Originally posted by Kellan
Interesting information, Blitz_Lightning. I'm glad you brought it up. The Independent is indeed one of the better British newspapers (probably the most impartial) and I also quite like the Guardian www.guardian.co.uk
A particularly interesting piece from the Guardian today tells of how the bus from Gilo was not just packed full of Jewish Israeli commuters, but Arab-Israelis too. It appears to have been timed to derail Bush's peace proposals later this week - and it's succeeded, as Sharon has occupied the Palestinian territories now indefinitely, pre-empting Bush as the suicide bombers did.
However, I await sandwich's response to this newspaper info with less-than-glee. 
When you read/watch/listen to the media, you need to realize one thing: there are four different types of reporting. Biased towards side A, Biased towards side B, Balanced, and Truthful.
What's the freaking diff between balanced and truthful? Easy: Balanced accepts the reports (propoganda) of both sides, while Truthful goes out and investigates for itself, to find the Truth of a situation.
Originally posted by Dr.Zer0
uhh, back on topic about the bus blowing up, sandwitch, its time to move, Iv heard that now some bs is going to go on around there
I ain't movin' nowhere.
Originally posted by Kellan
Apparently there are 3 more suicide bombers on the loose, according to Israeli intelligence.
And I guess moving would be interpreted as caving in to terrorists. How far do you have to move back before you get pushed into the sea?
There was another explosion (car bomb, I think) at a hitch-hikers point at the eastern exit from J-lem - 6 killed so far. And they haven't even released all the names of yesterday's attack yet...
Originally posted by Kellan
You may not be able to justify it, but you can understand it. And I still can't justify the killing of innocent civilians with a fully-equipped army any more than I can with suicide bombs.
Neither do I. But define "innocent civillians". Does a palestinian man walking in the streets of Jenin with a pistol aimed at IDF soldiers qualify? He's not a part of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc - just a guy with a gun pointed at soldiers.
In such a situation, my orders as a soldier are to shoot to kill. Never did I or any other soldier in the IDF recieve an order to shoot unarmed Palestinians. Never.
And if you're thinking of the helicopter bombardment of the Jenin refugee camp, think again. The area was, for lack of a better word, infested with terrorists.
Originally posted by Kellan
2. The conflict which led to the current Occupation was I believe one of the Arab-Israeli wars. First of all, as Israel was founded it came under attack from all sides by the other nations who didn't want it there. They were pushed back, and Israel occupied the land put aside for the creation of Palestine under the 1948 agreement. Those Palestinians who were forced out were not allowed the right of return to their farms because they had been absent during the war and Israel declared them state property. About 1/4 of farmers got a small payoff. The rest of the land was invaded in 1967 and represents something of a safety buffer zone for Israel proper. Too bad it's someone else's country, nor is it safe. 
Realize this: none of Israel's territory was invaded in a war of her making. None. Every single war we've been involved in has been a defensive war, protecting Israel from invading armies. So all these so-called "occupied territories" are areas of land that were
won in a defensive war...! Had the arab nations never attacked us, we would still be at the 1948, UN-assigned, borders. So go suck on a lolipop.
Originally posted by Kellan
6. Palestinians target military personnel and notably civilians, as they regard them all as invaders (as I understand) and don't have the weapons to fight head-to-head with the IDF.
Which is a
great excuse to go blow up some mothers and children in a pizza parlor...!
Originally posted by Kellan
7. The Israelis target militants, or try to but end up killing a lot of civilians. It could be said that firing missiles into crowded civilian areas does not make the most sense if you're after a targeted assassination with no other casualties.
I wish there were statistics somewhere of how many
civillians have been killed on each side. Pizza parlor goers on the Israeli side, and people passing by a terrorists' vehicle targeted for assasination on the other side. I'd be really interested...
Originally posted by Kellan
8. Both sides made concessions at Camp David and Oslo. The PA was willing to drop it's unreasonable demand that Israel should not exist, and Israel was willing to give back the land it took in 1967. But only 60% of it, as stated previously. In addition, the state was crippled by not being in charge of its own electricity generation, water supplies and airspace, etc etc.
Did I miss something? Where the heck did this 60% figure come from? And no, I don't mean where in this thread - what's the source of this "information"?
Originally posted by Kellan
9. The other side said no, understandably. After all, if they said yes that would be all they ever had, not a return to pre-1967 (and original 1948 agreement) borders.
After Arafat declined the land offered to him by Mr. Barak, he was ridiculed by arab world leaders for not taking peacefully what he could get, and
then fighting for the rest.
Originally posted by Kellan
Sharon wants nothing but a war to utterly remove the Palestinians. The PA deplores the suicide attacks in public though there's some question about whether they do in private...
My turn: bull. Had Sharon wanted a war, he would have started one long ago - the Palestinians have certainly given him an excuse, and the perfect time would have been immediately following 9/11, with the world in an uproar over terrorisim. But he didn't.
And the PA deplores terror attacks in public
in English, not in Arabic. It may not seem like a big diff, but it is. Arafat continuosly calls for a halt to the terror in English, and then rallies a mob chanting "Jihad! Jihad! Jihad!" the next minute in Arabic.
Originally posted by Kellan
12. I guess you want me to say the Jews. Again, untrue and unfair. I don't recall any purges in America, in Shanghai they were welcomed, and so on. I do realise there's a history of European persecution, though. However, what does this have to do with Israel/Palestine? The Palestinians were kicked out too. And besides, being kicked out of countries DOES NOT entitle you to kick others out in turn. It's not some kind of global kicking-wheel.
Funny, I actually though this was talking about the palestinians, since they've been kicked out of Jordan, and none of the other Arab nations want them. The only country that does accept them on it's land is Israel, ironically.
Originally posted by Kellan
13. Israel has made peace with pretty much all the other countries for a number of reasons. First, it's so much better militarily that it could probably beat all the other regional powers and take their land if it so wished. Thus the Arabs have realised that Israel is there to stay. They've accepted it's existence; why can Israel not in turn acknowledge Palestine?.
This is an easy one, I'm surprised you even asked. Israel is at peace with her neighbors, and we haven't been attacked by them since the last war. They know that if and when attack us, they'll get whupped. So they recognize our right to exist, because they had no choice.
On the other hand, the Palestinians continue to attack us. There will be no peace while the attacks continue to go on - this much should be quite obvious! So for the parallel to happen with Israel and the Palestinains, the agressor needs to be beaten, solidly. They need to have no choice but to accept that the other is here to stay. That's how the peace between Israel and the Arab states came about, and that's the only way a peace between the Palestinians and Israel would be humanly possible.
