More History Before 1967

[toastman]

Auteur, et al,

No, I think you and I have a difference in the way we think about cultures and ethnic backgrounds.

It seems to me you are contradicting yourself here. First you say you have no judgements based on race or ethnicity, and then go on with a judgement, that is, the assignment of individual charateristics to an entire population. It doesn't matter what sort of label you put on the population, they are still an identifiable group, numbering in the millions, who lay claim to a certain culture and location. Individuals may be filled with hate, and individuals may be useless, but it is statistically impossible to assign such charateristics to ten million or so people, simply based on their sociological grouping.

(COMMENT)

The numbers are totally unimportant to me. That is merely ancillary to the issue but not critical to the issue.

What I think of, when I say Arab Palestinian today, are those in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Ethnically, they are not so very different than those millions that are in the surrounding countries of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Maybe some minor differences in the gene pool, but not much. How they do differ, in some regards, is that they, culturally have moved on in some respects.

I don't care what their claims are. What I see is an identifiable group that has become so focused, and so depraved, that they literally halted all progressive activity that might contribute to the success, prosperity, and positive development of their culture and society.

I look at the Jordanian, and see something entirely different. Yet, they are essentially the same people; ethnically and culturally. It is a matter of focus.


(COMMENT)

That is your observation. But it is not mine.

Israel's prime minister says the European Union should join U.S. attempts to restart stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks

Benjamin Netanyahu also reiterated Israel's position that talks should resume immediately and without preconditions, which is also the U.S. stance. He spoke Thursday at a meeting with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

Ashton says Europe supports the resumption of talks, describing it as "the way forward."

But the Palestinians refuse to resume talks until Israel ends construction in territory they seek for their future state. Israel says settlements and other issues should be resolved through negotiations.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is expected in the region next week for another attempt to get the sides together.

If attempts fail, the Palestinians have said they'd pursue a strategy of international recognition alone.

SOURCE: Israeli PM: EU Should Join US Push on Peace Talks - ABC News

Palestinian snipers fight for Assad
"We're on the front line with Palestinians fighting for the Assad regime. Snipers do much of the fighting, and death can come any second," Pleitgen says in a video released by CNN. "This is a pro-government sniper …YNET News · 6/23/2013

I don't care about ethnic background or cultural traits and characteristics. I care about the establish pattern of behavior. What trust and confidence does the Palestinian project.

The Palestinian has to first demonstrate they are on the path to peace. A good first step would be for Hamas (popularly supported by the people) to disband the military wing and to disarm the Islamic Jihad; and then change the Charter. That would be a first step. But as long has the Palestinian has goals and objectives that are a threat to Israeli sovereignty, talk is cheap.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are just saying the same thing in different words. You are saying those folks over there, those__________(fill in the blank) are all the same, that's just the way they are. We can come up with many identifiable groups- Arabs, blacks, the poor, the rich, whites, etc. If you think an entire population, numbering in the millions, are all the same, then that is prejudice, in the literal meaning of the term. You have pre-judged them in a non-scientific and inaccurate way. This is an important point because it is central to the ongoing conflict. Arabs have been assaulted by Jews, and so they think that all Jews are a certain way. Jews have been attacked by Arabs, and so think Arabs are all a certain way. This keeps the cycle of violence spinning.

Even if you conducted a series of scientific polls on attitudes in Palestine, it would still be limited in value. If you had conducted such a study regarding French attitudes to Germans between 1940 and 1944, what do you think the results would have been?

Inject some fairness into the negociations, make some progress, and then see how attitudes are. In fact, things were easing up a bit in the '90s, when peace was seen to be possible, if not right on the horizon. Times change and people move on. German tourists now visit Israel. But they are not going to change if one side remains second class citizens, and if history is distorted and denied.

