Log in

View Full Version : Sharon pulls out of Gaza



Invader Zim
3rd February 2004, 18:58
Is this the first step to progress or what?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/3455561.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3455561.stm)

Sure its what the palestinians want but its a start, the beggining of compromise.

I hope it leads to complete withdrawl of gaza, etc, and an eventual end to the conflict.

but for some reason I am doubtful of this proposals success.

guerrillaradio
3rd February 2004, 19:00
It's all manoevring by Sharon in an order to hide his dodgy dealings, but, at the end of the day, that's not important.

I finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Invader Zim
3rd February 2004, 19:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 08:00 PM
It's all manoevring by Sharon in an order to hide his dodgy dealings, but, at the end of the day, that's not important.

I finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.
Thats the kind of idea I got, but I think that its probably too little too late, to make a major impact to the rightly pissed off palestinian peoples.

I just hope that this deal can be built on, and that as you say there's "light at the end of the tunnel".

LuZhiming
3rd February 2004, 20:51
The light at the end of the tunnel is much further. Keeping parts of the West Bank to close settlements is hardly a deal at all. Fuck him.

Iepilei
3rd February 2004, 23:29
I still hold a high-level of disrespect for Sharon. He's a vile man who shows no remorse even to his own allies. I don't see how ANY nation could support this slimey bastard.

Invader Zim
4th February 2004, 06:43
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 09:51 PM
The light at the end of the tunnel is much further. Keeping parts of the West Bank to close settlements is hardly a deal at all. Fuck him.
Yes I'm sure youve been told all the rantage about the "evil" zionists or jews or what ever, but please save the Rhetoric, thats for a different debate entirley.

Guerilla22
4th February 2004, 19:04
I'm not exactly sure how this would benefit the situation, the problem with the proposal is that it will benefit those Palestinians livng in the area that would be handed over to the PNA, but it would only hurt those who live in the part of the West Bank that would be handed over to the Israelis.

Apparently, a fairly large amount of the Israeli governmnet doesn't think this is such a great idea either, because Sharon survived a no confidence vote by one vote.

LuZhiming
4th February 2004, 19:13
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:43 AM
Yes I'm sure youve been told all the rantage about the "evil" zionists or jews or what ever, but please save the Rhetoric, thats for a different debate entirley.
Please, don't be stupid and arrogant. Respond to someone after reading their posts. Sharon needs to fully withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank, there is no reason for him to keep them. The very idea that he would keep some of the West Bank is an utter joke.

Intifada
4th February 2004, 19:19
a chance for peace will only be won when israel gets out of palestinian terrirtory.

Invader Zim
4th February 2004, 20:52
Originally posted by LuZhiming+Feb 4 2004, 08:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LuZhiming @ Feb 4 2004, 08:13 PM)
[email protected] 4 2004, 07:43 AM
Yes I&#39;m sure youve been told all the rantage about the "evil" zionists or jews or what ever, but please save the Rhetoric, thats for a different debate entirley.
Please, don&#39;t be stupid and arrogant. Respond to someone after reading their posts. Sharon needs to fully withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank, there is no reason for him to keep them. The very idea that he would keep some of the West Bank is an utter joke. [/b]
LOL maybe you should look up the word arrogant... Chances are I am, but not for that statement.

But on a serious note, we all know the "Fuck him", argument, etc. Which is used generally by idiots who think that the Palestinian’s have absolutely no blame attached in this crisis what so ever, which is just plain wrong. They then say fuck Sharon, which is in its self just bullshit rhetoric, but to say that in the face of the first actual piece of proper negotiation put forward by the man, is on par with redefining bullshit rhetoric. So I will stop being arrogant and stupid when you start adding something constructive, except the usual "Sharon’s a wanker", which you failed to even elaborate on.

Not to say that Sharon isn&#39;t a usless sod, but please save it for another thread, but if you really need to soil this thread with thats stuff, at least explain why you think he&#39;s a git.

In short I wanted to discuss the issue at hand, not some bullshit about how Sharon&#39;s a evil bastard, etc.

guerrillaradio
4th February 2004, 21:24
The point here is that Sharon&#39;s finally talking about withdrawing.

Invader Zim
4th February 2004, 21:42
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:24 PM
The point here is that Sharon&#39;s finally talking about withdrawing.
Exactly and to then say "fuck him" is probably on reflection one of the most stupid things I&#39;ve heard for a while, the man absolutly detests the Palestinians, and he talks about withdrawl, for fuck sake this is like a mirical...

bombeverything
4th February 2004, 22:40
I am very confused. It is more a land swap than a withdrawal.

LuZhiming
4th February 2004, 22:51
Originally posted by Enigma+Feb 4 2004, 10:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Feb 4 2004, 10:42 PM) Exactly and to then say "fuck him" is probably on reflection one of the most stupid things I&#39;ve heard for a while, the man absolutly detests the Palestinians, and he talks about withdrawl, for fuck sake this is like a mirical... [/b]
Are you reading? Try it, it&#39;s easy&#33; My exact complaint is that he is keeping parts of the West Bank in return for dismanteling some settlements. He has no right to the West Bank at all. This is not a solution. The point is clear, you are ignoring it. Read your own article before coming up with terms like "withdrawl."


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:24 PM
The point here is that Sharon&#39;s finally talking about withdrawing.

No he isn&#39;t. The opposition of the Palestinians has brought him to come up with this joker deal. He gets to keep a lot of the West Bank, and will dismantle settlements in other places. This isn&#39;t a withdrawl in the slightest.


[email protected] 4 2004, 11:40 PM
I am very confused. It is more a land swap than a withdrawal.

No, no, it sounds as if much unlike the person who started this thread and polluted it with foolish replies, you actually do see what is going on&#33; This isn&#39;t a withdraw, it&#39;s another &#39;deal&#39; like the Camp David Accords where the Palestinians aren&#39;t given jack.

guerrillaradio
5th February 2004, 10:50
OK I&#39;ve read more closely and here&#39;s how I see it:

Israel occupies part of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They want to pull out of the Gaza Strip in return for an agreement on the West Bank staying. So it could be a good or a bad thing. On the one hand, the Palestinians have more land to themselves, but on the other, it "justifies" the West Bank settlements.

