ? It's clear, that I offended you, as I interpreted, you did post that article, because it reflected your opinion. Again sorry for that.

I shouldn't have to slap a disclaimer on everthing I put a link up to.Ahm, well, öh, äh, üh, hm, maybe for me ? :(

All I was doing was saying that it was an interesting article. If someone here isn't intelligent enough to read the article and make their own conculsions, then they won't last long here anyway.
That's true, but I argue for arguements sake. OK, I post on another board, where the same article came up and a lot of people said, that they found that point of view fully reasonable.

Ahm, there's another thread (Freud's view), which makes me think, you overestimate the capability of rational thinking of humanity ? Sure, you overestimated me (no, you did not, you just forgot about Yago and that he needs a disclaimer for everything).

Yes, your right, I went to far, but I can't let world-literature beeing raped, without a comment full of contempt. It's not because I doubt the intelligence of others (or yours Darkwolf), I just need to let go of some steam.

Again, I see that I offended you. It was my failure. Sorry.

Edit:

Now would anyone have the decency to post something here, beeing the last poster somehow makes me remind my foolishness. I don't want that to be an eternal state of affairs.

[ May 25, 2003, 16:28: Message edited by: Yago ]

It's good to see everyone is cooling down. As you said in an earlier post, Yago: this issue is a hot potato. That's for sure. The point of view of this article has been around for sometime; that Arabs use the Palestinian issue whenever it suits them, but they are unwilling to help themselves. The problem would not exist in the first place if they had not been kicked out of their country. I don't know what Mark Twain had to do with the problem, but I wonder which position he would take on the issue.

[ May 25, 2003, 18:18: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Hm, yes hot potato. I've read my sunday-newspaper today. And it reminded me of something which I tend to forget. I have found some random links on the net, to support my opinion with some "facts".

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html


Altogether, since 1949, Israel has received more than $90 billion in assistance. This includes the three special allocations, the $10 billion in loan guarantees (spread over five years) approved in 1992, and a variety of other smaller assistance-related accounts, such as refugee resettlement ($80 million annually from 1992-1998 and then reduced to $70 million in FY1999 and $60 million in FY2000 because of declining numbers of refugees) and cooperative development programs (a total of $186 million since 1981). The total does not include funds for joint military projects like the Arrow missile (for which Israel has received more than $628 million in grants since 1986), which are provided through the Defense budget.

Monde-diplomatique: From 1998

http://mondediplo.com/1998/07/18israel

Faced with the unanimity of the Fifteen, and the fact that the case is unanswerable - Europe was simply asking for the rules to be respected - the Israeli government decided to play for time...

This time, too, Europe could use its economic role to calculated effect. For instance, it could impose a conditional freeze on the "interim" economic agreement currently in force with Israel, for as long as Israel refuses to abide by its political and economic undertakings and to respect human rights, as specified in the agreement. Israel would only benefit from the advantages accruing from the interim agreement as and when it takes the required steps: putting a stop to all forms of settlement; opening the planned transit route between Gaza and the West Bank; ending the closure of the Territories; permitting the building of a port and an airport in Gaza; stopping torture; and freeing political prisoners.

Hindu-times 2002:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/04/16/stories/2002041601511400.htm

Israel last night warned the European Union that any economic sanctions against Israel would instantly end the E.U.'s attempt to boost its diplomatic involvement in West Asia.

The E.U.-Israeli trade balance is in Europe's favour in some $21.5 billion worth of trade. Israeli exports to Europe amounted to $7.6 billion last year, with imports worth $13.9 billion. The talk of European sanctions has dealt a blow to Israel's image in the E.U., highlighted by the current spate of anti-Jewish rhetoric (intervention of the quoter: yeah, yeah, yeah) and violence in major European cities. The E.U. is Israel's largest trading partner and accounts for just over one-third of its total trade.

....The agreement grants Israel preferential trading terms, but also contains a human rights clause that some Europeans now want to invoke to lead to sanctions....

The Arab nations of the Mediterranean region want the E.U. to take a "tough line" on Israel's role in the unfolding crises in the West Bank and Gaza. Yet Israel has strong trade and investment relations with the E.U. Palestinians also depend heavily on financial aid from the bloc. Bottom line: The Americans wield a dagger, the Europeans wield a great-sword. The peace process lies in pieces. Who's to blame ? The Europeans, they could force the Israelis to keep their treaties, they could force the Palestinians (sp ?) to agree with the Israelis. They could enforce a peace-plan. They could get something done, but they won't. The Europeans are to blame for the desperate situation, the middle-east conflict now is in.

They just wait, fancy their own disagreements and are unable to do something. While on the other hand, everything that happens in Israel, is happening because it is tolerated (and financially supported) by the biggest economical power of the region -> The European countries. If some outside nation is to blame for the whole desaster, the European nations are. It's not only tolerated, it is silently supported, because the economy of Israel (and everything there of, like the payments for the military) are dependent on the European nations.

[ May 25, 2003, 18:36: Message edited by: Yago ]

Yago,

Sorry, I got a little hot(ok a lot :o ), and I probably should have pointed out that I intended the article as only a view into the mind of the Zionist, and that I did not agree. Truce? :hippy:

I agree with most of what you said above. It cannot be stressed enough that neither side of this issue can be allowed a "victory", and that both sides are going to have to meet in the middle. The policies of the nations that continue to support Israel (including the US) are culpable to the entire issue, and until they are addressed, this issue will not be resolved. My only fear is that this confrontation has gone on for too long, and too many attrocities been commited on both sides for either to be able to forgive and make up. :(

[ May 26, 2003, 15:57: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

Truce, Darkwolf, Truce. :hippy: :)