If I may butt in for a moment. I bolded that sentence because, though I somewhat agree , I truly believe that what keeps the cycle of violence of violence is the teaching of hatred towards Israelis (and Jews to some degree) and the glory of martyrdom by Palestinian parents to their children. It has already been documented that Palestinians schoolbooks have completely erased Israel from any and every. It has already been documented that many (no , not all of course) Palestinians teach their kids to hate Israelis and to fight them no matter what. They teach their kids to celebrate successful attacks where Israelis, civilian or military, are killed. They teach their kids that martyrdom is a graceful path to take in life, if it means getting killed whilst trying to kill Israelis or die while fighting Israel. It is poisoned generation after poisoned generation in Gaza. What Rocco said about the Palestinians never showing their alleged desire for peace by taking initiative and changing their ways (i.e changing the charter like Rocco suggested).
Until they can teach their kids peace, teach them to recognize Israel and teach them to value life rather then to encourage them dying for the sake of Palestine, then there simply will never be peace
Children are the future

 

[toastman]

I forgot to mention that of course there is some hostility towards Palestinians from the Israelis, but not nearly to the same frequency or level of the Palestinians

 

[Auteur]

Here's a couple of stumbling blocks to the peace initiative. How do you explain these gems of wisdom?

Hamas: Palestinians will never recognize Israel - Israel Today | Israel News


Palestinian textbooks erase Israel, give no hope for peace - Israel Today | Israel News

I'll explain them to you quite clearly. You live in the US, correct? Try this little thought experiment. It's the future, and things aren't going at all well in Latin America. Poverty, environmental issues, and an exploding population has sent millions northward. At first, the US was OK with some increased immigration. When it hit some tens of millions, friction occured, fights and shootings. When it hit 100 million, various militias armed, and real war was under way. The US is a generous country, but can only absorb so much of the world's troubles- or its people.

The Latinos consider they have a right to the country, or at least parts of it, for historical reasons. Spain once controlled Florida and the SW part of the nation, the later part at least taken away from its successer state by means dubious under current notions of international law. Now that they are a majority in those areas, they proclaim a new state. US citizens fight back, and the conflict reaches a low point with many of them forced out of their communities and driven northward, and are sometimes killed if they refuse.

Nine years later, the Latinos participate in an attack on the US, during an unrelated dispute with other nations- a stab in the back, if you will. Tempers simmer, and a few years later the US starts some actions to try and regain some territory. Troops are moved, threats issued. A surprise attack occurs before anything much can happen, and the US loses even more territory. The Latinos now have the nuclear bomb, and the backing of China and Russia, making counterattack problematic. Violence continues on a low level, with Americans firing the odd rocket south, and Latino planes retaliating.

Now, a few questions for you. Do you think some pretty militant attitudes would prevail in the US society? Do you think some, a small minority, would committ some pretty outrageous violence? What would be shown on the maps in US school books? Do you think some extremist politicians could get elected?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I forgot to mention that of course there is some hostility towards Palestinians from the Israelis, but not nearly to the same frequency or level of the Palestinians

Do you have some stats to back up what you say?

 

[toastman]

I forgot to mention that of course there is some hostility towards Palestinians from the Israelis, but not nearly to the same frequency or level of the Palestinians

Do you have some stats to back up what you say?

No,, I do not

 

[georgephillip]

The moment you cite Chomsky as a source, you've lost all credibility.

Credibility with whom?

"Avram Noam Chomsky (/ˈnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[8][9] cognitive scientist, logician,[10][11], political critic, and activist.

"He is an Institute Professor and Professor (Emeritus) in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at MIT, where he has worked for over 50 years.[12]

"In addition to his work in linguistics, he has written on war, politics, and mass media, and is the author of over 100 books.[13]

"Between 1980 and 1992, Chomsky was cited within the field of Arts and Humanities more often than any other living scholar, and eighth overall within the Arts and Humanities Citation Index during the same period.[14][15][16][17] He has been described as a prominent cultural figure, and was voted the 'world's top public intellectual' in a 2005 poll."