However, there&#39;s been no negotiatians on the West Bank "agreement", nor has there been any other options made available to Palestine. Effectively what&#39;s happening is Sharon&#39;s telling them what they think is right and wrong. They have no choice in whether to accept this deal or not, and therefore I believe that whatever happens, the bombings will continue.

My apologies for misunderstanding this occurrence.

Invader Zim
5th February 2004, 13:32
Originally posted by LuZhiming+Feb 4 2004, 11:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LuZhiming @ Feb 4 2004, 11:51 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:42 PM
Exactly and to then say "fuck him" is probably on reflection one of the most stupid things I&#39;ve heard for a while, the man absolutly detests the Palestinians, and he talks about withdrawl, for fuck sake this is like a mirical...
Are you reading? Try it, it&#39;s easy&#33; My exact complaint is that he is keeping parts of the West Bank in return for dismanteling some settlements. He has no right to the West Bank at all. This is not a solution. The point is clear, you are ignoring it. Read your own article before coming up with terms like "withdrawl."


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:24 PM
The point here is that Sharon&#39;s finally talking about withdrawing.

No he isn&#39;t. The opposition of the Palestinians has brought him to come up with this joker deal. He gets to keep a lot of the West Bank, and will dismantle settlements in other places. This isn&#39;t a withdrawl in the slightest.


[email protected] 4 2004, 11:40 PM
I am very confused. It is more a land swap than a withdrawal.

No, no, it sounds as if much unlike the person who started this thread and polluted it with foolish replies, you actually do see what is going on&#33; This isn&#39;t a withdraw, it&#39;s another &#39;deal&#39; like the Camp David Accords where the Palestinians aren&#39;t given jack. [/b]
Are you reading?

yes but clearly you have not yet achieved that meagre ability: -

Mr Sharon has also gained the backing of the main opposition Labour Party for his proposals to evacuate 17 Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip.

Note the use of the word evacuate, Sharon&#39;s deal is he will return land in gaza to the Palestinians, in exchange for area&#39;s in the west bank remaining in control of area&#39;s in the West bank, Israel already controls this land, what Sharon is doing is giving back some land as a guarantee to keep some other bits of land. He doen&#39;t have to do either, but he is effectively giving land back to the Palestinians and getting no land in return, as he already controls this land.

My exact complaint is that he is keeping parts of the West Bank in return for dismanteling some settlements. He has no right to the West Bank at all.

Well as I recall the west bank was used as a strategic position to invade the newly founded Israel. The Israeli&#39;s quite understandably didn&#39;t take too kindly to this and occupied the land, note however they occupied it only after it had been illegally annexed by Jordan in 1967, which was prior to this the area was known as Judea-Samaria, and was Jewish land, and the famous Green Line was drawn up along it. This line was broken by Jordan, and they were supported by the Arab peoples in this area, so when the Israeli&#39;s won and wished to insure their own saftey they occupied the land... So if you want to say Israel has no right to be there, just remember that Jordan had no right to invade, and the people of the "west bank" had no right to support them.

This is not a solution.

No, your right its not, but its the first step, its called negotiation which is considerably better than sending tanks in and shooting people... but thats right, small minded idiots cant tell the difference.

Read your own article before coming up with terms like "withdrawl."

That plan was welcomed as good news by Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei.

Mr Qurei said he hoped Israel would withdraw from all Palestinian areas


"I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza," Sharon

From my own artical, dumbass.

No he isn&#39;t.

[i]"I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza," Sharon

The opposition of the Palestinians has brought him to come up with this joker deal

Small it may be but if you hadn&#39;t noticed the amount of opposition he got from his own party, this is probably the only deal he can make. or would you rather see tanks rolling around and troops, etc? because i&#39;m sure that even if he cant manage a better deal he can manage that.

No, no, it sounds as if much unlike the person who started this thread and polluted it with foolish replies,

LOL, sorry mate, but as you can see I&#39;ve read the article, you clearly haven&#39;t, all you want to do is just insult Sharon instead of actually debate the subject... now what you said was a stupid reply.

This isn&#39;t a withdraw, it&#39;s another &#39;deal&#39; like the Camp David Accords where the Palestinians aren&#39;t given jack.

And you ever expected more? In the existing political climate? Your more stupid than I gave you credit for. the point is at least he has made a start, the idea that Sharon would be making this kind of deal, even a few months ago would have been laughable.

Look up the word progress.

Saint-Just
5th February 2004, 17:21
I think Sharon still maintains the same ideas he has always represented. Sharon has a dark past. In this case I think he is being highly pragmatic and that it is quite surprising. I believe it is great progress and that it is this kind of agreement that will lead to peace. In the future we may see a reverse of such policies or a complete halt to progress like this.

LuZhiming
5th February 2004, 20:50
Originally posted by Enigma+Feb 5 2004, 02:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Feb 5 2004, 02:32 PM)yes but clearly you have not yet achieved that meagre ability: -

Mr Sharon has also gained the backing of the main opposition Labour Party for his proposals to evacuate 17 Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip.

Note the use of the word evacuate, Sharon&#39;s deal is he will return land in gaza to the Palestinians, in exchange for area&#39;s in the west bank remaining in control of area&#39;s in the West bank, Israel already controls this land, what Sharon is doing is giving back some land as a guarantee to keep some other bits of land. He doen&#39;t have to do either, but he is effectively giving land back to the Palestinians and getting no land in return, as he already controls this land. [/b]

What is your point? The fact that he has already controlled the land through most violent methods, means that it is acceptable to give some of that land back. He already has tons of lands Israel stole in the first war, he doesn&#39;t need any part of the West Bank. This idea that the Palestinians should accept just a little beacuse Israel refuses to negotiate is absurd. The Palestinians should fight.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 02:32 PM
Well as I recall the west bank was used as a strategic position to invade the newly founded Israel. The Israeli&#39;s quite understandably didn&#39;t take too kindly to this and occupied the land, note however they occupied it only after it had been illegally annexed by Jordan in 1967, which was prior to this the area was known as Judea-Samaria, and was Jewish land, and the famous Green Line was drawn up along it.