Convince me you know more about the Middle East than Chomsky does.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

The moment you cite Chomsky as a source, you've lost all credibility.

Credibility with whom?

"Avram Noam Chomsky (/ˈnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[8][9] cognitive scientist, logician,[10][11], political critic, and activist.

"He is an Institute Professor and Professor (Emeritus) in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at MIT, where he has worked for over 50 years.[12]

"In addition to his work in linguistics, he has written on war, politics, and mass media, and is the author of over 100 books.[13]

"Between 1980 and 1992, Chomsky was cited within the field of Arts and Humanities more often than any other living scholar, and eighth overall within the Arts and Humanities Citation Index during the same period.[14][15][16][17] He has been described as a prominent cultural figure, and was voted the 'world's top public intellectual' in a 2005 poll."

Convince me you know more about the Middle East than Chomsky does.

Chomsky's problem is bias, not ignorance. If you look up "self hating Jew" in the dictionary, you'll find his picture.

And, let me assure you... I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Why would I bother? Your mind is closed to the truth.

 

[Auteur]

If I may butt in for a moment. I bolded that sentence because, though I somewhat agree , I truly believe that what keeps the cycle of violence of violence is the teaching of hatred towards Israelis (and Jews to some degree) and the glory of martyrdom by Palestinian parents to their children. It has already been documented that Palestinians schoolbooks have completely erased Israel from any and every. It has already been documented that many (no , not all of course) Palestinians teach their kids to hate Israelis and to fight them no matter what. They teach their kids to celebrate successful attacks where Israelis, civilian or military, are killed. They teach their kids that martyrdom is a graceful path to take in life, if it means getting killed whilst trying to kill Israelis or die while fighting Israel. It is poisoned generation after poisoned generation in Gaza. What Rocco said about the Palestinians never showing their alleged desire for peace by taking initiative and changing their ways (i.e changing the charter like Rocco suggested).
Until they can teach their kids peace, teach them to recognize Israel and teach them to value life rather then to encourage them dying for the sake of Palestine, then there simply will never be peace
Children are the future

I don't condon the kind of radical exortations you describe that some Arabs engage in. It is wrong when they do it, it is wrong when Jews do it. But ask yourself a question: If the German occupation of Europe had continued for three generations, rather than four years, how radical do you think otherwise reasonable citizens would have become? Just in the space of four years, many who would have thought of nothing other than civilized discourse had picked up a gun, and done some exteme acts. This also applies to the Jews of Europe at the time. How many of those fighting in the Warsaw uprising could have possibly seen themselves in such a position just a few years previously? Violence begets violence, hate begets hate.

As for Palestinians never accepting peace, I refer you again the the official position of the PA, which supports the Saudi peace proposal of 2002. It is a generous plan, and it represents a large shift from the Palestinians original position. The response from Israel, to date, has been rejection and further colonization of the west bank.

 

[Hossfly]

Here's a couple of stumbling blocks to the peace initiative. How do you explain these gems of wisdom?

Hamas: Palestinians will never recognize Israel - Israel Today | Israel News


Palestinian textbooks erase Israel, give no hope for peace - Israel Today | Israel News

I'll explain them to you quite clearly. You live in the US, correct? Try this little thought experiment. It's the future, and things aren't going at all well in Latin America. Poverty, environmental issues, and an exploding population has sent millions northward. At first, the US was OK with some increased immigration. When it hit some tens of millions, friction occured, fights and shootings. When it hit 100 million, various militias armed, and real war was under way. The US is a generous country, but can only absorb so much of the world's troubles- or its people.

The Latinos consider they have a right to the country, or at least parts of it, for historical reasons. Spain once controlled Florida and the SW part of the nation, the later part at least taken away from its successer state by means dubious under current notions of international law. Now that they are a majority in those areas, they proclaim a new state. US citizens fight back, and the conflict reaches a low point with many of them forced out of their communities and driven northward, and are sometimes killed if they refuse.

Nine years later, the Latinos participate in an attack on the US, during an unrelated dispute with other nations- a stab in the back, if you will. Tempers simmer, and a few years later the US starts some actions to try and regain some territory. Troops are moved, threats issued. A surprise attack occurs before anything much can happen, and the US loses even more territory. The Latinos now have the nuclear bomb, and the backing of China and Russia, making counterattack problematic. Violence continues on a low level, with Americans firing the odd rocket south, and Latino planes retaliating.

Now, a few questions for you. Do you think some pretty militant attitudes would prevail in the US society? Do you think some, a small minority, would committ some pretty outrageous violence? What would be shown on the maps in US school books? Do you think some extremist politicians could get elected?

What does all that have to do with the links I posted? The Palestinians simply do not want peace according to all their actions and speeches. If Israel granted them all their demands they would still refuse to recognize Israel and find an excuse to continue their 65 year idiocy.

 

[georgephillip]

The moment you cite Chomsky as a source, you've lost all credibility.

Credibility with whom?

"Avram Noam Chomsky (/ˈnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[8][9] cognitive scientist, logician,[10][11], political critic, and activist.

"He is an Institute Professor and Professor (Emeritus) in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at MIT, where he has worked for over 50 years.[12]

"In addition to his work in linguistics, he has written on war, politics, and mass media, and is the author of over 100 books.[13]

"Between 1980 and 1992, Chomsky was cited within the field of Arts and Humanities more often than any other living scholar, and eighth overall within the Arts and Humanities Citation Index during the same period.[14][15][16][17] He has been described as a prominent cultural figure, and was voted the 'world's top public intellectual' in a 2005 poll."

Convince me you know more about the Middle East than Chomsky does.

Chomsky's problem is bias, not ignorance. If you look up "self hating Jew" in the dictionary, you'll find his picture.

And, let me assure you... I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Why would I bother? Your mind is closed to the truth.

You consider yourself a spokesperson for the truth?

"Chomsky has made many criticisms of the Israeli government, its supporters, the United States' support of the government, and its treatment of the Palestinian people, arguing that 'supporters of Israel' are in reality supporters of its moral degeneration and probable ultimate destruction and that 'Israel's very clear choice of expansion over security may well lead to that consequence.'[116]

"Chomsky disagreed with the founding of Israel as a Jewish state, saying, 'I don't think a Jewish or Christian or Islamic state is a proper concept. I would object to the United States as a Christian state."

The truth is anyone holding Israel or the US to the same moral standards as the rest of the world is either an anti-Semite, self-hating Jew, or anti-American to those blinded by their bias.

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Auteur]

Here's a couple of stumbling blocks to the peace initiative. How do you explain these gems of wisdom?

Hamas: Palestinians will never recognize Israel - Israel Today | Israel News


Palestinian textbooks erase Israel, give no hope for peace - Israel Today | Israel News

I'll explain them to you quite clearly. You live in the US, correct? Try this little thought experiment. It's the future, and things aren't going at all well in Latin America. Poverty, environmental issues, and an exploding population has sent millions northward. At first, the US was OK with some increased immigration. When it hit some tens of millions, friction occured, fights and shootings. When it hit 100 million, various militias armed, and real war was under way. The US is a generous country, but can only absorb so much of the world's troubles- or its people.

The Latinos consider they have a right to the country, or at least parts of it, for historical reasons. Spain once controlled Florida and the SW part of the nation, the later part at least taken away from its successer state by means dubious under current notions of international law. Now that they are a majority in those areas, they proclaim a new state. US citizens fight back, and the conflict reaches a low point with many of them forced out of their communities and driven northward, and are sometimes killed if they refuse.

Nine years later, the Latinos participate in an attack on the US, during an unrelated dispute with other nations- a stab in the back, if you will. Tempers simmer, and a few years later the US starts some actions to try and regain some territory. Troops are moved, threats issued. A surprise attack occurs before anything much can happen, and the US loses even more territory. The Latinos now have the nuclear bomb, and the backing of China and Russia, making counterattack problematic. Violence continues on a low level, with Americans firing the odd rocket south, and Latino planes retaliating.