What? You are failing to realize that Israel in fact attacked Nasser. Not the other way around. The 1967 War was started by Israel. And are you surprised the Arabs invaded? Israel since even before its formation was built on occupying all of Palestine and driving out all or most of the Arabs. The fact that the Arabs attacked is unsurprising.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 02:32 PM
This line was broken by Jordan, and they were supported by the Arab peoples in this area, so when the Israeli&#39;s won and wished to insure their own saftey they occupied the land... So if you want to say Israel has no right to be there, just remember that Jordan had no right to invade, and the people of the "west bank" had no right to support them.

If you really want to bring up originally made promises or anything of that nature, the Arabs deserve all of Palestine. They were originally promised it, the British went back on their word.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 02:32 PM
No, your right its not, but its the first step, its called negotiation which is considerably better than sending tanks in and shooting people... but thats right, small minded idiots cant tell the difference.

The Camp David Accords were negotiation to, and were a complete solutionless waste. The Arabs have been negotiating for a long time, and making reasonable deals. It is Israel who has refused that. And it is Israel that has to take a leap forward, not a short walk. This will only present new problems. Sharon has little reason not to withdraw, no one is a threat to him and his U.S. armed forces.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 02:32 PM
That plan was welcomed as good news by Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei.

Mr Qurei said he hoped Israel would withdraw from all Palestinian areas

What is that supposed to mean? Now you&#39;re implying that the PLO of all groups are reliable? The PLO has been expected for a while to be an Israeli puppet. That means nothing.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 02:32 PM
"I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza," Sharon

From my own artical, dumbass.

And in return you have to lay down your arms and stop resisting my soldiers from murdering your relatives in the West Bank. Get real.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 02:32 PM
Small it may be but if you hadn&#39;t noticed the amount of opposition he got from his own party, this is probably the only deal he can make. or would you rather see tanks rolling around and troops, etc? because i&#39;m sure that even if he cant manage a better deal he can manage that.

Can&#39;t manage a better deal? Don&#39;t give me that ludicrous excuse. He has full ability to pull out of occupied territories. Poor Sharon, poor Israel, everyone is ganging up on them and isolating them. Sharon control Sharon&#39;s party.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 02:32 PM
LOL, sorry mate, but as you can see I&#39;ve read the article, you clearly haven&#39;t, all you want to do is just insult Sharon instead of actually debate the subject... now what you said was a stupid reply.

You still fail to read anything besides the "fuck him" remarks.


[email protected] 5 2004, 02:32 PM
And you ever expected more? In the existing political climate? Your more stupid than I gave you credit for. the point is at least he has made a start, the idea that Sharon would be making this kind of deal, even a few months ago would have been laughable.

Look up the word progress.

How is that going to make progress? Sharon will be able to say how he made progress, and was reasonable, therefore making the Palestinians unreasonable for suggesting that their families in the West Bank might not deserve to have their homes run over by tanks. Accepting half-way deals is just going to make life ultimately worse for the Palestinians. Imagine if Arafat had accepted the Camp David Accords. :blink:

Invader Zim
6th February 2004, 10:21
What is your point?

What you need me to further spell it out for you?

The fact that he has already controlled the land through most violent methods, means that it is acceptable to give some of that land back.

Yeah, Jordan and Syria violently invaded Israel in 1967, after Israel destroyed the Egyptian Air force, because the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies mobilized along Israel&#39;s narrow and seemingly indefensible borders in preparation for a massive invasion.

means that it is acceptable to give some of that land back.

Some being better than nothing, and considerably better than being given bullets coming at high velocity from an Israeli assault rifle.

He already has tons of lands Israel stole in the first war,

The first war ahh yes, in 1948 when five Arab countries launched a war against a one-day-old Israel, and indeed the result was the creation of a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the 1947 United Nations Resolution. What remained of that almost-created second Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by Egypt occupying the Gaza Strip and by Trans-Jordan occupying Judea-Samaria a.k.a. the "West Bank" of the Jordan River and Jerusalem.

Hmm Israel’s the real baddy in that one…

, he doesn&#39;t need any part of the West Bank.

yes, entirely, but you try and convince the rest of the Israeli people that they should give up seemingly their only defence against invasion, from neighbouring Arab nations, who have shown quite an aptitude for invasion in the past.

The Palestinians should fight.

You really are a fool…

What? You are failing to realize that Israel in fact attacked Nasser. Not the other way around. The 1967 War was started by Israel.

yes after her neighbouring Arab nations all lined up their armies and were all saying that they would drive the Jews into the sea. And you will note that the Israeli’s bombed the Egyptian Air force, they did not invade anyone, they did not attack Jordan, they did not attack Syria, yet both of these nations decided to invade Israel.

And are you surprised the Arabs invaded

Not particularly, as they had been mobilising along Israel’s borders, its usually what armies do.

? Israel since even before its formation was built on occupying all of Palestine and driving out all or most of the Arabs.

Wrong again, 400,000 refugees left Israel just before the start of the 1948 war, and the fact that most of the Arabs/Palestinians were encouraged to leave by the Arab World itself. The reason why they left is because of the threat of invasion from the rest of the Arab world.. so what were you saying? Ohh yes: - Israel since even before its formation was built on occupying all of Palestine and driving out all or most of the Arabs.

I think you need to hit the history books.

If you really want to bring up originally made promises or anything of that nature, the Arabs deserve all of Palestine

Indeed, I whole heartedly agree with you, but when you get down to it they had the chanse to make a Palestinian state, but did they do it? Of course not. I of course refer to, 1949-67 when all of Judea-Samaria [West Bank & Jerusalem] and Gaza ... were 100% under Arab [Jordanian & Egyptian] control, no effort was EVER made to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there. Does that surprise you, that perhaps the Israeli’s are no worse than the Arabs? Or do your rather cute little bias’s cloud your vision to any Arab wrong doing to the Palestinian peoples?

. The Arabs have been negotiating for a long time, and making reasonable deals.

So have the Israeli’s and several different points.


And in return you have to lay down your arms and stop resisting my soldiers from murdering your relatives in the West Bank. Get real.

Yeah and stop strapping explosives to teenagers and telling them to get on packed school bus’s and blowing up a whole load of kids. If rhetoric was argument we would all have to bow to your supremacy.


Can&#39;t manage a better deal? Don&#39;t give me that ludicrous excuse

Are you really completely brain dead or is this just for my benefit? Sharon proposed this deal and only survived a vote of no confidence by the skin of his teeth.