Now, a few questions for you. Do you think some pretty militant attitudes would prevail in the US society? Do you think some, a small minority, would committ some pretty outrageous violence? What would be shown on the maps in US school books? Do you think some extremist politicians could get elected?

What does all that have to do with the links I posted? The Palestinians simply do not want peace according to all their actions and speeches. If Israel granted them all their demands they would still refuse to recognize Israel and find an excuse to continue their 65 year idiocy.

You were unable to comprehend the analogy Mr H. But in a way, I believe you have unwittingly illuminated a large part of the problem here. The general failure of the US education system, and the acceptance of such within the culture, has left a rather large vulnerability. Knowledge is power, they say, but then by the same token ignorance is vulnerability. Those that don't know can be much more easily manipulated. Outside of the US, how many buy the line of Jewish rights to Palestine? It's pretty thin, isn't it? The proper application of funds in Washington, and the astute writings of the media in the US have produced a certain paradigm in that country. Who is to dispute it? It seems reasonable, and to those with little background information- why would they doubt it? There are of course many that do- Chomsky for one, Obama (in his private moments, I'd guess) for another. But the difference here is: they read. They have, and do, read a lot. Do you? Do you know, for example, that the PA has already recognized Israel? And has granted it generous concessions? Agreed to sign over three quarters of their country to Israel in exchange for peace?

 

[toastman]

I'll explain them to you quite clearly. You live in the US, correct? Try this little thought experiment. It's the future, and things aren't going at all well in Latin America. Poverty, environmental issues, and an exploding population has sent millions northward. At first, the US was OK with some increased immigration. When it hit some tens of millions, friction occured, fights and shootings. When it hit 100 million, various militias armed, and real war was under way. The US is a generous country, but can only absorb so much of the world's troubles- or its people.

The Latinos consider they have a right to the country, or at least parts of it, for historical reasons. Spain once controlled Florida and the SW part of the nation, the later part at least taken away from its successer state by means dubious under current notions of international law. Now that they are a majority in those areas, they proclaim a new state. US citizens fight back, and the conflict reaches a low point with many of them forced out of their communities and driven northward, and are sometimes killed if they refuse.

Nine years later, the Latinos participate in an attack on the US, during an unrelated dispute with other nations- a stab in the back, if you will. Tempers simmer, and a few years later the US starts some actions to try and regain some territory. Troops are moved, threats issued. A surprise attack occurs before anything much can happen, and the US loses even more territory. The Latinos now have the nuclear bomb, and the backing of China and Russia, making counterattack problematic. Violence continues on a low level, with Americans firing the odd rocket south, and Latino planes retaliating.

Now, a few questions for you. Do you think some pretty militant attitudes would prevail in the US society? Do you think some, a small minority, would committ some pretty outrageous violence? What would be shown on the maps in US school books? Do you think some extremist politicians could get elected?

What does all that have to do with the links I posted? The Palestinians simply do not want peace according to all their actions and speeches. If Israel granted them all their demands they would still refuse to recognize Israel and find an excuse to continue their 65 year idiocy.

You were unable to comprehend the analogy Mr H. But in a way, I believe you have unwittingly illuminated a large part of the problem here. The general failure of the US education system, and the acceptance of such within the culture, has left a rather large vulnerability. Knowledge is power, they say, but then by the same token ignorance is vulnerability. Those that don't know can be much more easily manipulated. Outside of the US, how many buy the line of Jewish rights to Palestine? It's pretty thin, isn't it? The proper application of funds in Washington, and the astute writings of the media in the US have produced a certain paradigm in that country. Who is to dispute it? It seems reasonable, and to those with little background information- why would they doubt it? There are of course many that do- Chomsky for one, Obama (in his private moments, I'd guess) for another. But the difference here is: they read. They have, and do, read a lot. Do you? Do you know, for example, that the PA has already recognized Israel? And has granted it generous concessions? Agreed to sign over three quarters of their country to Israel in exchange for peace?