He has full ability to pull out of occupied territories.

Actually, no he doesn’t you see Israel is what we call a “democracy”, in a democracy you have petty little irritations like having to convince a parliament or government to pass laws or bills, rather like a national assembly. Which means that Sharon has to convince all these other politicians to do what he tells them.

God its like talking to a 10 year old…

. Sharon control Sharon&#39;s party.

Err, no, have you ever heard of say, party rebellion and votes of no confidence?

You still fail to read anything besides the "fuck him" remarks.

No you whined about it not being enough, completely failing to recognise that in the current political climate of Israel, being as it is a democracy, this is the maximum which can be achieved that this point. Its called a start.

How is that going to make progress?

How is both sides shooting at each other and blowing each other up making progress, which you have advocated in this thread, over negotiation.

Sharon will be able to say how he made progress, and was reasonable, therefore making the Palestinians unreasonable for suggesting that their families in the West Bank might not deserve to have their homes run over by tanks

Is this speculation is the one and only point you have? Well I’m sorry but you have no proof to suggest that once a deal is made that Israeli tanks will be running over homes in the west bank. In fact that is highly unlikely you see the whole point of these talks are to END the fighting, and the need for such tanks.

You have made quite literally the worsted arguments I have ever had the unpleasant experience to read.

I suggest you go away and read a book on this conflict, because you are in dire need of it.

LuZhiming
6th February 2004, 20:09
Yeah, Jordan and Syria violently invaded Israel in 1967, after Israel destroyed the Egyptian Air force, because the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies mobilized along Israel&#39;s narrow and seemingly indefensible borders in preparation for a massive invasion.

Let&#39;s not exagerate or ignore facts. Not only is the armies simply lining up and threatening Israel a bit of a fabrication, it is completely convenient of you to forget(ignore?) that poor defenseless Israel had already done much more than threaten Nasser for making the mistake of wanting Egypt to control its own resources. Or ignore that loads of Arab refugees were fleeing to Jordan, Egypt, and Syria after Israel had driven so many of them out.


Some being better than nothing, and considerably better than being given bullets coming at high velocity from an Israeli assault rifle.

Really, you think in the long run it will be better? Do you also think life would have been better for the Palestinians if Arafat accepted the Camp David Accords?


The first war ahh yes, in 1948 when five Arab countries launched a war against a one-day-old Israel, and indeed the result was the creation of a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the 1947 United Nations Resolution. What remained of that almost-created second Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by Egypt occupying the Gaza Strip and by Trans-Jordan occupying Judea-Samaria a.k.a. the "West Bank" of the Jordan River and Jerusalem.

Hmm Israel’s the real baddy in that one…

Once again you fail to even think about mentioning Israel&#39;s plans of conquering all of Palestine, driving out all of the Arabs, and even possibly collaborating with the British who were still oppressing Arab nations. Would you really expect them to do anything other than invade?


yes, entirely, but you try and convince the rest of the Israeli people that they should give up seemingly their only defence against invasion, from neighbouring Arab nations, who have shown quite an aptitude for invasion in the past.

The hypocrisy here is mindblowing.


yes after her neighbouring Arab nations all lined up their armies and were all saying that they would drive the Jews into the sea. And you will note that the Israeli’s bombed the Egyptian Air force, they did not invade anyone, they did not attack Jordan, they did not attack Syria, yet both of these nations decided to invade Israel.

So bombing the Egyptian air force isn&#39;t a big deal? Or their role in the invasion of Egypt during the so called Suiz Crisis? Syria and Jordan decided to joint attack Israel, they were having huge refugee problems because of Israel&#39;s racism. And again, that excuse that the Arab armies were right by Israel&#39;s border threatening them is bullshit.


Wrong again, 400,000 refugees left Israel just before the start of the 1948 war, and the fact that most of the Arabs/Palestinians were encouraged to leave by the Arab World itself. The reason why they left is because of the threat of invasion from the rest of the Arab world.. so what were you saying? Ohh yes: - Israel since even before its formation was built on occupying all of Palestine and driving out all or most of the Arabs.

I think you need to hit the history books.

You really have proven your own cluelessness. You should read something that isn&#39;t a complete fabrication. What next? Israel really did plan to give more than 90% of its occupied territories from Post-67 to Arafat during the Camp David Accords? Joan Peters is a reliable source? Rule 1: Be able to distinguish propaganda from reality, the evidence is easy to find. Since the 30&#39;s, Zionist settlers were purposefully attacking Arab civillians, and destroying homes. Once the state of Israel was formed, they immediately began to drive out Arabs.

"If Zionist intellectuals and leaders ignored the Arab dilemma, it was chiefly because they knew that this problem had no solution within the Zionist way of thinking…. [I]n general both sides understood each other well and knew that the implementation of Zionism could be only at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs." - Zeev Sternhell

"Disappearing&#39; the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition of its existence…. With few exceptions, none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of forced transfer - or its morality." - Tom Segev

"The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession... was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism." - Benny Morris

"From the outset, Zionism sought to employ force in order to realize national aspirations," - Yosef Gorny

"...social order of the Yishuv was built on the ethos of a frontier society, in which a pioneering-settlement model set the tone." - Sasson Sofer

"Zionism after all is merely the attempt by the European Jew to build his national life on the soil of Palestine in much the same way as the American settler developed the West. So the American will give the Jewish settler in Palestine the benefit of the doubt, and regard the Arab as the aboriginal who must go down before the march of progress." - Richard Crossman :o

Go read up on some works by Norman Finkelstein. He addressess all of these quotes. And the last thing the Arab nations wanted was for the Palestinians to give them a massive refugee crisis. That was complete propaganda released by Israel to cover up what it was doing. Israel had carried out more than seven massacres during the so called "War of Independence." They drove out more than 700,000 Palestinians. For such an arrogant person, I am surprised you would use such absurd arguements.


Indeed, I whole heartedly agree with you, but when you get down to it they had the chanse to make a Palestinian state, but did they do it? Of course not. I of course refer to, 1949-67 when all of Judea-Samaria [West Bank & Jerusalem] and Gaza ... were 100% under Arab [Jordanian & Egyptian] control, no effort was EVER made to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there. Does that surprise you, that perhaps the Israeli’s are no worse than the Arabs? Or do your rather cute little bias’s cloud your vision to any Arab wrong doing to the Palestinian peoples?