A link for this claim would be nice

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Credibility with whom?

"Avram Noam Chomsky (/ˈnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[8][9] cognitive scientist, logician,[10][11], political critic, and activist.

"He is an Institute Professor and Professor (Emeritus) in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at MIT, where he has worked for over 50 years.[12]

"In addition to his work in linguistics, he has written on war, politics, and mass media, and is the author of over 100 books.[13]

"Between 1980 and 1992, Chomsky was cited within the field of Arts and Humanities more often than any other living scholar, and eighth overall within the Arts and Humanities Citation Index during the same period.[14][15][16][17] He has been described as a prominent cultural figure, and was voted the 'world's top public intellectual' in a 2005 poll."

Convince me you know more about the Middle East than Chomsky does.

Chomsky's problem is bias, not ignorance. If you look up "self hating Jew" in the dictionary, you'll find his picture.

And, let me assure you... I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Why would I bother? Your mind is closed to the truth.

You consider yourself a spokesperson for the truth?

If that's how you wish to term it... sure, why not? I speak the truth, and I make no apologies for doing so.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What does all that have to do with the links I posted? The Palestinians simply do not want peace according to all their actions and speeches. If Israel granted them all their demands they would still refuse to recognize Israel and find an excuse to continue their 65 year idiocy.

You were unable to comprehend the analogy Mr H. But in a way, I believe you have unwittingly illuminated a large part of the problem here. The general failure of the US education system, and the acceptance of such within the culture, has left a rather large vulnerability. Knowledge is power, they say, but then by the same token ignorance is vulnerability. Those that don't know can be much more easily manipulated. Outside of the US, how many buy the line of Jewish rights to Palestine? It's pretty thin, isn't it? The proper application of funds in Washington, and the astute writings of the media in the US have produced a certain paradigm in that country. Who is to dispute it? It seems reasonable, and to those with little background information- why would they doubt it? There are of course many that do- Chomsky for one, Obama (in his private moments, I'd guess) for another. But the difference here is: they read. They have, and do, read a lot. Do you? Do you know, for example, that the PA has already recognized Israel? And has granted it generous concessions? Agreed to sign over three quarters of their country to Israel in exchange for peace?

A link for this claim would be nice

I don't have a link offhand but it was called the declaration of principles as a part of Oslo. There are some problems with this.

Oslo died. Its five years came and went without a peace agreement. Could proposed concessions still be valid if the peace agreement was never validated?

Arafat and the PA were installed as the government of Palestine by foreign powers without the consent of the people. Are their proposals valid?

 

[Auteur]

What does all that have to do with the links I posted? The Palestinians simply do not want peace according to all their actions and speeches. If Israel granted them all their demands they would still refuse to recognize Israel and find an excuse to continue their 65 year idiocy.

You were unable to comprehend the analogy Mr H. But in a way, I believe you have unwittingly illuminated a large part of the problem here. The general failure of the US education system, and the acceptance of such within the culture, has left a rather large vulnerability. Knowledge is power, they say, but then by the same token ignorance is vulnerability. Those that don't know can be much more easily manipulated. Outside of the US, how many buy the line of Jewish rights to Palestine? It's pretty thin, isn't it? The proper application of funds in Washington, and the astute writings of the media in the US have produced a certain paradigm in that country. Who is to dispute it? It seems reasonable, and to those with little background information- why would they doubt it? There are of course many that do- Chomsky for one, Obama (in his private moments, I'd guess) for another. But the difference here is: they read. They have, and do, read a lot. Do you? Do you know, for example, that the PA has already recognized Israel? And has granted it generous concessions? Agreed to sign over three quarters of their country to Israel in exchange for peace?