I wouldn&#39;t say Nasser was oppressive to Palestinians, but there is no doubt most Arab rulers didn&#39;t care about them. King Hussein of Jordan used to massacre Palestinian refugees all the time.


So have the Israeli’s and several different points.

Really? Which ones? I hope your not going to mention those &#39;deals&#39; to create a Israeli puppet state with that joker Arafat. :rolleyes:


Yeah and stop strapping explosives to teenagers and telling them to get on packed school bus’s and blowing up a whole load of kids. If rhetoric was argument we would all have to bow to your supremacy.

Frankly, most of those attacks have nothing to do with the families that get their homes destroyed all of the time. They are carried out by groups like Hamas. And ironically, Hamas used to be backed by Israel. And besides that, most of those suicide bombings by Hamas have been in direct response to Israel assassinating their leaders, and Israeli leaders knew full well there would be a violent response. They wanted it&#33; They knew they would be able to justify more punishments when something like that happens.


Are you really completely brain dead or is this just for my benefit? Sharon proposed this deal and only survived a vote of no confidence by the skin of his teeth.

Do you honestly think that matters? Sharon isn&#39;t exactly a law-abiding individual, most of his plans in his invasion of Lebanon were in complete disregard for Israel&#39;s plans on the operation.


Actually, no he doesn’t you see Israel is what we call a “democracy”, in a democracy you have petty little irritations like having to convince a parliament or government to pass laws or bills, rather like a national assembly. Which means that Sharon has to convince all these other politicians to do what he tells them.

God its like talking to a 10 year old…

Just like he had to seek a parliament&#39;s approval to lead Israeli forces far into Beirut? Or to massacre the Sabra/Shatilla refugee camp? What makes you think the Israeli parliament would bother accpeting this deal if it was something even remotely reasonable?


No you whined about it not being enough, completely failing to recognise that in the current political climate of Israel, being as it is a democracy, this is the maximum which can be achieved that this point. Its called a start.

With this attitude, I would imagine the Civil Rights Movement would have never happened in the U.S. Accepting &#39;just a little&#39; in the long-run will only destroy the possibility of better deals.


How is both sides shooting at each other and blowing each other up making progress, which you have advocated in this thread, over negotiation.

Whatever you think of violence, the resistance of the Palestinians has greatly hampered Israeli expansion, which would be much greater had they not been so rebellious.


Is this speculation is the one and only point you have? Well I’m sorry but you have no proof to suggest that once a deal is made that Israeli tanks will be running over homes in the west bank. In fact that is highly unlikely you see the whole point of these talks are to END the fighting, and the need for such tanks.

If we were talking about ending the fighting the answer would be simple, and I have said it over and over. From the very beginning, the Palestinians have focused on Jewish settlements. Until a real solution is made to stop those, the fighting will continue. The Palestinians have made their message clear on this one, Israel knows it, that&#39;s why they don&#39;t want to accept a plan. They don&#39;t want peace. Why else would Israel have rejected the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan, which was completely in favor of Israel?


I suggest you go away and read a book on this conflict, because you are in dire need of it.

I suggest you cut back on using the claims of Israeli leaders for your sources, which is what most of your arguement is based on.

Heesh
6th February 2004, 21:18
Sharon is bloodthirsty and Arafat is ignorant :/

Invader Zim
7th February 2004, 16:59
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 09:09 PM

Yeah, Jordan and Syria violently invaded Israel in 1967, after Israel destroyed the Egyptian Air force, because the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies mobilized along Israel&#39;s narrow and seemingly indefensible borders in preparation for a massive invasion.

Let&#39;s not exagerate or ignore facts. Not only is the armies simply lining up and threatening Israel a bit of a fabrication, it is completely convenient of you to forget(ignore?) that poor defenseless Israel had already done much more than threaten Nasser for making the mistake of wanting Egypt to control its own resources. Or ignore that loads of Arab refugees were fleeing to Jordan, Egypt, and Syria after Israel had driven so many of them out.


Some being better than nothing, and considerably better than being given bullets coming at high velocity from an Israeli assault rifle.

Really, you think in the long run it will be better? Do you also think life would have been better for the Palestinians if Arafat accepted the Camp David Accords?


The first war ahh yes, in 1948 when five Arab countries launched a war against a one-day-old Israel, and indeed the result was the creation of a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the 1947 United Nations Resolution. What remained of that almost-created second Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by Egypt occupying the Gaza Strip and by Trans-Jordan occupying Judea-Samaria a.k.a. the "West Bank" of the Jordan River and Jerusalem.

Hmm Israel’s the real baddy in that one…

Once again you fail to even think about mentioning Israel&#39;s plans of conquering all of Palestine, driving out all of the Arabs, and even possibly collaborating with the British who were still oppressing Arab nations. Would you really expect them to do anything other than invade?


yes, entirely, but you try and convince the rest of the Israeli people that they should give up seemingly their only defence against invasion, from neighbouring Arab nations, who have shown quite an aptitude for invasion in the past.

The hypocrisy here is mindblowing.


yes after her neighbouring Arab nations all lined up their armies and were all saying that they would drive the Jews into the sea. And you will note that the Israeli’s bombed the Egyptian Air force, they did not invade anyone, they did not attack Jordan, they did not attack Syria, yet both of these nations decided to invade Israel.

So bombing the Egyptian air force isn&#39;t a big deal? Or their role in the invasion of Egypt during the so called Suiz Crisis? Syria and Jordan decided to joint attack Israel, they were having huge refugee problems because of Israel&#39;s racism. And again, that excuse that the Arab armies were right by Israel&#39;s border threatening them is bullshit.


Wrong again, 400,000 refugees left Israel just before the start of the 1948 war, and the fact that most of the Arabs/Palestinians were encouraged to leave by the Arab World itself. The reason why they left is because of the threat of invasion from the rest of the Arab world.. so what were you saying? Ohh yes: - Israel since even before its formation was built on occupying all of Palestine and driving out all or most of the Arabs.

I think you need to hit the history books.

You really have proven your own cluelessness. You should read something that isn&#39;t a complete fabrication. What next? Israel really did plan to give more than 90% of its occupied territories from Post-67 to Arafat during the Camp David Accords? Joan Peters is a reliable source? Rule 1: Be able to distinguish propaganda from reality, the evidence is easy to find. Since the 30&#39;s, Zionist settlers were purposefully attacking Arab civillians, and destroying homes. Once the state of Israel was formed, they immediately began to drive out Arabs.

"If Zionist intellectuals and leaders ignored the Arab dilemma, it was chiefly because they knew that this problem had no solution within the Zionist way of thinking…. [I]n general both sides understood each other well and knew that the implementation of Zionism could be only at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs." - Zeev Sternhell

"Disappearing&#39; the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition of its existence…. With few exceptions, none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of forced transfer - or its morality." - Tom Segev

"The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession... was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism." - Benny Morris

"From the outset, Zionism sought to employ force in order to realize national aspirations," - Yosef Gorny

"...social order of the Yishuv was built on the ethos of a frontier society, in which a pioneering-settlement model set the tone." - Sasson Sofer

"Zionism after all is merely the attempt by the European Jew to build his national life on the soil of Palestine in much the same way as the American settler developed the West. So the American will give the Jewish settler in Palestine the benefit of the doubt, and regard the Arab as the aboriginal who must go down before the march of progress." - Richard Crossman :o

Go read up on some works by Norman Finkelstein. He addressess all of these quotes. And the last thing the Arab nations wanted was for the Palestinians to give them a massive refugee crisis. That was complete propaganda released by Israel to cover up what it was doing. Israel had carried out more than seven massacres during the so called "War of Independence." They drove out more than 700,000 Palestinians. For such an arrogant person, I am surprised you would use such absurd arguements.


Indeed, I whole heartedly agree with you, but when you get down to it they had the chanse to make a Palestinian state, but did they do it? Of course not. I of course refer to, 1949-67 when all of Judea-Samaria [West Bank & Jerusalem] and Gaza ... were 100% under Arab [Jordanian & Egyptian] control, no effort was EVER made to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there. Does that surprise you, that perhaps the Israeli’s are no worse than the Arabs? Or do your rather cute little bias’s cloud your vision to any Arab wrong doing to the Palestinian peoples?

I wouldn&#39;t say Nasser was oppressive to Palestinians, but there is no doubt most Arab rulers didn&#39;t care about them. King Hussein of Jordan used to massacre Palestinian refugees all the time.


So have the Israeli’s and several different points.

Really? Which ones? I hope your not going to mention those &#39;deals&#39; to create a Israeli puppet state with that joker Arafat. :rolleyes:


Yeah and stop strapping explosives to teenagers and telling them to get on packed school bus’s and blowing up a whole load of kids. If rhetoric was argument we would all have to bow to your supremacy.

Frankly, most of those attacks have nothing to do with the families that get their homes destroyed all of the time. They are carried out by groups like Hamas. And ironically, Hamas used to be backed by Israel. And besides that, most of those suicide bombings by Hamas have been in direct response to Israel assassinating their leaders, and Israeli leaders knew full well there would be a violent response. They wanted it&#33; They knew they would be able to justify more punishments when something like that happens.


Are you really completely brain dead or is this just for my benefit? Sharon proposed this deal and only survived a vote of no confidence by the skin of his teeth.

Do you honestly think that matters? Sharon isn&#39;t exactly a law-abiding individual, most of his plans in his invasion of Lebanon were in complete disregard for Israel&#39;s plans on the operation.


Actually, no he doesn’t you see Israel is what we call a “democracy”, in a democracy you have petty little irritations like having to convince a parliament or government to pass laws or bills, rather like a national assembly. Which means that Sharon has to convince all these other politicians to do what he tells them.

God its like talking to a 10 year old…

Just like he had to seek a parliament&#39;s approval to lead Israeli forces far into Beirut? Or to massacre the Sabra/Shatilla refugee camp? What makes you think the Israeli parliament would bother accpeting this deal if it was something even remotely reasonable?


No you whined about it not being enough, completely failing to recognise that in the current political climate of Israel, being as it is a democracy, this is the maximum which can be achieved that this point. Its called a start.

With this attitude, I would imagine the Civil Rights Movement would have never happened in the U.S. Accepting &#39;just a little&#39; in the long-run will only destroy the possibility of better deals.


How is both sides shooting at each other and blowing each other up making progress, which you have advocated in this thread, over negotiation.

Whatever you think of violence, the resistance of the Palestinians has greatly hampered Israeli expansion, which would be much greater had they not been so rebellious.


Is this speculation is the one and only point you have? Well I’m sorry but you have no proof to suggest that once a deal is made that Israeli tanks will be running over homes in the west bank. In fact that is highly unlikely you see the whole point of these talks are to END the fighting, and the need for such tanks.

If we were talking about ending the fighting the answer would be simple, and I have said it over and over. From the very beginning, the Palestinians have focused on Jewish settlements. Until a real solution is made to stop those, the fighting will continue. The Palestinians have made their message clear on this one, Israel knows it, that&#39;s why they don&#39;t want to accept a plan. They don&#39;t want peace. Why else would Israel have rejected the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan, which was completely in favor of Israel?


I suggest you go away and read a book on this conflict, because you are in dire need of it.

I suggest you cut back on using the claims of Israeli leaders for your sources, which is what most of your arguement is based on.
My god, if I ever see someone so blindly taken in by obvious propaganda again, it will be a mirical, you must be a one off. Which has been mixed in with such shocking idiocy, to make a an incoherant babble which is equil to no less than a mixtue of Bush and chimp.


Let&#39;s not exagerate or ignore facts.

These are well know and recorded facts, that President Nasser mobilized units in the Sinai, and closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Israel. i dont think anyone disputes that this caused the preemptive strike by Israel on Arab air targets. But you say that I am exagurating, ignoring and fabricating facts? Or maybe you just dont know any facts? The latter is the obvious answer.

Or ignore that loads of Arab refugees were fleeing to Jordan, Egypt, and Syria after Israel had driven so many of them out.

Actually I think you will find they left because war was obviously coming, the Arab nations saying they would drive the jews into the sea, and sending troops to the borders of Israel sort of gives it away. And if they were driving them out why does Israel now have an arab population of over 1,000,000?

Really, you think in the long run it will be better?