A link for this claim would be nice

A link and excerpt from the Saudi peace plan has been reproduced in two places here now. The official position of the PA is that they will base peace on a sovereign state using '67 borders, with a few minor adjustments either way as a guide, and settlement of the refugee issue, mutual recognition, and the opening of trade and other links included. That's one heck of a concession- asking for only 22% of what was once their country.

 

[Hossfly]

You were unable to comprehend the analogy Mr H. But in a way, I believe you have unwittingly illuminated a large part of the problem here. The general failure of the US education system, and the acceptance of such within the culture, has left a rather large vulnerability. Knowledge is power, they say, but then by the same token ignorance is vulnerability. Those that don't know can be much more easily manipulated. Outside of the US, how many buy the line of Jewish rights to Palestine? It's pretty thin, isn't it? The proper application of funds in Washington, and the astute writings of the media in the US have produced a certain paradigm in that country. Who is to dispute it? It seems reasonable, and to those with little background information- why would they doubt it? There are of course many that do- Chomsky for one, Obama (in his private moments, I'd guess) for another. But the difference here is: they read. They have, and do, read a lot. Do you? Do you know, for example, that the PA has already recognized Israel? And has granted it generous concessions? Agreed to sign over three quarters of their country to Israel in exchange for peace?

A link for this claim would be nice

A link and excerpt from the Saudi peace plan has been reproduced in two places here now. The official position of the PA is that they will base peace on a sovereign state using '67 borders, with a few minor adjustments either way as a guide, and settlement of the refugee issue, mutual recognition, and the opening of trade and other links included. That's one heck of a concession- asking for only 22% of what was once their country.

Where do you come up with this "their country" mumbo jumbo? God gave Israel the land and that's written in stone.

 

[P F Tinmore]

A link for this claim would be nice

A link and excerpt from the Saudi peace plan has been reproduced in two places here now. The official position of the PA is that they will base peace on a sovereign state using '67 borders, with a few minor adjustments either way as a guide, and settlement of the refugee issue, mutual recognition, and the opening of trade and other links included. That's one heck of a concession- asking for only 22% of what was once their country.

Where do you come up with this "their country" mumbo jumbo? God gave Israel the land and that's written in stone.

Indeed, the great realtor in the sky.

 

[Hossfly]

I'll explain them to you quite clearly. You live in the US, correct? Try this little thought experiment. It's the future, and things aren't going at all well in Latin America. Poverty, environmental issues, and an exploding population has sent millions northward. At first, the US was OK with some increased immigration. When it hit some tens of millions, friction occured, fights and shootings. When it hit 100 million, various militias armed, and real war was under way. The US is a generous country, but can only absorb so much of the world's troubles- or its people.

The Latinos consider they have a right to the country, or at least parts of it, for historical reasons. Spain once controlled Florida and the SW part of the nation, the later part at least taken away from its successer state by means dubious under current notions of international law. Now that they are a majority in those areas, they proclaim a new state. US citizens fight back, and the conflict reaches a low point with many of them forced out of their communities and driven northward, and are sometimes killed if they refuse.

Nine years later, the Latinos participate in an attack on the US, during an unrelated dispute with other nations- a stab in the back, if you will. Tempers simmer, and a few years later the US starts some actions to try and regain some territory. Troops are moved, threats issued. A surprise attack occurs before anything much can happen, and the US loses even more territory. The Latinos now have the nuclear bomb, and the backing of China and Russia, making counterattack problematic. Violence continues on a low level, with Americans firing the odd rocket south, and Latino planes retaliating.

Now, a few questions for you. Do you think some pretty militant attitudes would prevail in the US society? Do you think some, a small minority, would committ some pretty outrageous violence? What would be shown on the maps in US school books? Do you think some extremist politicians could get elected?

What does all that have to do with the links I posted? The Palestinians simply do not want peace according to all their actions and speeches. If Israel granted them all their demands they would still refuse to recognize Israel and find an excuse to continue their 65 year idiocy.