You are asking me what would be better peace or war...? What kind of bloodthirsty fuckwit are you?

Do you also think life would have been better for the Palestinians if Arafat accepted the Camp David Accords?

Unfortunatly I dont have the ability to read a future which has and never will happen so I couldn&#39;t tell you.

Once again you fail to even think about mentioning Israel&#39;s plans of conquering all of Palestine

LOL do you actually know what Palestine is? Origionally it all of Israel + all of Jordan, it would be a bit tricky to conquer all of Jordan, again you prove to have little understanding about the history, or even the geography of the conflict.

and even possibly collaborating with the British who were still oppressing Arab nations. Would you really expect them to do anything other than invade?


Err i think you will frind that when Israel first came into being the jewish Settlers were fighting a gurilla style war with the British and formed Hagana. You really are such a dumbass its shocking, you dont seem to research anything you say, you make this way too easy.

Would you really expect them to do anything other than invade?

Invade a 1 day country for what crime? Its very existance? Very offensive that, Hitler also hated jews for their very existance, your not advcating that attrocity as well are you?

The hypocrisy here is mindblowing.

How is striking the air power of a nation who&#39;s openly stated they want your destruction and mobalised along your borders, hypocritical? It sounds like good survival stratagy to me, or perhaps learn to swim, after all the arabs did say they would drive the jews into the sea.

So bombing the Egyptian air force isn&#39;t a big deal?

No its a very big deal.

Or their role in the invasion of Egypt during the so called Suiz Crisis?

Which happened over a decade earlier? Hardly a short term cause, especially as during the late 50&#39;s and early 60&#39;s a period of calm had occured, not even a long term cause really.

Syria and Jordan decided to joint attack Israel,

Yeah a little bit of extra territory and wiping out a few jews never hurt.

they were having huge refugee problems because of Israel&#39;s racism.

I have already delt with this bullshit.

And again, that excuse that the Arab armies were right by Israel&#39;s border threatening them is bullshit.


You really are a dumbass, these are well established facts.

Since the 30&#39;s, Zionist settlers were purposefully attacking Arab civillians, and destroying homes.

Just as the Arabs had been doing to them, ever heard of the Hebron massacres of 1929 and later during the 1936-39 "Arab Revolt"?

Once the state of Israel was formed, they immediately began to drive out Arabs.

When will you be able to distinuish between a refugee fleeing from war and practiaclly genocide? because your ignorace is getting very boring.

And I could comment on your list of statements, and I could just as easily use Google and find 100&#39;s of similar quotes which disprove them, they dont mean shit.

They drove out more than 700,000 Palestinians.

LOL what a heap of bulshit. The UN put it at around 400,000 refugee&#39;s fled from impending war in Israel in days just before its founding, where you get that extra 300,000 from is amazing.

And ironically, Hamas used to be backed by Israel. And besides that, most of those suicide bombings by Hamas have been in direct response to Israel assassinating their leaders, and Israeli leaders knew full well there would be a violent response.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Do you honestly think that matters?

Well it proves that he could only just get away with that tiny start of a deal, any more would have been failure, which entirley proves my point.

Sharon isn&#39;t exactly a law-abiding individual

No one claimed he is...

What makes you think the Israeli parliament would bother accpeting this deal if it was something even remotely reasonable?

Thats the whole point they wont, thats why it has to be built up rather than given in one big go, I will say it again, its a start.

With this attitude, I would imagine the Civil Rights Movement would have never happened in the U.S. Accepting &#39;just a little&#39; in the long-run will only destroy the possibility of better deals.


You clearly have a very limmited view of political emansipation in history. The political, social and economic rights which are universally enjoyed in the UK came about from a century of small almost insignificant parlimentay reforms.

Whatever you think of violence, the resistance of the Palestinians has greatly hampered Israeli expansion,

It has also hampered the creation of a Palestinian state, the Oslo peace talks dsintergrated because of continued suicide attacks from Palestinian terrorists/freedom fighters.

Until a real solution is made to stop those, the fighting will continue.

But real progress cannot be made until building blocks like this are made to actually start the process to getting such reforms.



I give up on you I really do, when you and others like you, put down the book of pure anti-semetic propaganda , then maybe some progress to ending this conflict. but unfortunatly the world is full of ignorant idiots.

Intifada
7th February 2004, 18:56
I give up on you I really do, when you and others like you, put down the book of pure anti-semetic propaganda

that is soooo ignorant, because palestinians are semites too

LuZhiming
7th February 2004, 20:28
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 05:59 PM
.

These are well know and recorded facts, that President Nasser mobilized units in the Sinai, and closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Israel. i dont think anyone disputes that this caused the preemptive strike by Israel on Arab air targets. But you say that I am exagurating, ignoring and fabricating facts? Or maybe you just dont know any facts? The latter is the obvious answer.

Haha, mobilizing forces to close Egypt&#39;s parts of the Gulf of Aqaba is quite different than the picture you previously painted. It&#39;s funny how you basically ignore the fact that I accused you of exagerating.


Actually I think you will find they left because war was obviously coming,

What? You are ignoring the very ideal Israel was created on. Or their actions for that matter.


the Arab nations saying they would drive the jews into the sea, and sending troops to the borders of Israel sort of gives it away.

Are you serious? Aqaba was at Israel&#39;s borders&#33; How else was he going to close it? Have you ever thought that perhaps he sent troops to simply close the borders, since that&#39;s exactly what he did? How on Earth was Nasser going to attack Israel? That would be suicide.


And if they were driving them out why does Israel now have an arab population of over 1,000,000?

:blink: That&#39;s very funny of you to accuse others of being stupid and ask a blatantly stupid question like this. The Palestinians put up a resistance. That&#39;s why they&#39;re still there. Israel hasn&#39;t been able to drive them out. So of course they moved from the way of transfer to the way of South Africa. I would like for you to explain Israel&#39;s great refugee problem, why are so many leaving? Is it just racism against the Jews? :rolleyes:


You are asking me what would be better peace or war...? What kind of bloodthirsty fuckwit are you?

Or perhaps you are too narrowminded to consider the idea that perhaps this simply will not lead to peace.


Unfortunatly I dont have the ability to read a future which has and never will happen so I couldn&#39;t tell you.

You are certainly pushing for success at this proposal. Would you have done the same in regards to the Camp David Accords?


LOL do you actually know what Palestine is? Origionally it all of Israel + all of Jordan, it would be a bit tricky to conquer all of Jordan, again you prove to have little understanding about the history, or even the geography of the conflict.

It would be &#39;a bit tricky?&#39; I have to prove? Why? Since you have decided that perhaps I don&#39;t even know what Palestine is, I have to prove? Such arrogance and hypocrisy. Geographically? Are you implying that it is impossible to conquer Jordan considering Israel&#39;s current territory?


Err i think you will frind that when Israel first came into being the jewish Settlers were fighting a gurilla style war with the British and formed Hagana. You really are such a dumbass its shocking, you dont seem to research anything you say, you make this way too easy.

It&#39;s funny how you remember Zionists fighting the British but the part of them attacking Palestinian civillians and building settlements seems to be ignored by you. Again, you forget the good relations with Israel once the British decided to let the Zionists take over. The British helped them attack Nasser.


Invade a 1 day country for what crime? Its very existance? Very offensive that, Hitler also hated jews for their very existance, your not advcating that attrocity as well are you?

This is shameless. You are ignoring what I am saying on purpose and replacing it with insults and even implying that I am an anti-Semite. One would expect them to invade because Israel was built on conquering all of Palestine and driving out the Arabs.


How is striking the air power of a nation who&#39;s openly stated they want your destruction and mobalised along your borders, hypocritical? It sounds like good survival stratagy to me, or perhaps learn to swim, after all the arabs did say they would drive the jews into the sea.

That is so absurd and you know it. If a high military commander in Israel&#39;s army said they would kill all Arabs, does that make it true. There is absolutely no "they" in this.


Which happened over a decade earlier? Hardly a short term cause, especially as during the late 50&#39;s and early 60&#39;s a period of calm had occured, not even a long term cause really.

A period of calm? Again, you are looking at it from Israel&#39;s viewpoint only. It certainly wasn&#39;t calm for anyone in Egypt.


Yeah a little bit of extra territory and wiping out a few jews never hurt.

You never bother to accuse Israel of such atrocities.


You really are a dumbass, these are well established facts.

Yeah right, just like the Sandinistas were drug traffickers, right? Just because you can find it in some standard history book, does not mean it is right.


Just as the Arabs had been doing to them, ever heard of the Hebron massacres of 1929 and later during the 1936-39 "Arab Revolt"?

Just as the Arabs had been doing to them? That is an outright lie. I am not justifying any massacres, but both of those were a direct consequence of Zionist aggression.


When will you be able to distinuish between a refugee fleeing from war and practiaclly genocide? because your ignorace is getting very boring.

When will you be able to distinguish propaganda from reality? Do you realize that this claim originally came from the source of Ben-Gurion&#39;s mouth?


LOL what a heap of bulshit. The UN put it at around 400,000 refugee&#39;s fled from impending war in Israel in days just before its founding, where you get that extra 300,000 from is amazing.

Read Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman Finkelstein.


Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Here we go again, you ignore arguements.


Well it proves that he could only just get away with that tiny start of a deal, any more would have been failure, which entirley proves my point.

That the Israeli Parliament is made up of a bunch of narrowminded individuals?


Thats the whole point they wont, thats why it has to be built up rather than given in one big go, I will say it again, its a start.

I don&#39;t see it as a start. I see it as an intended conclusion, and not a pretty one.


It has also hampered the creation of a Palestinian state, the Oslo peace talks dsintergrated because of continued suicide attacks from Palestinian terrorists/freedom fighters.

What? The entire point of Oslo was to create a puppet state under Arafat.


But real progress cannot be made until building blocks like this are made to actually start the process to getting such reforms.

I feel they are just going to present new problems and escalate the conflict.


I give up on you I really do, when you and others like you, put down the book of pure anti-semetic propaganda , then maybe some progress to ending this conflict. but unfortunatly the world is full of ignorant idiots.

Hahaha, Norman Finkelstein and his sources are Anti-Semetic? :lol:

18tir
9th February 2004, 02:47
While I support the dismantling of settlements in the Gaza Strip, I am sure that this is some sort of political manuevering by Sharon to distract the people from his corrupt dealings. He may be also trying to fool the world into thinking he genuinely believes in a peaceful and fair settlement. Just a few days ago, an Israeli missile strike killed a 10 year old boy in the West Bank. About 2,600 Palestinians have been killed since Sept 2000.

If Sharon wants to prove that he has good intentions, he should pull all Israeli soldiers out of Gaza, free some of the Palestinian political prisoners, dismantle the roadblocks, dismantle all settlements in the West Bank and begin withdrawing Israeli soldiers.

Heesh
9th February 2004, 03:33
^^ and he&#39;s been getting shit for that bribe stuff

Invader Zim
10th February 2004, 17:20
Haha, mobilizing forces to close Egypt&#39;s parts of the Gulf of Aqaba is quite different than the picture you previously painted. It&#39;s funny how you basically ignore the fact that I accused you of exagerating.

This thourghly shows your complete ignorance of the situation, and excelently sums up the whole failure of your post, to grasp A) the geography of the area, B) the History of the area and C) the politics of the time.

http://www.centre4sinai.com.eg/gallery/EGYPT_MAPS/MAP_EGYPT_GOOD_s.jpg

The Eygiptions mobalised in the Sinai desert, and in the East Syria also mobalised, right next to Israel&#39;s borders, in clear preperation for invasion. They did not just focus around the area of the Gulf of Aqaba, which may I add they had no right to blockade in the first place as it was international waters also Israel declared that any attempt by Eygpt in the future to blockade the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba would be considered an act of war, it also cut off the Port of Eilat, following the 1956 war. They also openly admit to have placing two whole divisions in the Sinia, Nasser also ordered a withdrawal of the UN Forces stationed on the Egyptian-Israeli border, removing the international buffer between Egypt and Israel which had existed since 1957, Eygpt also rejected the US peace plan, which delayed any Israeli strike.

So you can go and read the opinions of your favourate little historian, but it is clear that an Arab attack on Israel was clear weather either you or he like it or not. And I could also find many historians who dispute your historians view of events, because thats how history is, it has many conflicting views. The fact that you take a historians view as gospel truth shows your obvious ineptitude as a historian yourself.