You were unable to comprehend the analogy Mr H. But in a way, I believe you have unwittingly illuminated a large part of the problem here. The general failure of the US education system, and the acceptance of such within the culture, has left a rather large vulnerability. Knowledge is power, they say, but then by the same token ignorance is vulnerability. Those that don't know can be much more easily manipulated. Outside of the US, how many buy the line of Jewish rights to Palestine? It's pretty thin, isn't it? The proper application of funds in Washington, and the astute writings of the media in the US have produced a certain paradigm in that country. Who is to dispute it? It seems reasonable, and to those with little background information- why would they doubt it? There are of course many that do- Chomsky for one, Obama (in his private moments, I'd guess) for another. But the difference here is: they read. They have, and do, read a lot. Do you? Do you know, for example, that the PA has already recognized Israel? And has granted it generous concessions? Agreed to sign over three quarters of their country to Israel in exchange for peace?

Could you tell us which education system you have been dumbed down by? Inquiring minds would like to know. By the way, inquiring minds would also like to know if you also blabber about what is happening to innocents in so many parts of the world? Regardless of you being dumbed down by the education system wherever you grew up, surely they most have taught you that people around the world have the right to their religious beliefs and they should not be killed for these beliefs. Perhaps you can give us a hint of all the forums you are on condemning what is happening, or are you just obsessed with the Israel/Palestine issue because the Jews are involved. Gee, maybe this poster is really a Muslim who might have come from Pakistan or Malaysia. After all, we are quite aware that practically all the Muslims are obsessed with the Jews having one inch of land to govern, and they could care less about their brethren murdering others, even when the others are Muslims of different sects. By the way, can anyone tell us if Chomsky has ever written about what is going on in the Muslim world? Can anyone tell us if he has ever written about the occupation of Tibet by China where China forces young Tibetan women to have abortions so that the Tibetan culture dies out? Or is Chomsky just obsessed with bashing the U.S. and Israel and conveniently closes his eyes to everything else? Surely all you fans of Chomsky can lead us to a list of his publications where he has condemned other countries, such as Pakistan and Iran.

 

[Auteur]

A link and excerpt from the Saudi peace plan has been reproduced in two places here now. The official position of the PA is that they will base peace on a sovereign state using '67 borders, with a few minor adjustments either way as a guide, and settlement of the refugee issue, mutual recognition, and the opening of trade and other links included. That's one heck of a concession- asking for only 22% of what was once their country.

Where do you come up with this "their country" mumbo jumbo? God gave Israel the land and that's written in stone.

Indeed, the great realtor in the sky.

What ReMax wouldn't give for such a salesperson on staff!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You were unable to comprehend the analogy Mr H. But in a way, I believe you have unwittingly illuminated a large part of the problem here. The general failure of the US education system, and the acceptance of such within the culture, has left a rather large vulnerability. Knowledge is power, they say, but then by the same token ignorance is vulnerability. Those that don't know can be much more easily manipulated. Outside of the US, how many buy the line of Jewish rights to Palestine? It's pretty thin, isn't it? The proper application of funds in Washington, and the astute writings of the media in the US have produced a certain paradigm in that country. Who is to dispute it? It seems reasonable, and to those with little background information- why would they doubt it? There are of course many that do- Chomsky for one, Obama (in his private moments, I'd guess) for another. But the difference here is: they read. They have, and do, read a lot. Do you? Do you know, for example, that the PA has already recognized Israel? And has granted it generous concessions? Agreed to sign over three quarters of their country to Israel in exchange for peace?

A link for this claim would be nice

A link and excerpt from the Saudi peace plan has been reproduced in two places here now. The official position of the PA is that they will base peace on a sovereign state using '67 borders, with a few minor adjustments either way as a guide, and settlement of the refugee issue, mutual recognition, and the opening of trade and other links included. That's one heck of a concession- asking for only 22% of what was once their country.

That's one heck of a concession- asking for only 22% of what was once their country.

That's one heck of an Ottoman concession.